CC Packet 2005 11 14AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. Environmental Commission: Interview Shirley McGee for a Vacant Position.
B. Infiltration/Inflow: Joint Meeting with Metropolitan Council Staff.
C. Utility Rate Study.
D. TH 212 Project: Discuss MnDOT's Proposed Changes at Bluff Creek Drive, Project No.
03-09.
E. 2006 Budget Presentations:
1. Fire Department
2. Administration
3. Finance Department.
4. Capital Improvement Program
F. Discuss the City Manager's Performance Review Process.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 24, 2005
- City Council Summary Minutes dated October 24, 2005
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated October 24, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated October 18, 2005
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated October 18, 2005
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated November 1, 2005
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated November 1, 2005
- Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated October 25, 2005
- Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated October 25, 2005
b. Dave Huffman Memorial 5K Race Committee: Accept $500 Donation for Eagle
Scout Projects.
c. Ice Skating/Hockey Rinks: Approval of 2005-06 Rink Policy.
d. Pinehurst: Approve Amendment to Development Contract, Project 05-03.
e. Item Deleted (Highcrest Meadows & Highcrest Meadows 2nd Addition: Approve
Amendments to Development Contracts, Project Nos. 05-07 & 05-08.
f. Lake Harrison Development: Approve Expenditure of Funds for Trunk
Watermain Improvements, Project No. 05-13.
g. TH 212: Approve Work Orders for Betterments, Project No. 03-09.
h. Environmental Excellence Awards: Approval of Recommendations.
i. Environmental Commission: Appointment to Fill Vacancy.
j. TROY & VIRGINIA KAKACEK: Request for Hard Surface Cover Variance,
380 West 86th Street - Planning Case 05-18.
k. SPALON MONTAGE: Request for a Site Plan Amendment to Place a Wall Sign
Outside of the Approved Sign Band Area, 600 Market Street, Kraus-Anderson
Realty Company – Planning Case 05-33.
l. Health Insurance Benefits: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Appletree
Institute
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. TH 212/312 Improvement Project Nos. 03-09, 04-05, 04-06: Adoption of Assessment
Roll.
3 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project No. 04-05:
a. Adoption of Assessment Roll
b. Award of Contract
c. Approve Construction Inspection Contract
NEW BUSINESS
4. CLINT & JENNIFER HURT: Request for After-the-Fact Hard Surface Coverage and
Side Yard Setback Variances for a Sport Court, 8491 Mission Hills Circle – Planning Case
05-32.
5. MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: Request for a Hard Surface Coverage Variance for a Garage
and a Four-Season Porch, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue - Planning Case 05-34.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
Correspondence Section
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\B. Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Infiltration/Inflow: Joint Meeting with Metropolitan Council Staff
PW254
BACKGROUND
Representatives from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
are planning to give a brief update on the Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Surcharge
Program the Council is looking at implementing soon. This program may have a
significant impact on the City’s annual charge. The program is designed to
encourage municipalities to identify and reduce the amount of inflow and
infiltration getting into the local system.
In 1996, the City began a program to inspect sump pump connections and to look
for illicit discharges to the sanitary sewer. Along with the sump pump
connection, some pipe repairs were done.
In 2001, a feasibility study was completed for sewage flow monitoring.
Specifically, this report identified all sewerage flows coming into the City system
and all flows leaving the City. The report also identified likely areas for I/I.
With the recent heavy rain events, the City has exceeded the I/I goals established
by MCES. Staff will give a brief update on the current program to reduce the
amount of inflow and infiltration in the City system.
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: November 9, 2005
SUBJ: Utility Rate Study
BACKGROUND
We have asked our financial advisers Ehlers and Associates to study our current
utility fees and future projects to determine if the current fees and hook-up
charges being used are appropriate for planned expansion, reconstruction and
maintenance of our current water, sanitary sewer, and storm water systems.
Jessica Cook from Ehlers and Associates will be presenting the results of their
study at Monday night’s work session. In addition, staff is including a
spreadsheet analysis of the current rate structure and the effect that the proposed
rate increases would have on an average residence in Chanhassen.
Staff is also recommending an inflationary increase in the water and sewer
connection fee of 3% for 2006.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council provide feedback on the proposed rate increases
based on the utility study performed by Ehlers. Staff would like to come back to
Council in December with rate increase ordinances to become effective
January 1, 2006.
ATTACHMENT
1. Spreadsheet showing effect of proposed rate increases.
2. Executive Summary of Water & Sewer rates.
3. Executive Summary of Storm Water rates.
20
0
6
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
s
t
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
s
t
20
0
5
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
fo
r
A
v
g
U
s
e
r
for Avg User
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
B
i
l
l
-
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
u
s
a
g
e
o
f
2
7
,
0
0
0
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
(
u
p
t
o
2
5
,
0
0
0
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
1
.
4
9
$
/
1
,
0
0
0
5
.
5
0
%
7
.
0
0
%
3
7
.
2
5
$
3
9
.
7
5
Wa
t
e
r
(
o
v
e
r
2
5
,
0
0
0
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
1
.
8
7
$
/
1
,
0
0
0
5
.
5
0
%
7
.
0
0
%
3
.
7
4
4
.
0
0
Se
w
e
r
2
.
8
7
$
/
1
,
0
0
0
5
.
0
0
%
8
.
0
0
%
7
7
.
4
9
8
3
.
7
0
St
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
0
.
0
0
%
5
0
.
0
0
%
5
.
0
0
7
.
5
0
12
3
.
4
8
$
1
3
4
.
9
5
$
Ho
o
k
-
U
p
F
e
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
5.
0
0
%
3
8
.
0
0
%
2
,
9
5
5
.
0
0
$
4
,
0
7
7
.
9
0
Se
w
e
r
0.
0
0
%
8
.
0
0
%
1
,
4
5
8
.
0
0
1
,
5
7
4
.
6
4
4,
4
1
3
.
0
0
$
5
,
6
5
2
.
5
4
$
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
e
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
8.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
5
,
1
1
8
.
0
0
$
5
,
2
7
1
.
5
4
Se
w
e
r
8.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
5
,
1
1
8
.
0
0
5
,
2
7
1
.
5
4
10
,
2
3
6
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
5
4
3
.
0
8
$
La
k
e
A
n
n
S
u
b
t
r
u
n
k
-
W
a
t
e
r
5
.
0
0
%
3
8
.
0
0
%
1
,
0
2
3
.
0
0
$
1
,
4
1
1
.
7
4
La
k
e
A
n
n
I
n
t
e
r
c
e
p
t
o
r
-
S
e
w
e
r
0
.
0
0
%
8
.
0
0
%
1
,
2
4
7
.
0
0
1
,
3
4
6
.
7
6
(t
h
e
s
e
f
e
e
s
o
n
l
y
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
)
2
,
2
7
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
5
8
.
5
0
$
Fe
e
T
y
p
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ra
t
e
Fax: (651) 697-8555
jcook@ehlers-inc.com
http://www.ehlers-inc.com
(651) 697-8546
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
The City has requested that Ehlers & Associates update the water and sewer rate study as
part of planning for the City’s new water treatment system and capital improvement plan.
The 2005 update incorporates the City engineer’s estimate of future capital improvements
for the utility systems through 2020. In addition, we have incorporated the bid price for
the first water treatment plant and the final debt service on the 2005 water revenue bonds.
Below is a chart that summarizes the significant assumptions and changes in rates that
will be necessary to pay for the planned water treatment system and other capital
improvements.
Water Utility
Sanitary Sewer Utility
Growth Residential - 300 new units per year
through 2018; 50 units per year
thereafter
Commercial – 4 new customers per
year through 2011, 2 new customers
per year 2012-2013, and none
thereafter.
Same growth assumptions as water
fund.
Water
Treatment
Plant
Treatment plants are anticipated to
be completed in 2006 and 2012.
Estimated costs:
Plant I - $11,100,000
Plant II - $11,000,000 plus
$760,000 for land. The estimates
are in today’s dollars, and have
been inflated 4% annually in the
rate study.
Not Applicable
To: Honorable Mayor and Council members
From: Mark Ruff and Jessica Cook
Subject: Updated Water and Sewer Rate Study
Date: November 8, 2005
Fax: (651) 697-8555
jcook@ehlers-inc.com
http://www.ehlers-inc.com
(651) 697-8546
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
Water Utility
Sanitary Sewer Utility
Other Capital
Improvements
Averages $965,000 per year for
water trunk lines, wells, water
towers, new and replaced water
main, etc.
Costs are inflated 4% annually
Averages $350,000 per year in
today’s dollars.
Includes $700,000 for public works
facility in 2008.
Costs are inflated 4% annually
Allocation of
Capital
Expenses
Between
Current and
Future Users
Both treatment plants will serve
existing and future users. The
capital cost of each plant is split:
Plant I - 65% hook-up fees
35% user charges
Plant II - 45% hook-up fees
55% user charges
The other capital improvements are
paid by hook-up fees if they are
needed to expand the system to
serve new development.
Capital improvements needed to
serve new development, including
an expanded public works facility,
are paid by hook-up fees.
Replacement and maintenance of the
existing system is paid by user
charges.
Operating
Expenses
Expenses increase 33% in 2007 to
operate the new treatment plant.
City expenses increase 3% annually.
MCES Fees increase 5% annually,
and constitute almost 75% of total
sewer operating costs.
Fund Balances
The trunk fund should have a zero
fund balance after the city is 100%
built-out and the debt is paid off.
The minimum recommended
operating fund is $2,000,000.
Sporadic capital improvements may
reduce the fund balance below $2
million to be replenished in future
years.
The trunk fund should have a zero
fund balance after the city is 100%
built-out and the debt is paid off.
The minimum recommended
operating fund balance is
$2,000,000.
Fax: (651) 697-8555
jcook@ehlers-inc.com
http://www.ehlers-inc.com
(651) 697-8546
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
Water Utility
Sanitary Sewer Utility
User Rates and
Monthly Bill
(for an average
family that uses
9,000 gallons per
month)
Year % Increase Avg. Bill
2005 5.5% $13.66
2006 7.0% $14.61
2007 8.0% $15.78
2008 5.0% $16.57
2009 5.0% $17.40
2010 5.0% $18.27
2011 5.0% $19.19
2012 10.0% $21.10
2013 5.0% $22.16
Year % Increase Avg. Bill
2005 5.0% $17.46
2006 8.0% $18.85
2007 5.5% $19.89
2008 5.0% $20.88
2009 5.0% $21.93
2010 5.0% $23.02
2011 5.0% $24.17
2012 5.0% $25.38
2013 5.0% $26.65
The sewer fund has been operating at
a loss. The proposed 2006 increase
will get operations “in the black.”
Thereafter, rate increases follow the
projected MCES increase.
Hook-up Fees
38% increase in hook-up fee in
2006. Annual increases 5%
thereafter.
8% increase in 2006.
No increase 2007-2011
4% annual decrease 2012 - 2020
Utility customers typically regard their fee increases for water and sewer in total. The
attached Exhibit A shows the projected combined increase in utility fees needed to
maintain minimum cash balances. Exhibit B breaks down the proposed 2006 increase by
operating and capital costs. Note that the biggest portion of the increase is attributable to
the Met Council’s MCES fee, which is out of the City’s control.
Hook-up fees are paid at the time a builder or homeowner pulls a building permit. It is
our experience that, out of necessity, most cities do increase hook-up fees substantially
when they undertake a new water treatment plant. Attached is a chart (Exhibit C) that
shows Chanhassen’s water and sanitary sewer hook-up fees as compared to other
developing cities.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
e
w
e
r
B
i
l
l
s
As
s
u
m
e
s
$
1
1
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
4
`
20
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Av
e
r
a
g
e
l
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
i
l
l
Ass
u
m
e
s
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
u
s
e
o
f
2
7
,
0
0
0
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
1
8
,
0
0
0
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
s
e
w
e
r
.
Se
w
e
r
46
.
8
0
4
9
.
1
4
5
1
.
6
0
5
5
.
7
2
5
8
.
7
9
6
1
.
7
3
6
4
.
8
2
6
8
.
0
6
7
1
.
4
6
7
5
.
0
3
7
8
.
7
8
8
2
.
7
2
8
6
.
8
6
9
8
.
0
4
Wa
t
e
r
3
5
.
5
0
3
9
.
0
4
4
0
.
9
9
4
3
.
8
4
4
7
.
3
5
4
9
.
7
2
5
2
.
2
0
5
4
.
8
1
5
7
.
5
6
6
3
.
3
1
6
6
.
4
8
6
9
.
8
0
7
3
.
2
9
7
5
.
4
9
To
t
a
l
8
2
.
3
0
8
8
.
1
8
9
2
.
5
9
9
9
.
5
7
1
0
6
.
1
4
1
1
1
.
4
5
1
1
7
.
0
2
1
2
2
.
8
7
1
2
9
.
0
1
1
3
8
.
3
4
1
4
5
.
2
6
1
5
2
.
5
2
1
6
0
.
1
5
1
7
3
.
5
3
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
F
e
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
7
.
1
%
5
.
0
%
7
.
5
%
6
.
6
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
7
.
2
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
8
.
4
%
Sa
m
p
l
e
B
i
l
l
f
o
r
L
o
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
Ass
u
m
e
s
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
u
s
e
o
f
1
2
,
0
0
0
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
9
,
0
0
0
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
s
e
w
e
r
Se
w
e
r
23
.
4
0
2
4
.
5
7
2
5
.
8
0
2
7
.
8
6
2
9
.
3
9
3
0
.
8
6
3
2
.
4
1
3
4
.
0
3
3
5
.
7
3
3
7
.
5
2
3
9
.
3
9
4
1
.
3
6
4
3
.
4
3
4
5
.
6
0
Wa
t
e
r
1
5
.
6
0
1
7
.
0
4
1
7
.
8
8
1
9
.
1
3
2
0
.
6
6
2
1
.
7
0
2
2
.
7
8
2
3
.
9
2
2
5
.
1
1
2
7
.
6
3
2
9
.
0
1
3
0
.
4
6
3
1
.
9
8
3
2
.
9
4
To
t
a
l
3
9
.
0
0
4
1
.
6
1
4
3
.
6
8
4
6
.
9
9
5
0
.
0
6
5
2
.
5
6
5
5
.
1
9
5
7
.
9
5
6
0
.
8
4
6
5
.
1
4
6
8
.
4
0
7
1
.
8
2
7
5
.
4
1
7
8
.
5
4
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
F
e
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
6
.
7
%
5
.
0
%
7
.
6
%
6
.
5
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
7
.
1
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
4
.
2
%
Ho
o
k
-
u
p
F
e
e
s
P
e
r
U
n
i
t
Me
t
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
A
C
F
e
e
1,
2
7
5
1
,
3
5
0
1
,
4
5
0
1
,
5
5
0
1
,
6
5
0
1
,
7
5
0
1
,
8
5
0
1
,
9
5
0
2
,
0
5
0
2
,
1
5
0
2
,
2
5
0
2
,
3
5
0
2
,
4
5
0
2
,
5
5
0
Ci
t
y
S
e
w
e
r
H
o
o
k
-
u
p
F
e
e
1,
4
5
8
1
,
4
5
8
1
,
4
5
8
1
,
5
7
5
1
,
5
7
5
1
,
5
7
5
1
,
5
7
5
1
,
5
7
5
1
,
5
7
5
1
,
5
1
2
1
,
4
5
1
1
,
3
9
3
1
,
3
3
7
1
,
2
8
4
Ci
t
y
W
a
t
e
r
H
o
o
k
-
u
p
F
e
e
1
,
8
7
6
2
,
8
1
4
2
,
9
5
5
4
,
0
7
7
4
,
2
8
1
4
,
4
9
5
4
,
7
2
0
4
,
9
5
6
5
,
2
0
4
5
,
4
6
4
5
,
7
3
7
6
,
0
2
4
6
,
3
2
6
6
,
6
4
2
To
t
a
l
4
,
6
0
9
5
,
6
2
2
5
,
8
6
3
7
,
2
0
2
7
,
5
0
6
7
,
8
2
0
8
,
1
4
5
8
,
4
8
1
8
,
8
2
9
9
,
1
2
6
9
,
4
3
9
9
,
7
6
7
1
0
,
1
1
3
1
0
,
4
7
6
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
2
2
.
0
%
4
.
3
%
2
2
.
8
%
4
.
2
%
4
.
2
%
4
.
2
%
4
.
1
%
4
.
1
%
3
.
4
%
3
.
4
%
3
.
5
%
3
.
5
%
3
.
6
%
To
t
a
l
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
10
,
7
4
1
,
0
5
3
1
0
,
9
7
0
,
0
7
4
1
1
,
5
4
3
,
5
0
6
1
1
,
8
3
9
,
4
6
2
1
2
,
6
2
8
,
5
9
9
1
2
,
8
5
3
,
4
7
0
1
1
,
1
9
2
,
3
3
4
1
1
,
6
9
9
,
8
1
4
1
0
,
7
8
6
,
3
5
5
1
1
,
7
8
1
,
5
3
2
1
1
,
8
4
9
,
6
4
5
1
3
,
1
7
4
,
9
5
0
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
Br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
o
f
2
0
0
6
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
a
t
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
o
r
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
r
$1
.
8
4
$1
.
3
8
$3
.
1
0
$1
.
3
4
Wa
t
e
r
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
-
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
-
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Se
w
e
r
D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
F
e
e
s
(
M
e
t
Co
u
n
c
i
l
)
Se
w
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
s
2005 Fee Comparison for Single Family Lot
Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Infrastructure Fees
Assumes development density of 3 units per developable acre
Sewer Water
ConnectionConnection Area Charge Area Charge TOTAL
City Fees Fees Water Main San. Sewer
Farmington 480 1,320 417-801 623 3,175 - 3,559
2005 depending on area
Chaska 241 2,812 494 326 3,874
2005
Chanhassen 1,458 2,955 none none 4,413
2005
Proposed
Chanhassen 1,575 4,077 none none 5,652
2006
Andover 559 2,708 765 447 4,478
2005 to to
5,077
1,158
Medina 1,607 3,580 none none 5,187
2005
MUSA Expansion Area MUSA Expansion Area MUSA Expansion Area
Savage 1,619 2,159 1,611 1,430 6,819
2005 Credit River District Credit River District Credit River District
1,005 963 5,746
Includes connection fees:1,922
Woodbury (combined with$620 - $820 $668 - $2,050$634-$1380 to
2005 area charges)4,250
Carver 2,653 3,526 nonenone 6,179
2005 (Equivalent City portion
if Met Council fee was
charged)
Brooklyn
Park 01425 1,283 1,167 3,875
2005
Exhibit C
Fax: (651) 697-8555
jcook@ehlers-inc.com
http://www.ehlers-inc.com
(651) 697-8546
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
The City has requested that Ehlers & Associates undertake a storm water rate study. The
study accomplishes the following goals:
1. Summarizes the capital improvement plans for the system through 2020.
scenarios.
2. Establishes target levels for cash balances in the water fund.
3. Makes recommendations for storm water utility rates and development fees to
ensure adequate revenue to pay for constructing, improving, and maintaining the
storm water system, including the surface water management plan.
4. Compares Chanhassen’s fee structures with other developing cities.
Background
There are three components to the City’s storm water system and fee structure:
The storm water utility fee is a quarterly fee intended to pay for the maintenance of the
storm water system once it has been constructed. The fee has not been increased for
several years.
The water quality fee and water quantity fees are area charge assessed against
developable acreage at the time the land is platted. These fees can be thought of as the
“ponding” and “piping” fees. The water quality fee (“ponding”) is intended to pay for
land and installation costs for storm water ponding. If a developer ponds on-site, he is
given a credit equal to 50% of the fee. The water quantity fee is intended to pay for the
storm water piping and outlets. Developers receive a credit if they already have an outlet
structure on the property. Both water quality and quantity fee have been increased based
on the construction price index, and are calculated based on the run-off generated by the
development use.
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Mark Ruff and Jessica Cook
Subject: Storm Water Rate Study
Date: November 8, 2005
Fax: (651) 697-8555
jcook@ehlers-inc.com
http://www.ehlers-inc.com
(651) 697-8546
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
Assumptions
Below is a chart that summarizes the significant assumptions used in the study.
Growth Residential - 300 new connections per year through 2018; 50 units per
year thereafter
Commercial – 4 new connections per year through 2011, 2 new
connections 2012-2013, and none thereafter.
Same growth assumptions as water and sewer study.
Capital
Improvements
The study used the City’s capital improvement plan for 2006-2010,
including $200,000 for the public facility expansion in 2008 and $700,000
for Lyman Boulevard improvements in 2009.
Beginning in 2011, improvements average $740,000 per year (in today’s
dollars) for SWMP implementation, land acquisition, and street
improvement project.
Costs are inflated 5% annually, including land acquisition.
Operating
Expenses
Expenses increase 3% annually.
Cash Balances
The purpose of the cash balance is to allow the City to fund improvements
on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, reserving the use of debt for major
improvements. The current fund balance is approximately $3.2 million.
The minimum recommended cash balance is $2,000,000. Sporadic capital
improvements may reduce the fund balance below $2 million to be
replenished in future years.
Discussion
There are two factors putting financial pressure on the surface water utility. First, the
City faces new and increasing state requirements for the treatment of storm water, which
translate into higher operating and capital costs. Second, the cost of land needed for
ponding is increasing at a rate far faster than the rate of inflation. The study shows a need
for the following fee increases to pay for anticipated costs in the surface water
management fund. In determining how the these three fees should be increased, we
considered the following criteria:
1. The City of Chanhassen’s fees should be comparable with other communities
facing the same cost pressures.
2. The water quality fee should be sufficient to pay for anticipated land costs.
3. The water quantity fee should be sufficient to pay for piping costs and increase
along with increases in construction costs.
4. Utility fees should pay for operations and maintenance of the system, but not for
new infrastructure necessitated by new development.
Fax: (651) 697-8555
jcook@ehlers-inc.com
http://www.ehlers-inc.com
(651) 697-8546
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
Findings
Attached as Exhibit A is a chart that shows the projected rate increases. Keep in mind
that most developers only experience half of the rate increase for the water quality fee
because of the credit for on-site ponding. Therefore, the recommended 50% rate increase
for 2006 is experienced as a 25% rate increase once the credit is applied.
A survey of surface water utility fees in 2005 indicates that the quarterly fees range from
$3.00 in Eden Prairie to $21.80 in Golden Valley, and the median quarterly fee is $9.26.
Furthermore, the median fee has increased 21% since 2003. The projected 2006 increase
for Chanhassen’s stormwater utility would bring the fee up to $7.50 per quarter.
The attached Exhibit B is a comparison of storm water fees for single family residential
development. It is very difficult to get an accurate comparison of surface water area
charges between cities, because they calculate developable acres differently and often
apply ponding and piping credits on a site specific basis. Therefore, the fees in Exhibit B
assume 3 single family units are developed per acre and there is no on-site ponding. In
actuality, a Chanhassen developer would typically develop 2.4 units per acre and get a
ponding credit.
The fees projected in Exhibit A will allow the City to maintain and expand its surface
water utility as required by state regulation. The proposed fee structure also improves the
equity in the system by matching the level of the fee to the costs for which it is intended
to pay.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
Su
r
f
a
c
e
W
a
t
e
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
e
e
s
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
201320142015
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
F
e
e
5.
0
0
$
7.
5
0
$
7.
8
0
$
8.
1
1
$
8.
4
4
$
8.
7
7
$
9.
1
2
$
9.
4
9
$
9.87$ 10.26$ 10.67$
An
n
u
a
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
f
i
x
e
d
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
50
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
F
e
e
-
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Fe
e
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
1,
0
9
3
$
1,
6
4
0
$
1,
9
6
7
$
2,
3
6
1
$
2,
8
3
3
$
3,
4
0
0
$
4,
0
8
0
$
4,
8
9
6
$
5,875$ 7,050$ 8,459$
An
n
u
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
50
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
F
e
e
-
S
i
n
c
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Fe
e
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
2,
8
4
0
$
2,
9
8
2
$
3,
1
3
1
$
3,
2
8
8
$
3,
4
5
2
$
3,
6
2
5
$
3,
8
0
6
$
3,
9
9
7
$
4,196$ 4,406$ 4,626$
An
n
u
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
5%
5
%
5
%
5
%
5
%
5
%
5
%
5
%
5
%
5
%
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
C
h
a
r
g
e
s
P
e
r
A
c
r
e
-
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
3,
9
3
3
$
4,
6
2
2
$
5,
0
9
9
$
5,
6
4
9
$
6,
2
8
5
$
7,
0
2
5
$
7,
8
8
6
$
8,
8
9
2
$
1
0
,
0
7
1
$
11,456$ 13,086$
18
%
1
0
%
1
1
%
1
1
%
1
2
%
1
2
%
1
3
%
1
3
%
1
4
%
1
4
%
Exhibit B
2005 Fee Comparison
Development and Recurring Charges for Storm Water
Development Charge Residential Charge Per Lot
City Area Charge Assumes development at a
Storm Sewer density of three lots per acre
Brooklyn $4,200/acre $1,400
Park
Water Quality Water Quantity
Chanhassen $1,093 to$2,705 to $5,957 $1,266
$8,015/acreper acre
depending ondepending on
developmentdevelopment
type type
Maple Grove $2,700/acre $900
Champlin none $0
Farmington $.1233/s.f. low density residential $1,790
$.2185/s.f. high density residential
$.2631/s.f. Comm/Ind.
Area Charge Water Quality
Chaska $0.085/s.f. $920/acre $1,541
$0.104/s.f. $1,725/acre
$0.109/s.f.$2,600/acre
$0.114/s.f.$5,650/acre
Six water drainage districts.
Woodbury Rate depends on existing infra-
structure, development type, and $1,742
amount of on-site ponding.
Low Density Rate:
Trunk Sewer $.05-$.20/s.f.
Ponding Quantity $.08-$.27/s.f.
Ponding Quality $.04-$.08/s.f.
Surcharge $.0 - $.18/s.f.
Med. density, increase by 125%
High density, increase by 150%
Lino Lakes 1 & 2 family - $0.093/s.f.$1,350
multifamily -$0.127/s.f.
Comm/Ind. -$0.140/s.f.
Storm Sewer Charges
Savage single family$.171/s.f.$2,483
multifamily$.206/s.f.
C/I- varies by impervious area
Ponding Fee (if no on-site pond)
single family$0.084/s.f.
multifamily$0.143/s.f.
Comm./Ind.$0.286/s.f.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: TH 212 Project: Discuss MnDOT’s Proposed Changes at Bluff
Creek Drive Project No. 03-09
BACKGROUND
MnDot has requested the City consider supporting the realigning Bluff Creek
Drive for the south project limit to Pioneer Trail. The current design calls for
aligning Bluff Creek Drive east of its present location to intersect with a future
roadway to the north. The proposed redesign of Bluff Creek Drive would have
the roadway follow more of a northerly alignment and connect to the future south
collector road in the 2005 MUSA. During the design-build contractor selection
process, MnDot and the City looked at several different alignments for Bluff
Creek to save on construction and future maintenance costs. These alignments
looked at going over TH 212 but due to geometric requirements at the intersection
of Bluff Creek Drive and Pioneer Trail, the alignments were not possible.
The design-build contractor (ZRC) recently approached MnDot with concerns
regarding the steep slopes along Bluff Creek and the natural sloughing of these
slopes that would have constant maintenance problem. MnDot is in agreement
that these steep slopes have the potential to create long-term maintenance issues
for all three bridges, 212 EB, 212 WB and the Bluff Creek Drive. MnDot
subsequently reviewed the proposed plan and developed a proposal to address the
slope stability issue. In working with ZRC, the option MnDot came up with is the
realigned Bluff Creek Drive as shown on the attached exhibit. The other option
suggested by ZRC was to replace all three bridges with one box culvert. At this
time, MnDot feels that the proposed realignment of Bluff Creek Drive is the
preferred option. The proposed realignment was designed for 40 mph which
exceeds the posted speed limit and meets all State Aid standards.
The proposed realignment of Bluff Creek Drive offers some advantages for the
City:
1. MnDot was able to eliminate design exceptions and improve the
geometrics of the road.
2. This option reduces impacts to Bluff Creek minimizing environmental
impacts.
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\D. Staff Report.doc
3. The cost savings associated with the City of Chanhassen consists of the
following:
a. $250,000 reduction in cost for the elimination of the (on bridge)
trail.
b. $10,000 reduction in cost for elimination of (off bridge) trail.
4. The elimination of future maintenance and replacement costs of a
bridge.
5. Intersection improvements may be included as part of the design which
will help traffic at the south collector roadway for the 2005 MUSA.
MnDot has stated that since the realignment of Bluff Creek Drive would require a
box structure under the 212 EB and 212 WB bridges, it would maintain the
responsibility for structural integrity of the box structure.
Staff has also discussed future winter maintenance of the road with MnDot.
MnDot does not see an issue with additional snow and ice build up with this
scenario. MnDot has hundreds of overpass bridges with roadways underneath
them and has developed snow and ice maintenance procedures that require snow
from 212 EB and 212 WB to be plowed from one end to the other and not blown
over the side of the bridge.
One issue that MnDot is still working on is drainage for the proposed alignment
for Bluff Creek Drive. At this time, MnDot is considering installing
environmental manholes to treat the runoff in lieu of a stormwater pond. The
environmental manholes would be the responsibility of the City to clean and
maintain.
The Parks Department has reviewed the plan and finds it acceptable.
The design of the roadway would be able to accommodate future roadway
widening if necessary.
Staff is requesting MnDot study the traffic impacts associated with this change
further. The County is also interested in the traffic impacts to Pioneer Trail.
Staff is requesting feedback and direction from the Council at this time. No
formal action is required; however MnDot would like the City to be a willing
partner if the change is made.
Attachments
c: Jon Chiglo, MnDOT
20
0
6
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Bu
d
g
e
t
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•
2
0
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
t
.
3
%
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
•
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
c
o
s
t
s
a
r
e
h
e
l
d
i
n
c
h
e
c
k
a
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
lo
w
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
l
o
w
e
r
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
a
l
l
s
.
•
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
l
l
s
e
e
a
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
u
e
t
o
so
m
e
t
i
g
h
t
e
n
i
n
g
o
f
s
o
m
e
f
e
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
Ev
e
r
y
t
h
i
n
g
e
l
s
e
i
s
b
a
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
f
l
a
t
d
u
e
t
o
t
i
g
h
t
e
r
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
re
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
.
•
M
i
s
c
.
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
t
h
e
sa
m
e
a
s
2
0
0
5
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
2
0
0
6
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
=
$
6
5
8
,
7
1
5
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
5
%
(
$
9
5
,
5
5
0
)
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
7
%
(
$
4
7
,
2
0
0
)
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
78%
(
$
5
1
5
,
9
6
5
)
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
.3
%
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
$-
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
0
,
0
0
0
2005 2006
20
0
5
$
5
1
2
,
5
0
0
$
9
7
,
0
5
0
$4
7
,
2
0
0
$
6
5
6
,
7
5
0
20
0
6
$
5
1
5
,
9
6
5
$
9
5
,
5
5
0
$4
7
,
2
0
0
$
6
5
8
,
7
1
5
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
r
a
l
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
B
u
d
g
e
t
To
t
a
l
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
To
t
a
l
=
$
1
8
6
,
0
0
0
Grants 0% ($0)
Re
l
i
e
f
A
s
s
n
.
(S
t
a
t
e
A
i
d
)
8
6
%
($
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
)
Va
r
i
o
u
s
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
5%
(
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
)
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
8%
(
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
)
Bi
l
l
i
n
g
f
o
r
Ha
z
m
a
t
C
a
l
l
s
1%
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
)
$-
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
0
5
$
1
5
7
,
0
8
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
-
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
20
0
6
$
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
-
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
Re
l
i
e
f
As
s
n
.
Va
r
i
o
u
s
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
Gr
a
n
t
s
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Billing for Hazmat
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
r
o
m
$
1
8
3
,
0
8
0
t
o
$
1
8
6
,
0
0
0
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
•
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
:
–
2
&
1
/
4
F
u
l
l
T
i
m
e
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
,
–
4
5
P
a
i
d
o
n
C
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
(
P
O
C
’
s
)
•
2
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
1
4
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
3
t
r
a
i
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
a
b
o
a
t
.
•
2
0
0
5
c
a
l
l
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
b
o
u
t
5
9
0
•
5
6
5
c
a
l
l
s
i
n
2
0
0
4
•
O
u
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
–
F
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
-
E
M
S
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
-
P
I
/
C
a
r
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
–
H
a
z
m
a
t
-W
a
t
e
r
R
e
s
c
u
e
-
I
c
e
R
e
s
c
u
e
–
D
i
v
e
R
e
s
c
u
e
-
F
i
r
e
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
-
P
l
a
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
–
F
i
r
e
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
-
F
i
r
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
-
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
g
t
.
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
•
W
e
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
o
a
d
d
P
a
i
d
o
n
C
a
l
l
(
P
O
C
)
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
in 2006
to
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
o
u
r
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
s
t
a
f
f
i
ng
.
W
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
l
o
s
i
n
g
3
-
5
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
a
n
d
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
•
W
e
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
b
a
s
e
d
c
a
l
l
p
a
y
that
wo
u
l
d
p
a
y
a
h
i
g
h
e
r
h
o
u
r
l
y
r
a
te
t
o
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
H
o
u
r
l
y
c
a
l
l
p
a
y
l
e
v
e
l
i
s
2
1
%
b
e
l
o
w
av
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
E
h
l
e
r
s
s
t
u
d
y
g
r
o
u
p
co
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
c
i
t
i
e
s
(
$
8
.
0
0
v
s
.
$1
0
.
2
3
)
.
•
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
r
e
f
o
c
u
s
f
i
r
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
n
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
n
g
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
D
u
e
t
o
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
de
m
a
n
d
s
o
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
e
F
T
S
t
a
f
f
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
mo
r
e
t
i
m
e
o
n
f
i
r
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
d
m
in
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
n
e
w
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
,
s
a
f
e
t
y
&
r
i
s
k
m
g
t.
i
n
c
i
t
y
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
&
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Performance Goals
Ou
t
c
o
m
e
s
Ma
j
o
r
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
Fi
r
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Re
c
r
u
i
t
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
t
a
f
f
.
Ma
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Fi
r
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
r
e
a
c
h
e
d
o
v
e
r
28
0
0
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
a
l
l
Hi
g
h
e
r
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Ma
n
a
g
e
d
4
5
P
T
E
’
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
w
e
e
k
l
y
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
P
T
E
’
s
.
6
n
e
w
h
i
r
e
s
i
n
2
0
0
5
Re
f
u
r
b
i
s
h
o
f
r
e
s
c
u
e
.
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
:
4
W
D
G
r
a
s
s
R
i
g
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
W
e
s
t
E
n
d
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
fl
o
o
r
r
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
.
A
p
r
o
n
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
Fi
r
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s
t
o
56
5
c
a
l
l
s
f
o
r
h
e
l
p
i
n
2
0
0
5
.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
i
m
e
i
s
5
:
3
4
.
98
%
G
o
o
d
t
o
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
i
m
e
.
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
o
n
g
o
o
d
to excellent on
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
i
n
s
p
ect all higher
Ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
0
6
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
b
a
s
e
d
c
a
l
l
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
.
R
e
t
a
i
n
f
i
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
s
An
d
a
d
d
t
o
W
e
s
t
E
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
.
Mo
v
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
2
1
0
t
o
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
t
a
t
u
s
An
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
e
n
g
i
n
e
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
1
0
%
C
u
t
s
$51.5-72,500 8.1-11.4%
To
t
a
l
S
a
v
i
n
g
s
$20-35,000 3.2 -5.5% revenue
An
y
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
i
n
t
o
w
n
w
i
t
h
s
t
o
r
e
d
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
vo
l
u
m
e
.
M
a
y
b
e
p
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
a
s
a
hi
d
d
e
n
t
a
x
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
H
a
z
m
a
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
pe
r
m
i
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
.
$6,500 1% revenue
Re
v
e
n
u
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
m
a
y
n
o
t
ju
s
t
i
f
y
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
b
u
r
d
e
n
.
Ch
a
r
g
e
f
o
r
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ca
l
l
s
:
H
o
u
s
e
f
i
r
e
s,
c
a
r
f
i
r
e
s
&
ex
t
r
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
c
a
r
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
($25-30,000) 4.1 -4.7% savings
Re
d
u
c
e
d
r
e
d
u
n
d
a
n
c
y
m
a
y
l
o
w
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
&
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
S
.
O
.
h
a
s
co
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
F
i
r
e
/
R
e
s
c
u
e
a
s
a
1
s
t
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
r
u
n
l
e
s
s
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
b
y
S.
O
.
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
.
Co
s
t
S
a
v
i
n
g
s
/
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Generation
Im
p
a
c
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
u
t
*
•
I
m
p
a
c
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
t
a
k
e
i
n
t
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
P
R
.
•
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
2
0
0
4
F
D
C
o
s
t
s
w
e
r
e
$
2
6
.
5
0
/
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
s
t
o
a
m
e
t
r
o
-
w
i
d
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
$
2
5
t
o
$
3
5
f
o
r
p
a
i
d
o
n
c
a
l
l
f
i
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
0
6
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
0
6
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
d
g
e
t
s
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
d
g
e
t
s
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Le
g
a
l
Le
g
a
l
As
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
As
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
MI
S
MI
S
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Li
b
r
a
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Li
b
r
a
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
Cr
i
m
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Cr
i
m
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
0
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
d
g
e
t
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
0
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
d
g
e
t
s
$2
,
8
9
6
,
8
0
0
$2
,
8
9
6
,
8
0
0
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$7
5
5
,
4
0
0
26
%
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
5
7
,
1
0
0
2%
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$2
,
0
8
4
,
3
0
0
72
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l Services20052006
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
Le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
Co
m
p
r
i
s
e
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
un
c
i
l
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
i
n
t
i
n
g
o
f
Co
m
p
r
i
s
e
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
un
c
i
l
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
i
n
t
i
n
g
o
f
Chanhassen Chanhassen
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
.
A
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
C
i
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
.
A
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
C
i
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
to
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
L
e
a
g
u
e
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
C
i
t
i
e
s
to
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
L
e
a
g
u
e
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
C
i
t
i
e
s
, ,
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$3
4
,
2
0
0
28
%
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
2
0
0
0%
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
8
6
,
0
0
0
72
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$2
0
0
$
2
0
0
$-
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
De
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
s
d
u
e
t
o
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
’
s
ci
t
i
z
e
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
C
i
t
y
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
C
i
t
y
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
h
u
m
a
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
n
t
r
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
h
u
m
a
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
n
t
r
act act
an
d
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
on
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
n
d
C
I
P
,
a
n
d
an
d
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
on
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
n
d
C
I
P
,
a
n
d
ge
n
e
r
a
l
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
ge
n
e
r
a
l
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$3
7
3
,
5
0
0
87
%
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
5
0
0
0%
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
5
3
,
6
0
0
13
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$-
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
5
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
Le
g
a
l
Le
g
a
l
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
l
e
g
a
l
c
o
u
n
s
e
l
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
l
e
g
a
l
c
o
u
n
s
e
l
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
co
u
n
s
e
l
,
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
i
s
s
u
e
s
,
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
a
t
t
e
r
s
.
A
l
s
o
co
u
n
s
e
l
,
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
i
s
s
u
e
s
,
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
m
a
t
t
e
r
s
.
A
l
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
s
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
.
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
s
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
.
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
$
1
4
5
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
e
g
a
l
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
e
g
a
l
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$1
6
0
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
As
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
As
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
Th
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
w
i
t
h
C
a
r
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
w
i
t
h
C
a
r
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Th
e
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
a
l
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
Th
e
y
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
a
l
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
f
o
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
Ci
t
y
f
o
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
t
a
x
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
va
l
u
e
s
o
f
a
l
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
va
l
u
e
s
o
f
a
l
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
8
7
,
1
0
0
10
0
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
A
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
A
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$7
0
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$8
5
,
0
0
0
$9
0
,
0
0
0
$9
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
MI
S
MI
S
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
e
r
v
e
r
s
,
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s
e
r
v
e
r
s
,
de
s
k
t
o
p
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
,
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
de
s
k
t
o
p
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
,
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ph
o
n
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
m
a
g
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
ph
o
n
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
m
a
g
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$1
5
1
,
7
0
0
57
%
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
1
0
4
,
6
0
0
39
%
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
1
1
,
1
0
0
4%
MI
S
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
MI
S
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$1
6
0
,
0
0
0
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
Th
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
o
w
n
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
Th
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
o
w
n
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
,
F
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
#
1
&
#
2
,
P
u
b
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
,
F
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
#
1
&
#
2
,
P
u
b
lic Works lic Works
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
O
l
d
S
t
.
H
u
b
e
r
t
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
O
l
d
S
t
.
H
u
b
e
r
t
’’
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
,
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
a
n
d
O
l
d
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
H
a
l
l
.
T
h
i
s
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
,
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
a
n
d
O
l
d
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
H
a
l
l
.
T
h
i
s
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
t
r
a
s
h
a
n
d
p
h
o
n
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
b
u
i
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
f
o
r
t
r
a
s
h
a
n
d
p
h
o
n
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
b
u
i
ldings, as ldings, as
we
l
l
a
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
a
u
t
o
,
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
we
l
l
a
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
a
u
t
o
,
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
nsurance.nsurance.
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
2
9
9
,
5
0
0
74
%
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
3
9
,
4
0
0
10
%
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$6
5
,
2
0
0
16
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
5
0
,
0
0
0
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
l
,
s
t
a
t
e
,
a
n
d
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
l
,
s
t
a
t
e
,
a
n
d
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
as well as as well as
ke
e
p
i
n
g
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
f
o
r
s
u
c
h
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
s
e
v
e
n
ke
e
p
i
n
g
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
f
o
r
s
u
c
h
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
s
e
v
e
n
election election
pr
e
c
i
n
c
t
s
,
w
i
t
h
1
5
,
6
3
2
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
vo
t
e
r
s
.
I
n
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
e
l
pr
e
c
i
n
c
t
s
,
w
i
t
h
1
5
,
6
3
2
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
vo
t
e
r
s
.
I
n
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
e
l
ection, ection,
th
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
1
2
,
8
6
0
v
o
t
e
s
c
a
s
t
,
wi
t
h
2
,
0
4
0
n
e
w
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
th
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
1
2
,
8
6
0
v
o
t
e
s
c
a
s
t
,
wi
t
h
2
,
0
4
0
n
e
w
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
5
,
2
0
0
28
%
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$1
3
,
5
0
0
72
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$2
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
$6
,
0
0
0
$8
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
,
0
0
0
$1
4
,
0
0
0
$1
6
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
Li
b
r
a
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Li
b
r
a
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
ne
w
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
r
e
ne
w
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
r
e
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
s
h
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
s
h
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
an
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
,
$2
,
0
0
0
,
2
%
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
$8
4
,
7
0
0
,
98
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
$7
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
,
0
0
0
$9
0
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
2005 2006
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
2
0
0
6
d
u
e
t
o
h
i
g
h
e
r
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
g
a
s
p
r
i
c
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
w
o
p
a
r
t
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
w
o
p
a
r
t
--
ti
m
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
(
C
S
O
)
w
h
o
s
e
ti
m
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
(
C
S
O
)
w
h
o
s
e
ma
i
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
d
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
i
m
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
ma
i
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
d
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
i
m
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
and and
ge
n
e
r
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
n
e
e
d
i
ge
n
e
r
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
n
e
e
d
i
ng to ng to
us
e
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
o
f
a
d
e
p
u
t
y
.
us
e
t
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
o
f
a
d
e
p
u
t
y
.
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$4
5
,
9
0
0
77
%
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$
3
,
9
0
0
7%
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
9
,
6
0
0
16
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
C
S
O
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
C
S
O
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
5
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
La
w
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
La
w
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
r
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
a
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
r
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
a
fu
l
l
fu
l
l
--
ti
m
e
d
e
p
u
t
y
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
,
a
n
d
a
C
r
i
m
e
ti
m
e
d
e
p
u
t
y
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
,
a
n
d
a
C
r
i
m
e
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
.
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
.
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$7
1
,
4
0
0
6%
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$1
,
2
0
9
,
0
0
0
94
%
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
a
w
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
20
0
5
v
s
.
2
0
0
6
L
a
w
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$-
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
2005 2006
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
1
0
%
C
u
t
s
/
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
1
0
%
C
u
t
s
/
Ne
w
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
Ne
w
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
--
$1
3
8
,
0
0
0
n
e
e
d
e
d
$1
3
8
,
0
0
0
n
e
e
d
e
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
a
c
t
Im
p
a
c
t
AmountAmount
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
o
n
e
p
a
r
t
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
o
n
e
p
a
r
t
--
ti
m
e
ti
m
e
CS
O
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
CS
O
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
Wo
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
h
a
v
e
3
0
h
o
u
r
s
Wo
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
h
a
v
e
3
0
h
o
u
r
s
of
a
n
i
m
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
c
o
d
e
of
a
n
i
m
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
c
o
d
e
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
e
t
c
.
p
e
r
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
e
t
c
.
p
e
r
we
e
k
we
e
k
$23,000$23,000
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
f
r
a
n
c
h
i
s
e
f
e
e
s
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
f
r
a
n
c
h
i
s
e
f
e
e
s
on
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
on
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Co
u
l
d
e
a
s
i
l
y
r
a
i
s
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
Co
u
l
d
e
a
s
i
l
y
r
a
i
s
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
am
o
u
n
t
,
c
a
n
b
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
am
o
u
n
t
,
c
a
n
b
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
as
a
f
l
a
t
r
a
t
e
p
e
r
as
a
f
l
a
t
r
a
t
e
p
e
r
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
/
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,
o
r
a
s
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
/
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,
o
r
a
s
a
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
,
m
a
y
b
e
s
e
e
n
a
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
,
m
a
y
b
e
s
e
e
n
as
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
x
as
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
x
$115,000$115,000
To
t
a
l
C
u
t
s
/
N
e
w
To
t
a
l
C
u
t
s
/
N
e
w
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$138,000$138,000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor
City Council
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: November 9, 2005
SUBJECT: 2006 Finance Budget Review
The 2006 Finance Department budget has a total increase of only 3.9%. This
budget reflects a reduction in all areas from the prior year except in Personal
Services. The individual line item changes are highlighted below.
4010 Salaries + $4,700 a 2.7% increase over 2005. This is in line with the city’s
general salary adjustment.
4020 Retirement + $600 a 7.1% increase over 2005. This covers the increased
costs resulting from the salary increase.
4040 Insurance + $10,200 a 63% increase over 2005. This large increase is due
to two employees in the finance department now electing for family coverage.
All other line items either show no increase or have reductions in them for 2006.
It should also be noted that Chanhassen’s finance department is run on a relatively
low staffing level compared to many cities our size.
11
Ci
t
y
o
f
Ci
t
y
o
f
Ch
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
Ch
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
22
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
D
e
p
t
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
D
e
p
t
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
5
0
,
0
0
0
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000 Expenditures Population
33
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
B
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
B
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
$3
1
1
,
9
0
0
$3
1
1
,
9
0
0
73
%
0%
27
%
Salaries Equip/Supplies Contr Svcs
44
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
––
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
s
,
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
s
,
su
p
e
r
v
i
s
e
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
a
u
d
i
t
,
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
,
su
p
e
r
v
i
s
e
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
a
u
d
i
t
,
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
,
ut
i
l
i
t
y
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
c
a
s
h
a
n
d
ut
i
l
i
t
y
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
c
a
s
h
a
n
d
in
v
e
s
t
c
i
t
y
f
u
n
d
s
.
in
v
e
s
t
c
i
t
y
f
u
n
d
s
.
3
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
3
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
––
cr
o
s
s
cr
o
s
s
--trained trained
in
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
p
a
y
a
b
l
e
,
c
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
,
in
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s
p
a
y
a
b
l
e
,
c
a
s
h
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
,
pa
y
r
o
l
l
,
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
pa
y
r
o
l
l
,
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
.
O
n
e
i
s
a
l
s
o
p
a
r
t
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
.
O
n
e
i
s
a
l
s
o
p
a
r
t
--time time
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
t
a
d
m
i
n
a
s
s
t
.
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
t
a
d
m
i
n
a
s
s
t
.
55
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ou
t
c
o
m
e
s
Ou
t
c
o
m
e
s
PerformancePerformance
Bu
d
g
e
t
P
r
e
p
Bu
d
g
e
t
P
r
e
p
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Tr
u
t
h
Tr
u
t
h
--
in
in
--
Ta
x
a
t
i
o
n
R
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
Ta
x
a
t
i
o
n
R
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
Le
v
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
Le
v
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
Me
e
t
a
l
l
T
Me
e
t
a
l
l
T
--NN--T deadlines and T deadlines and
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
al
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
al
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Au
d
i
t
Au
d
i
t
Fu
l
l
y
a
u
d
i
t
a
l
l
f
u
n
d
s
a
n
d
Fu
l
l
y
a
u
d
i
t
a
l
l
f
u
n
d
s
a
n
d
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
/
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
/
St
a
t
e
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
St
a
t
e
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
Me
e
t
G
F
O
A
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
Me
e
t
G
F
O
A
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
/
n
o
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
/
n
o
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
p
a
y
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
p
a
y
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
Me
e
t
A
C
H
d
e
a
d
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
d
i
r
e
c
t
Me
e
t
A
C
H
d
e
a
d
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
d
i
r
e
c
t
de
p
o
s
i
t
a
n
d
a
l
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
de
p
o
s
i
t
a
n
d
a
l
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
de
a
d
l
i
n
e
s
de
a
d
l
i
n
e
s
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
s
P
a
y
a
b
l
e
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
s
P
a
y
a
b
l
e
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
7
,
0
0
0
v
e
n
d
o
r
a
n
d
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
7
,
0
0
0
v
e
n
d
o
r
a
n
d
ex
p
e
n
s
e
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
ex
p
e
n
s
e
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
c
h
e
c
k
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
c
h
e
c
k
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
r
e
e
we
e
k
s
o
f
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
e
a
c
h
we
e
k
s
o
f
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
e
a
c
h
in
v
o
i
c
e
;
n
o
l
a
t
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
in
v
o
i
c
e
;
n
o
l
a
t
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
B
i
l
l
i
n
g
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
B
i
l
l
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
2
8
,
0
0
0
b
i
l
l
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
2
8
,
0
0
0
b
i
l
l
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
Ma
i
l
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
b
i
l
l
s
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
d
Ma
i
l
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
b
i
l
l
s
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
d
of
e
a
c
h
m
o
n
t
h
a
n
d
p
o
s
t
of
e
a
c
h
m
o
n
t
h
a
n
d
p
o
s
t
pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
w
o
d
a
y
s
o
f
pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
w
o
d
a
y
s
o
f
re
c
e
i
p
t
.
re
c
e
i
p
t
.
Ca
s
h
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
Ca
s
h
R
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
f
r
o
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
f
r
o
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
,
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
pe
r
m
i
t
s
,
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
Po
s
t
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
w
o
Po
s
t
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
w
o
da
y
s
o
f
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
.
da
y
s
o
f
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
.
66
10
%
C
u
t
s
10
%
C
u
t
s
Re
d
u
c
e
A
u
d
i
t
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
Re
d
u
c
e
A
u
d
i
t
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
o
r
R
e
d
u
c
e
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
o
r
R
e
d
u
c
e
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
Re
d
u
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
T
E
Re
d
u
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
T
E
’’
ss
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor
City Council
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: November 9, 2005
SUBJECT: 2006-2010 CIP Review
Our capital plan is a five-year projection of what we will need to spend to maintain
our existing capital assets and add improvements or system expansions when
necessary. The preliminary estimate for the next five years exceeds $57,000,000,
which is substantially more than the amount raised through the tax levy for
operations and debt service. Much of this amount has to be financed through
bonding. It is incumbent on the City Council and staff to exercise prudent
stewardship over these capital assets. This plan will fully fund our capital needs
while maintaining existing services and providing city services and road
improvements to the Highway 212/2005 MUSA area.
The primary change that occurred in 2005 was the method of funding equipment
purchases. The city now levies $800,000/year for the Capital Improvement Fund
(400) on an ongoing basis to fund these capital purchases. For 2006, these
purchases are estimated to cost $858,500. The amount proposed for 2006 is
greater than the amount levied; however we are estimating cost savings in several
areas in 2005 including the park playground equipment ($25,000), fire and city hall
resurfacing improvements ($32,000), and a pickup truck for the fire department
($8,000), totaling $65,000. In addition, staff postponed the purchase of a couple
community development vehicles, a cushman trail vehicle and sprayer, an
equipment trailer and a mower into future years. This issue will have to be
addressed again next year, with capital equipment requests for 2007 in the amount
of $931,000.
Other projects of note include an upgrade to Lyman Boulevard, a Public Works
Facility or upgrade, the construction of a second water treatment plant, and a new
Fire Station and related equipment:
The Lyman Boulevard upgrades (ST-003) are scheduled at this point for some
time in 2009 and include a contribution from the County and City of Chaska, as
well as reliance on a Tax Abatement district being created to fund the project, and
contributions from the city’s storm water and water utility funds.
2006-2010 CIP Review
November 9, 2005
Page 2
The Public Works Facility improvements (MB-003) are planned for 2008
construction, totaling $3.9 million. At some point the city will need to decide
whether to expand the current facility or move to a new site.
Staff has also included a project sheet for a west water treatment facility (W-019)
with an estimated cost of $11 million, which does not appear on any of the funding
sheets at this point because projected construction will not occur until 2012.
There is also a request for a new fire station (MB-009) in 2010 with an estimated
cost of $3.5 million and related equipment purchases of $1.0 million (EQ-068).
This new station will provide service to the 2005 MUSA expansion area.
Staff looks forward to discussing these items with the City Council, and receiving
feedback from council in order to prepare the final CIP and Budget, which will be
approved in December.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sources of Revenue Summary (Funding Sources)
2. Projects by Funding Source
3. Department Summary (Projects by Type)
4. Projects by Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
DATE: November 9, 2005
SUBJ: City Manager’s Performance Evaluation
Each year the Mayor & City Council conduct a review of the City Manager’s
performance. Listed below is the timetable for this year’s review. If you have
any questions about this process, we can discuss them at Monday’s meeting.
· November 14, 2005: Discuss review process and the distribution of
performance review sheets.
· November 28, 2005: Tabulate and discuss performance review sheets.
· December 12, 2005: Work Session – Present performance review to the
City Manager.
· December 12, 2005: Regular City Council meeting – Present results of
performance review and compensation.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
OCTOBER 24, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:35 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Paul
Oehme, Greg Sticha, Todd Hoffman, Lori Haak, Richard Rice and Kelley Janes
UPDATE ON 2005 MUSA IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECTION 04-05.
Todd Gerhardt introduced Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates who gave a power point
presentation regarding proposed alignments for roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm water,
noting which items will be in conjunction with MnDot projects. He showed projected costs and
related funding and assessment methodology. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification of
the proposed sanitary sewer assessments on a per acre cost. Todd Gerhardt explained the
procedure for holding the public hearing and time schedule for the final assessment hearing.
DISCUSS DOGWOOD ROAD FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEMS, PROJECT 00-01-1.
Paul Oehme showed a map of the area and reviewed the neighborhood meetings in which
residents in the area are asking the city to fund a feasibility study. Councilman Labatt asked
about the utility project along Highway 5. Todd Gerhardt asked for clarification on the location
of the present sewer line and proposed route being either loop or dead end. Paul Oehme
recommended that this project be a public improvement project incorporating current assessment
practices for the roadway. The sewer and water would be 100% assessed. The next step in the
process will be preparing a feasibility study to explore new techniques for sewer and water
installation in the area, to update costs and present the results to the neighborhood on a
preliminary basis, anticipating the project to be done in 2007. Councilman Labatt asked for an
explanation of how the scope of the previous study would differ from the proposed study. Todd
Gerhardt provided historical background on the Brandt/Carlson proposals and what’s changed
since those studies were last done. Councilman Lundquist asked where this project would rank
as a priority in the city and what projects would not get done if the city went forward with this
project. He questioned why the City should spend $10,000 on a study when the residents in the
area have said no twice before. Kate Aanenson reminded the City Council of the failing septic
systems in the area. Councilman Peterson asked staff on ways to get accurate numbers for less
money. Mayor Furlong suggested asking the residents what price point they would be willing to
spend to do the project. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on Westwood Church’s
involvement and what discussions have taken place between the developer for Brandt and
Carlson and the church. Todd Gerhardt stated staff will do the feasibility study in house to save
money and solicit for resident feedback.
City Council Work Session – October 24, 2005
2
WIRELESS PROPOSAL FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL USERS, STONEBRIDGE,
INC.
Justin Miller presented this item and introduced Tim Johnson with Stonebridge, Inc..
Councilman Lundquist asked about the distance range for wireless. Councilman Peterson asked
Mr. Johnson to clarify the size and number of antennas being proposed along with ancillary
equipment that’s needed. Todd Gerhardt asked about the possibility of co-locating on other cell
phone towers. Mr. Johnson explained how antennas are set on commercial buildings.
Councilman Lundquist asked Richard Rice if he had any concerns with the proposal. He stated
not at this time. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on who requested this service.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification of what the benefit would be for having this
service. Councilman Lundquist asked about comments from the Chamber of Commerce.
NO WAKE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION.
Todd Gerhardt presented background information on the recent enactment of the no wake
ordinance on Lotus Lake. Lori Haak presented a graph showing lake levels on Lotus Lake,
noting it’s a fine line balancing implementing the no wake ordinance and the amount of time to
keep the restriction in place. She recommended that the no wake ordinance be enforced
automatically when the water level exceeds the 100 year level and automatically removed when
the water level goes below the 100 year level for 2 days. Mayor Furlong asked when the
ordinary high water mark was last reviewed by the DNR. Lori Haak noted that communication
and enforcement are the biggest challenges facing the city. She outlined how staff would like to
proceed with this item. Todd Gerhardt asked for clarification on the size of a workable task
force. Mayor Furlong noted that the key to a successful task force will be keeping them focused
and receiving public input on the no wake ordinance issue rather than getting side tracked on
storm water management issues. He asked that the process be completed by March giving City
Council direction on how to implement this ordinance.
The work session was recessed at 7:00 p.m.. It was reconvened at 8:20 p.m..
2006 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS: PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
Todd Hoffman gave a power point presentation for his department. Mayor Furlong asked for
clarification on the cost of printing the park and trail brochure and expenditures versus revenues,
specifically for the senior center. Councilman Labatt asked for clarification on the staff
coordinator time allocation for the senior center. Mayor Furlong asked if any of the proposed
cuts had revenues associated with them, and asked staff to modify their numbers accordingly.
Greg Sticha explained the actual year to date expenses versus revenues. Councilman Lundquist
asked what effects Lifetime Fitness has had on the Rec Center.
2006 BUDGET PRESENTATION: ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Paul Oehme gave a power point presentation, noting Kelley Janes, the Utility Superintendent
was available to answer questions. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the numbers for the
salt/sand contract, time line for hiring the new water treatment plant manager and if there are any
City Council Work Session – October 24, 2005
3
internal candidates for that position. Todd Gerhardt explained possible training opportunities
with Minnetonka’s facility. Mayor Furlong asked if staff has identified any cost reductions on
the water treatment plant. He noted resident feedback regarding the trees that were cut at the
tennis court location and asked staff to do their best to keep neighbors in the area notified on
construction projects.
Councilman Peterson noted his concern with the look of the fenced storage area at the Lake Ann
Park storage facility.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 9:05 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd
Hoffman and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Caley Stalecker Chaska Student
Stephanie Souvannakane Chaska Student
Lauren McKee Chaska Student
Nathan Lindberg Chaska Student
Steve G. Chaska Student
Hanna Schiller Chaska Student
Brinn Pfeiffer Chaska Student
Rachel M. Chaska Student
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong extended an invitation to the City’s
Halloween Party on Saturday, October 29th at the Chanhassen Rec Center from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
and outlined the schedule of events.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the following consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendation:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 10, 2005
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 10, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated September 27,
2005
b. Approval of 2006 Police Contract with the Carver County Sheriff’s Department.
c. Resolution#2005-89: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertisement of Bids
for Well Nos. 10 and 11, Project 04-08A.
City Council Summary – October 24, 2005
2
d. Accept $1,000 Donation from the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce for Old Village
Hall Plaza.
e. Resolution#2005-90: Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts.
f. Accept $500 Donation from the Chanhassen American Legion Club Post 580 for Fire
Prevention Week.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Bryan Litsey, 650 Big Horn Drive clarified that the sheriff’s
contract for 2006 was approved in the consent agenda and expressed concern that the council
tabled this item at the previous meeting.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Chief Gregg Geske presented an
update on the fire department’s open house and noted that they will be recruiting fire fighters for
the Minnewashta station. Sheriff Bud Olson thanked the City Council for approving the 2006
police contract and all the people involved in the process.
AWARD OF BID FOR WATER REVENUE BONDS AND PARK REFUNDING BONDS.
Greg Sticha introduced Mark Ruff and Bruce DeJong with Ehlers and Associates who presented
the results of the bond sale.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve Resolution
#2005-91: awarding the bid for the water revenue bonds Series 2005B to Legg-Mason-
Wood-Walker in the amount of $5,465,000 and Resolution#2005-92: to award the bid for
the park refunding bond Series 2005A to Piper Jaffrey and Company in the amount of
$2,590,000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CLAWSON BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba WINESTYLES,
600 MARKET STREET STATION, SUITE 140, REQUEST FOR AN OFF-SALE
LIQUOR LICENSE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tara Clawson 18909 Explorer Trail, Eden Prairie
Cindy MacDonald 4210 W. Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington
Justin Miller presented the staff report on this item and recommended approval. Mayor Furlong
opened the public hearing. Cindy MacDonald, 4210 West Old Shakopee Road in Bloomington
representing Kraus-Anderson and Market Street Station asked that the council approve this
request.
City Council Summary – October 24, 2005
3
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the off sale
liquor license request by Clawson Business Enterprises, Inc., dba WineStyles contingent
upon receipt of the liquor liability insurance certificate and license fee. The license will not
be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the space. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR TH 212/312 IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 03-09, 04-05, AND 04-06.
Public Present:
Name Address
Paul Bilotta Chanhassen
Sever Peterson Eden Prairie
John Chadwick Bloomington
Shannon Cooney Eden Prairie
Jon Horn St. Paul
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Larry D. Martin 2707 Spy Glass, Chaska
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Jim Paulsen 8629 So. Fairway, Victoria
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Richard Palmter D.R. Horton
Ron Mullenbach D.R. Horton
Dan Herbst Pemtom
Dan Cook Pemtom
Gil & Margaret Laurent New Prague
George St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road
Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item and introduced Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn
and Associates who presented information on the scope of the project area, the assessment
methodology, and information about the assessments in general. Mayor Furlong opened the
public hearing after informing property owners they had until the close of the public hearing to
file a written appeal. Larry Martin speaking on behalf of Jeffrey and Terri Fox, Fox Properties
LP, Gilbert and Margaret Laurent, and Art Johnson stated he had submitted formal written
objections to the Mayor and City Clerk. Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard clarified that his
property is in the ag preserve program, not green acres, and that he did not receive notification of
the public hearing. He also submitted a written appeal. Roger Knutson noted that his property
was not being assessed.
City Council Summary – October 24, 2005
4
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table the assessment hearing for TH 212/312 Improvement Project numbers 03-09, 04-05,
and 04-06. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 MUSA IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I, PROJECT 04-05:
ASSESSMENT HEARING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Paul Bilotta Chanhassen
Sever Peterson Eden Prairie
John Chadwick Bloomington
Shannon Cooney Eden Prairie
Jon Horn St. Paul
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Larry D. Martin 2707 Spy Glass, Chaska
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Jim Paulsen 8629 So. Fairway, Victoria
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Richard Palmter D.R. Horton
Ron Mullenbach D.R. Horton
Dan Herbst Pemtom
Dan Cook Pemtom
Gil & Margaret Laurent New Prague
George St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road
Paul Oehme introduced Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates who presented information
on the scope of the project area, the assessment methodology, and information about the
assessments in general. Mayor Furlong clarified that this is a multi-phase project and the only
item being discussed at this meeting is Phase I. He opened the public hearing and informed
residents that written appeals must be submitted prior to the close of the public hearing. Larry
Martin incorporated by reference his comments made in the previous public hearing for the same
clients. Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard restated that his property is in the ag preserve
program and by state statute cannot be assessed at this time nor assessments deferred from this
time to a future date. Also that he did not receive any notice of the hearing and his written
objection has been filed. Kevin Clark, Town and Country Homes, noting they represent one-
third of the land being assessed, expressed support for moving forward with Phase I of the
City Council Summary – October 24, 2005
5
project. John Chadwick, representing the Peterson family parcel, expressed his support for the
project. Sever Peterson who owns property at 1600 Pioneer Trail stated he was eager to proceed.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table
the assessment hearing and award of contract for the 2005 MUSA improvements, Phase I,
Project 04-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd
Hoffman and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Caley Stalecker Chaska Student
Stephanie Souvannakane Chaska Student
Lauren McKee Chaska Student
Nathan Lindberg Chaska Student
Steve G. Chaska Student
Hanna Schiller Chaska Student
Brinn Pfeiffer Chaska Student
Rachel M. Chaska Student
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening. Welcome to everybody here this evening and
those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. I’d like to start out at this point and ask
if there are any modifications or additions to the agenda that was distributed with the council
packet. If none, then without objection we’ll proceed with that agenda as distributed. First item
tonight is I’d like to extend an invitation for our Halloween Party that the City is sponsoring in
conjunction and cooperation with some of our local businesses in this community annually who
sponsor various special events and the fall event is our Halloween Party which will be held this
coming Saturday, October 29th from 5:30 to 7:30 at the Chanhassen Rec Center. Children ages 2
to 12 are invited to participate in this special event and obviously their parents are welcome to
come with them as well. The event will have entertainment and trick and treating, hayrides,
weather permitting, games. It’s a lot of fun. Pre-registration is required so I would encourage
you to register your children by Friday, this coming Friday the 28th. Either at City Hall or at the
Chanhassen Rec Center. There’s a $4.00 fee. Adults are free. It’s a very fun event so I look
forward to a good participation.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the following consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendation:
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
2
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 10, 2005
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 10, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated September 27,
2005
b. Approval of 2006 Police Contract with the Carver County Sheriff’s Department.
c. Resolution#2005-89: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertisement of Bids
for Well Nos. 10 and 11, Project 04-08A.
d. Accept $1,000 Donation from the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce for Old Village
Hall Plaza.
e. Resolution#2005-90: Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts.
f. Accept $500 Donation from the Chanhassen American Legion Club Post 580 for Fire
Prevention Week.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Bryan Litsey: Bryan Litsey, 650 Big Horn Drive in Chanhassen. I just wanted to address the
sheriff’s contract and I know that last meeting it was on the consent agenda and it was removed.
It’s my understanding now by approving the consent agenda tonight that you have approved the
sheriff’s contract for 2005, is that correct?
Mayor Furlong: Yes sir.
Bryan Litsey: And there’ll be no further discussions about that this evening?
Mayor Furlong: That’s correct.
Bryan Litsey: Okay. One of my concerns, well let me first praise the sheriff’s department. I
think they’ve done a wonderful job of stepping up traffic enforcement in Chanhassen. I think
they’ve doing a very, very good job. I’m glad to see the increased presence. I see them out there
on a regular basis. Me and my family and my neighbors really appreciate the good job that
they’re doing so I want to thank the sheriff and the council actually for having the foresight to
put on the traffic enforcement officer. One of the concerns I have though however relating to
that issue is that last meeting Councilmember Brian Lundquist asked that that be taken off the
consent agenda and one of the reasons he did for doing so is that he was concerned about the
increased traffic enforcement that was occurring and mentioned that he had in fact received
some, or heard from some residents who felt they were being picked on by that increased traffic
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
3
enforcement. And I’m concerned that his judgment on the council was affected by the fact, and
correct me if I’m wrong but shortly before that meeting you received a speeding citation, is that
correct?
Councilman Lundquist: It has no bearing.
Mayor Furlong: If you could address your questions to the council as a whole.
Bryan Litsey: Okay, to the council. And I was, I was troubled by the fact that when you
mentioned the fact that people were being picked on, that you didn’t equate that to yourself. If
you have an issue with the sheriff’s department personally, I wish you would keep it on that level
and not have staff and other people do additional work on your behalf.
Mayor Furlong: Again Mr. Litsey if you could address your issue to the council…
Bryan Litsey: …I’ll address it to the council.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Bryan Litsey: I would appreciate it that if there are issues, that those be disclosed and so there’s
an openness among the council when they’re discussing issues that have some personal impact
on it and that they’re, and that you as a council not let your personal, in this case, contract with
the sheriff’s department influence your judgment in terms of approving the contract. As far as I
see it there was not reason that that contract shouldn’t have been approved and there was no
reason to pull it off the consent agenda. Staff obviously recommended that it be put forth and
then you asked for some additional, or the council asked for some additional information to come
back to them and I don’t know why that isn’t on the agenda tonight in terms of what information
the council is seeking in terms of the concerns that were raised when this was taken off the
consent agenda, so Mr. Mayor, maybe you could address that.
Mayor Furlong: Sure, I’d be happy to. The council did receive additional information this
evening that was included in the packet which included the work plan for the coming year, so in
addition to adopting the contract, there’s also the work plan. In other words, what are we going
to get for our money was included in tonight’s packet and that’s what we’ve adopted this
evening.
Bryan Litsey: Okay, as a resident of the city I’d appreciate if you’re taking up matters and let’s,
you have personal nature in them, either you reclude yourself from them or you disclose it at the
time you’re making decisions based upon that, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Visitor presentations are still open if anybody else would like to raise an issue
to the council. I’d invite you to come forward at this time. Very good, seeing none. We’ll move
on.
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
4
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. Couple things I’d like to go over. I did mention it in the
council packet but we did have a successful open house. A lot of people and we put a lot of
people, Mark Littfin will have some reports on the numbers of people that we had through our
fire that week and such. I want to personally thank Mark Littfin and Ed Coppersmith for the job
that they did during that week. A lot of work goes towards both the open house and the fire ed
activities that we have. I was really impressed with the job that our rookies did for the open
house. They, we presented them with a task of putting together a presentation of our turn out
gear and different tools and stuff and they did a real good job of that so we’re pretty excited
about the job the rookies are doing. I want to bring the fact, for my next presentation we’ll
probably have ice out on the ponds and lakes and such. We do train and get our ice rescue
equipment but I want to bring it to everybody’s attention that the ice is definitely unsafe as it
starts to freeze and hopefully we won’t have any ice rescue calls so want to make sure everybody
is careful and keep the kids off the ice. We will have fire trucks out on, at least one fire truck out
on the evening of Halloween. We like to go around to different neighborhoods and such and
hand out candy and that’s, we started that last year and it went over real well. Well received by
the neighborhoods and kids and stuff and it gives us a chance to get out there and see the
neighborhoods. We’ll be starting also some recruiting for members of our west end station.
We’ve lost a couple members there. It’s our satellite station out on Minnewashta Parkway and
we’ve got about 5 people left responding there so we’re going to try to pick up some additional
fire fighters out in that end. Along with the cold weather coming, hopefully we don’t have any,
there are other heating alternatives that we’ve seen advertised out there. Hopefully we don’t
have problems. We do tend to have more problems with wood and other heating alternatives so
hopefully we’re also going to be looking at that and making sure that we don’t have fires due to
the fact that the heating fuels are being so high so. That’s about all I have to report. Any
questions or concerns?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I think I have a comment…but I just want to say thank
you. I was a chaperone at my…she’s in second grade at Chapel Hill and we went to the fire
station for a field trip and what a good time everyone had. Very educational and entertaining and
it was just a really, really nice day so thank you. Very good job.
Chief Gregg Geske: You know that’s the great part, we do have, I think we had almost 30
people that took off work during the week to teach those classes and it’s a, you know it’s a great
benefit for us. We get a lot out of it with the kids and such…kids of course and try to meet up
with our kids classes but I think we get a lot out of it. It’s a great opportunity to see the kids at a
happier time than we normally do so, anything else?
Mayor Furlong: I think I’ll expand on that a little bit and that’s with regard to the open house.
You mentioned that, there was great attendance. I think that everybody that I saw there was
having a great time. Children and adults and everybody did a really great job and it’s, I’m glad
that the department does that. It’s a nice way to reach out to citizens and make that personal
connection so congratulations on the good event and look forward to attending more in the
future.
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
5
Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Next presentations would be from the Carver County
Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff Olson is here this evening. I don’t know if you had planned to
make the presentation but since you’re here I’ll invite you to the podium.
Sheriff Olson: Mayor and Council, I didn’t and I’m not here to report on that but I do want to
just follow up. I appreciate the contract in your community. It’s my community as well and I
appreciate the work that goes into it and the staff that works here for us in this community. I am
very humbled by the fact that we in today’s modern society have options then to have to always
look at our own policing. Our own efforts of doing the job for our public so I just want to take
this minute just to thank you, the council, the staff. Justin has been at every sheriff’s contracting
meeting that I’ve had or we’ve had together. He offers great input to all the process so I hope
you do understand that we do respect the fact that we have this work plan in place and I
appreciate the efforts of all of you to vote this in and try to share the policing with you in this
community so I thank you for that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and we appreciate your efforts as well and those of the department.
It’s a good relationship and we do appreciate all your efforts so thank you very much.
Sheriff Olson: You bet.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just to update the rest of the City Council. Sergeant Olson had a family
emergency. He was taken out of state so that’s why he’s not here this evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
AWARD OF BID FOR WATER REVENUE BONDS AND PARK REFUNDING BONDS.
Greg Sticha: Mayor, members, council. Two weeks ago we brought before you a call for sale
on revenue bonds and a call for sale on some park refunding bonds. Today was the day that the
bonds went out for sale and with us this evening from Ehlers and Associates is Mark Ruff and
Bruce DeJong to report on what actually took place today.
Mark Ruff: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I’m Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates.
I’m just going to give a brief overview and then turn it over to Bruce. For those of you who have
been on the council for a little while you understand that there’s a process that we follow in
issuing bonds. We have to follow certain state statutory requirements, as well as certain
requirements of the market. One of the things that we do is to prepare an official statement
which is the disclosure document. You as the council should have received copies of that. The
disclosure document talks about the facts and figures behind the city. Explains who are the
larger taxpayer, who are the larger employers. How fast your tax base is growing. And then as
summaries of your financial statements. We then take that official statement and send it
nationwide to potential bidders and we also send it to a rating agency. The city utilizes Standard
and Poors as their rating agency. The city has a very good bond rating. It is a AA-. To be in the
AA category is not an easy thing for a city, especially a city that is growing as quickly as you
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
6
are. But Standard and Poors, after a conference call which included city staff. Greg was
involved as well as Kate and Todd, were involved with the conference call with Standard and
Poors in which we reviewed not only what’s happened in the city in the past but also how the
city is planning for the future and I have to say from a rating agency perspective, what they have
appreciated about the City of Chanhassen is the fact that you are looking forward and saying,
through your capital improvement plan process. Through your multi year budgeting approach so
you’re saying not only what’s going to happen in 2006 but hopefully we get a sense of what’s
going to happen in 2009, 2011. So we did reach a confirmation of that rating, AA- and I just
wanted to highlight a couple of things that the rating agency did highlight in their report to the
investors, because remember the rating agency’s work on behalf of the bond holders. They
don’t, they are truly a third party from the standpoint that they have nothing to gain by saying
either good things or bad things about you. And I think the things that they highlight are a strong
tax base growth with a mixture of both residential and commercial development. That’s very
important to them. Above average income levels, as well as significant financial reserve levels
bolstered by a brand of positive financial operations between fiscals 1996 and 2004. So again
they’re looking back 8 years in terms of your history and they have seen consistency in your
performance and I think you are to be applauded for that consistency. They like, they don’t like
surprises. That’s one thing rating agencies just don’t like. And again because you have a high
rating, then you have lower interest costs and with that I’ll ask Bruce to describe specifically
what happened on the bond sale and what happened with the interest costs as well on both the
refunding bonds and the water revenue bonds.
Bruce DeJong: Good evening Mayor Furlong and members of the council. It’s a distinct
pleasure to be back here tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Welcome back.
Councilman Peterson: Must be getting paid more. He’s got better suits.
Bruce DeJong: Justin Miller’s handing out the results of the bond sale that we tabulated today
and I will start it out with the $5,520,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bond, Series 2005B and just
highlight some things here. This bond series had a lot of interest in it. It had 8 bidders, which is
significantly above our average and they low bidder for this issue was Legg-Mason-Wood-
Walker from Minneapolis and the true interest cost that they bid and that’s the calculation that
we used that includes all of the issuance costs so that, and it includes the time value of money so
that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. And that’s how we sell all of
these issues on the true interest basis. Their cost was 3.8343, which is significantly lower than
we had projected 2 weeks ago. I’m sure you’ve all seen the rising interest rates a while ago and
we were expecting that to continue but it seems to have abated here. So I’ll just run through the
Legg-Mason had your bonds insured by MBIA and that means that these bonds will carry a AAA
rating for anyone who purchases them. Just run through the debt service. The principle amount,
because of the lower interest rates that we received, actually was able to decrease by $55,000 so
the actual amount of bonds that you’ll be issuing tonight is $5,465,000. A lot of that is, or
actually most of that is related to the discount allowance which is the amount that we provide for
whoever purchases the bond to sell them. That’s their earnings but in this case you received a
premium bid which means the interest rates on that front end are a little bit higher, but it provides
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
7
more money on the back end for the sales so. The true interest cost is actually almost ¾ of a
percent lower than what we had projected 2 weeks ago, and the coupon rates, you can see how
they’ve adjusted. The interest cost actually saves you $332,575 over the life of the bond issue.
So the recommendation is that you’ll award the bid to Legg-Mason and adopt a resolution
providing for the issuance of sales of $5,465,000 of bonds. The second issue tonight is the
general obligation park refunding bonds and this was a current refunding and we did this for two
reasons. Number one, to restructure the amount of bond payments that you’ll be making in the
course of the next couple of years to more closely match a flat levy schedule. And the second
was because we believe there was some interest savings involved with these. These bonds were
purchased by Piper Jaffrey and Company and it says Leewood, Missouri. I think that’s where
their closing operation is but they’re trading desk that actually purchased them is here in
Minneapolis. On these it’s a 4 year issue so significantly shorter than the other water revenue
bonds, but true interest costs of 3.3274%. And this bond issue we actually had 5 bidders and you
can see that the range again was very tight from 3.32 to 3.44% on the bids. And once again
because the interest rates were lower we were able to reduce the bond size so this is $40,000 less
than we had projected 2 weeks ago. The actual amount of bonds that you’ll be issuing is
$2,590,000 and a lot of that is related to the change in discount also because this was a premium
bid issue. The net present value benefit, which we had projected on the 10th to be about $15,000,
has gone up to over $49,000. So significant savings going from half a percent savings over the
length of the bond issue up to 1.7% over the life of the bond issue. So the action recommended
here is to award the bid to Piper Jaffrey and adopt a resolution for the $2,590,000 of G.O. park
refunding bonds.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Are there any questions for staff or representatives from
Ehlers?
Councilman Peterson: Bruce, what are the primary factors in the difference between the 3.8 and
the 3.3? Is it a combination of things? Of bond size. Type of bonds that they’re supplying.
Bruce DeJong: The primary factor is the length that the bonds are going to be outstanding. In
the case of the park refunding bonds, it’s only 4 years til 2010 and in the water revenue bonds
it’s 15 years out to 2021. And so there’s a yield curve and typically investors demand more
interest for taking the risk of holding those bonds for a longer period of time.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? At this point. I think the results are certainly
pleasing. It’s nice to see that our Standard and Poors ratings was reaffirmed. As I mentioned to
Mr. Sticha today I’m sure you might have had some comments to our current Director of Finance
if the council had screwed up that rating that you left us so appreciate that, but that is, that’s a
good sign. It says that the plan, our Key Financial Strategies and the financial plans that we’ve
been following these last few years are paying off and so it’s, and we’re seeing it tangibly in
terms of the rates that we’re receiving here for, some of our financing so it’s good to see. Any
other questions or comments? Okay, thank you. If not I’ll bring it back to the council for
discussion on this matter. If there is any. If not, is there a motion to adopt the two. Mr.
Gerhardt?
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
8
Todd Gerhardt: You could do both in one motion. So one would be award bid to Piper Jaffrey,
adopt a resolution providing the issuance of sale of $2,590,000 in park refunding bonds. And
then the other one would be to issue for water revenue bonds.
Councilman Peterson: As said, so moved.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve Resolution
#2005-91: awarding the bid for the water revenue bonds Series 2005B to Legg-Mason-
Wood-Walker in the amount of $5,465,000 and Resolution#2005-92: to award the bid for
the park refunding bond Series 2005A to Piper Jaffrey and Company in the amount of
$2,590,000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CLAWSON BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba WINESTYLES,
600 MARKET STREET STATION, SUITE 140, REQUEST FOR AN OFF-SALE
LIQUOR LICENSE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tara Clawson 18909 Explorer Trail, Eden Prairie
Cindy MacDonald 4210 W. Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington
Justin Miller: Thank you Mayor, council. The city has received a request for an off sale liquor
license from Clawson Business Enterprises, doing business as Winestyles to open an off store
liquor store. Off sale liquor store. Approximately 1,500 square feet in the new Market Square
Station development. That development is zoned Central Business District and off sale liquor
stores are allowed in that zoning. Law enforcement completed a background investigation on the
principles of the organization and the owners and no negative comments were found. Public
hearing notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the proposal and no comments
have been received prior to the meeting. Staff would recommend that we hold the public hearing
and then approve the off sale liquor license requested by Clawson Business Enterprises
contingent upon receiving their liquor liability insurance certificate and license fee as well as
acquiring the Certificate of Occupancy. Be glad to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No. Seeing none, then I will open the
public hearing at this time and invite all interested parties to come forward and comment on this
matter. Certainly, please come forward.
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
9
Cindy MacDonald: Cindy MacDonald, 4210 West Old Shakopee Road in Bloomington
representing Kraus-Anderson and Market Street Station. I would hope that this would go
through. This tenant would be a welcomed addition to Market Street Station. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak at this public hearing? No one? If
not, is there a motion to close public hearing?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: We’ll bring it back to council then for discussion. Is there any discussion on
the matter? No? If not, is there a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the off sale
liquor license request by Clawson Business Enterprises, Inc., dba WineStyles contingent
upon receipt of the liquor liability insurance certificate and license fee. The license will not
be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the space. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR TH 212/312 IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 03-09, 04-05, AND 04-06.
Public Present:
Name Address
Paul Bilotta Chanhassen
Sever Peterson Eden Prairie
John Chadwick Bloomington
Shannon Cooney Eden Prairie
Jon Horn St. Paul
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Larry D. Martin 2707 Spy Glass, Chaska
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Jim Paulsen 8629 So. Fairway, Victoria
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
10
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Richard Palmter D.R. Horton
Ron Mullenbach D.R. Horton
Dan Herbst Pemtom
Dan Cook Pemtom
Gil & Margaret Laurent New Prague
George St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Just briefly, this has been a long
process that staff and council has worked on. The improvements before you here tonight are all
related to the 212 improvements. There’s a lot of infrastructure that the city is looking to
construct along with the 212 project. Some of the steps that have happened along the way
include the city approving a cooperative agreement with MnDot identifying costs for some of the
improvements that will be discussed tonight. The city did in turn do a loan agreement with
MnDot to help finance this project as well. And along the way the city staff has been meeting
with the benefiting property owners along, in this area to help identify the improvements and
work with them on the assessments and the improvements and the proposed improvements so at
this time I’d like to invite Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates to give a brief presentation
about the assessment methodology and the assessments in general. …his presentation you can
ask if council has any questions and eventually open it for a public hearing. So at this time I’d
ask Jon…
Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor and council. As Mr. Oehme said my name is Jon Horn. I’m
with Kimley-Horn and Associates. We’ve been working with city staff for quite a while in
terms of the development of all the various improvements in the 2005 MUSA area. Wanted to
specifically address the improvements that will be constructed as a part of the MnDot 312/212
project tonight. I’ll use some overheads here. This exhibit basically shows a number of
improvements that we built as a part of the 212 project and I wanted to briefly walk you through
those various improvements. This is the 212 corridor at this location. Lyman Boulevard along
the north side. Pioneer Trail along the south side. Like I said I’ll just briefly walk through a
number of improvements that are being constructed as a part of the MnDot project. There are
turn lane improvements that are being constructed at this location and this location on Powers
Boulevard, as well as at this location and this location on Pioneer Trail. Basically improvements
that are being made to address pending development in the area, so those are roadway
improvements that are being done. As a part of that there’s also a traffic signal that’s going in at
the intersection of the ramps with 212 and Powers Boulevard. There are a number of public
utilities that are going in there. Public watermain that’s going in along Powers Boulevard
between Lyman and Pioneer Trail, as well as along Pioneer Trail from Powers Boulevard to the
westerly city boundary. There’s sanitary sewer that’s being done in this area basically to provide
for the needs of future development. Some improvements that are necessary to be built as a part
of the roadway project basically just to get them in before the roadway’s built. There’s also a
regional stormwater pond that’s being built at this location by MnDot and it is proposed that that
regional storm water pond be enlarged to provide for the needs of development in this area.
Moving a little further to the east, there are also a number of improvements that MnDot’s
building as a part of the 212 project in the vicinity of Trunk Highway 101. This is existing 101,
Lyman Boulevard at this location. This is the future 212 alignment. As a part of the MnDot job
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
11
they will be building turn lanes at this location to meet the needs of pending development at this
location, which is basically just on the south side of 212, as well as turn lanes and traffic signal at
this location for the future extension of Lake Susan Drive. There are also some utilities and turn
lane improvements proposed at this location. As Paul mentioned, basically these improvements
are all being constructed by MnDot. MnDot has provided city staff with estimated costs for all
the various improvements. Total project cost for all the improvements I just provided you an
overview with is a little over $2.6 million. A majority of those project costs are going to be
funded through assessments to the benefiting properties. Basically an assessment methodology
will be put together. The assessable amounts is a little under $1.7 million with the city picking
up a little over $930,000. Basically the bonding for those assessments will be provided from the
State of Minnesota Loan Agreement that I believe the council approved back on April 11th. Go
back to the improvement exhibits will provide you with a brief overview in terms of how the
assessments were determined for the area. Basically in cases where there’s roadway
improvements, turn lane improvements that are being constructed to meet the needs of
development, the costs for those turn lane improvements are being assessed 100% back to the
benefiting property owners. In cases where there’s some shared benefit, like at the location of
the future east/west collector roadway and Powers Boulevard, it is proposed that those costs be
assessed to, 80% of those costs be assessed to the benefiting property owners with the city
picking up the remaining 20% of those costs. In terms of the utility improvements with the
watermain and the sanitary sewer, it’s proposed that the property owners be assessed for the
equivalent 8 inch size which is basically the typical size that a developer would put in if he
constructed the utilities himself. There are over sizing for both the sanitary sewer and
watermain. It is proposed that the city pay for those over sizing costs as a part of the process.
Then back to this exhibit, again in cases where there’s turn lane improvements to directly benefit
the adjacent properties, those would be assessed 100% back to the property owners. It is
proposed that the turn lanes and signals at future Lake Susan Drive be assessed 25% to the
benefiting property owners with the city picking up the remaining 75% basically on a split of the
legs of the intersection and then there’s sanitary sewer and water main. Again property owners
would be assessed the 8 inch equivalent cost with the city picking up the over sizing cost. In
terms of the assessment area, in cases where we’re assessing improvements on a benefiting area
basis, and we spent a lot of time trying to identify what the benefiting area is, and I’ll just
basically walk you through each of the benefiting areas. This is the area that would benefit from
the roadway improvements. Basically all highlighted in yellow. These are all roadway, or all
properties that would ultimately benefit from the future construction of east/west collector
roadway. You’ll happen to notice there’s one parcel, Parcel 10 that does not show up on the
assessable area. That parcel is in green acres and therefore cannot be assessed. In terms of storm
water improvements, if you recall the proposed improvement exhibit, there’s a storm water pond
at this location. Basically the properties shown here in green would benefit from that, and it is
proposed the parcel area shown on here in green would be assessed for the improvements. Water
main improvements, the area shown in blue would be assessed for water main. Basically
provides a benefit to the 2005 MUSA area as well as some area outside of 2005. This is actually
in the 2010 MUSA area. We are showing some costs going against the parcel that’s in green
acres. The intention is that at the time that that parcel develops, they would pay for those
assessment costs basically as a connection fee for the water main. And then for sanitary sewer,
we are putting sanitary sewer in at this location. Parcels shown in brown on this exhibit are the
properties that benefit and again those assessments are being determined on an area basis. Did
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
12
briefly want to talk about the assessment area calculations. Basically what we did is we took
gross parcel area and we subtracted out 3 things. We removed roadway right-of-way or public
roadway right-of-way. We removed wetland areas based upon the best available information,
and we removed flood plain areas so it’s basically gross parcel area less right-of-way, less
wetlands, less flood plains. And in terms of the assessments themselves, it is proposed that the
assessments be on a 7 year term at a 6% interest rate. It is proposed that those property owners
in the 2010 MUSA area, that their assessments would not be incurred at this time. They’d
basically be deferred until January 2010 without interest because we basically are putting the
improvements in before they’re necessary to coordinate with the MnDot improvements. And
then property that’s in agricultural preserve in the 2005 MUSA area, as I mentioned, cannot be
assessed at this time. There is no roadway assessments proposed for that parcel. Sewer and
water charges would be connection charges in the future. So that’s kind of a summary of
proposed improvements, cost, assessment methodology. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Horn? No? Okay, very good. Any additional comments
from staff at this point Mr. Oehme are we ready to go forward with the public hearing?
Paul Oehme: If there’s only questions from the council, we’re ready to open up the public.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. At this point I will open the public hearing. We have two public
hearings this evening so this first one I’d like to limit comments to the issues that were just
presented by Mr. Horn. Those are the assessments relating to the improvements associated with
the 312/212 project. Our next item on our agenda deals with additional proposed assessments
relating to improvements in this same area, outside of the 312/212 project. So at this point I will
open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward and address the council
on this matter. One thing that I will emphasize too, I believe this was included with the notice
that was sent out, is that any property owner wishing to object to their assessment must file a
written objection or waive the right to appeal prior to the closing of the public hearing so that’s
the time frame we’re working under here. So at this point the public hearing is open and it’s,
until it’s closed, that’s the time that property owners have a right to object to their assessments.
So at this point I’ll open up the podium for the public hearing and invite again interested parties
to come forward please.
Larry Martin: Good evening Mayor, council members. My name is Larry Martin and I’m on
here behalf tonight of Jeffrey and Terry Fox, Fox Properties Limited. LP. Gilbert and Margaret
Laurent, and Art Johnson. Mayor and commission, council members. My comments will be
essentially the same I think for both hearings so maybe later I’ll just say ditto. Before the
hearing or before the evening started I did hand in a written form of objection to the 312/212
assessments to the city clerk and to the mayor for those particular parties so they should be in the
record at this point. Each property has, the properties that I’m referencing each have their own
issues. But there’s one major issue that is kind of a common thread for each one of them, and I
really didn’t realize it until I was asked to study it by my clients over the weekend when we got
the assessment package but there’s a timing issue, especially for the ones that are in the 2010
district. And Mr. Knutson will understand what I’m getting at and I didn’t get a solidly
formulate the problem for myself until I was studying it. And it relates to a case that was
decided this summer. It was a case that occurred up in the City of Minnetrista and it involved an
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
13
inverse condemnation taking where a property owner was assessed for some improvements
several years ago, and some time passed and then the city changed the land use regulations that
apply to that piece of property and then essentially the improvements were no longer usable. No
longer provided any benefit to the property. The long and the short of it is, the issue was well,
you know could a city do that? You know assess for some improvements one day and then some
time down the road say, well you no longer can use it for development purposes. Or you must
maintain a low density and not really capture the value of those improvements. And this may be
shocking to you but the court decided that sure, you can, the city can do that. And so that
presents a little bit of a quandary for some, well all of my clients to a certain level. In particular
Mr. and Mrs. Laurent and Mr. Johnson. They’re in the later district, and the staff has said well,
let’s defer the assessment til 2010 when that area opens up. Then the question is well, what if
some sort of land use policy change happens in the meantime, but we’re still on the hook for the
assessments at, you know when 2010 does come. And so that’s a technical glitch that I think we
have to work out with staff. And the only way to work that out is through some sort of
agreement process that can really only unfold through an assessment appeal. So that’s one issue
with the Laurent’s and with, and Mr. Johnson. There’s also one thing I noted for Paul regarding
the Laurent parcel and there’s really no reason staff would have known this until I brought it to
their attention. In, this summer, for the 312 project there was some takings that occurred and
over Gil and Margaret’s parcel, or the parcel that they represent as trustees. Part of the area
that’s assessed was actually taken for the 312 project. There was a taking a while back but there
was another acre or so that was taken, and I’ve got to go through that with staff to determine
whether or not that still should reasonably be included within the assessment district. There’s a
technical issue that’s more physical in nature that’s more engineering, planning zoning kind of
thing on Art Johnson’s property in the sense that it’s not clear to him how he would get access to
his property in the future and so I said well you’ve got to go talk to the County. That would be a
county road, to figure out how that’s going to work and make sure, get some assurances from
staff, from a planning perspective how that will shake out in 2010 and then you can talk about
those assessments. And so those are the issues for those parcels. Similarly this is a timing issue
on the Fox Properties parcels, and this relates to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and the issue is
well, there’s a certain sector of the properties there that is protected by restriction. It, I think it’s
the city policy and staff’s intent to work with us on working out the density issues for that land
area that’s going to be assessed, but it’s likely that we won’t actually be able to develop that
land. There’s going to be some sort of density transfer that will occur. Well, we haven’t worked
that out yet. And so without really knowing you know what the policy is of the City, of the
vision for that particular property, it’s hard to agree to that great a chunk of land to be assessed
and so our position is we probably should hold that open until that issue is, you know until we’ve
got a plan in here that’s reviewed and acceptable and there’s actually some observable benefit
that comes from that plan review. I think that’s a fair summary of the significant issues with
each one of those properties that we’ve filed an appeal on. The, I think it is likely I’ll just come
back and say ditto on the next public hearing. However, with respect to Art Johnson and Gil and
Margaret Laurent, they’re included in the assessment roll I think in the next public hearing, but
there’s actually zero’s there so I don’t think staff’s intention was to present an assessment on
those hearings. It was just probably for you to analyze and see that they’re in that general area
but not being assessed. So I filed a, it was kind of a belt and suspenders kind of thing. I filed an
appeal anyway but it doesn’t look like there’s an assessment. Thank you Mayor and council
members. If you have questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
14
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Very good, thank you. Anyone
else who would like to come forward at this time?
Rick Dorsey: Mayor, council members. My name is Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Just
two quick things. Number one, just to correct something that’s been said. Our property is not in
green acres. It’s in an ag preserve program, which has different criteria. And as such within that
the property cannot be assessed nor can assessments currently be deferred by state statute and I’ll
give you just notification to make sure that that’s clear. Secondly, I did not receive any
notification of this hearing. I’m listed on the assessment roll and did not receive notification so I
want that of record. And I’ll give you written appeal.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, his property is not being assessed.
Rick Dorsey: I just wanted to make the other points to make that very clear.
Mayor Furlong: Public hearing is still open. Would anybody else like to address the council on
this matter? If not, again if there are any objections they must be filed here prior to closing the
public hearing so this would be the time, unless somebody else wants to, has anything else to say
to the council. I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Is there anybody else that
would wish to address the council on this matter? Seeing nobody raising a hand or making
movement. Is there somebody back there? No? If not, is there a motion to close the public
hearing on this matter?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: There’s a motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Let’s discuss that. Any discussion on that motion?
Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Furlong: Next item on our agenda was the consideration of a resolution adopting the
assessment roll. I guess at this point I would ask if it would be preferential to table that action
until we can try to seek to overcome some of the objections or.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think it’s the staff recommendation is that you postpone action on the
212/312 improvement assessments and hearing, the assessments for 2 weeks until your next
council meeting. And if you maybe want to vote on that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any discussion on that? If not, is there a motion to table?
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
15
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second on that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table the assessment hearing for TH 212/312 Improvement Project numbers 03-09, 04-05,
and 04-06. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2005 MUSA IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I, PROJECT 04-05:
ASSESSMENT HEARING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Paul Bilotta Chanhassen
Sever Peterson Eden Prairie
John Chadwick Bloomington
Shannon Cooney Eden Prairie
Jon Horn St. Paul
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Larry D. Martin 2707 Spy Glass, Chaska
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Jim Paulsen 8629 So. Fairway, Victoria
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Richard Palmter D.R. Horton
Ron Mullenbach D.R. Horton
Dan Herbst Pemtom
Dan Cook Pemtom
Gil & Margaret Laurent New Prague
George St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor and City Council members. I’d like to invite Jon Horn from
Kimley-Horn and Associates to the podium again to give a brief presentation on these
improvements. Again this, these improvements are associated just with the MUSA area. Not
associated with the 212 improvements and this is more or less just the first phase of our vision of
the improvements to take place in this area.
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
16
Mayor Furlong: Just for clarification, but it does say Phase I. This is a multi-phase project, is
that correct?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct, yeah, This is only the first phase. The second phase will
potentially take place next year.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. Horn.
Jon Horn: Good evening again Mayor and council. Same process. I’ll run through the proposed
improvements with you. Talk a little bit about costs as well as running through the assessment
methodology. Very quickly, Mayor as you had mentioned there is basically two improvement
projects that are going to be done as a part of the 2005 MUSA improvements. There’s a bid
package 1 or Phase I, and a Phase II. This assessment hearing for clarification is only for the bid
package 1 or Phase I improvements. Basically I’ll run through the proposed improvements.
They’re included as a part of Phase I. Again to help orientate you, Lyman Boulevard at the top.
Audubon Road at the far side of the paper. Basically the improvements include as a part of this
Phase I project are the extension of sewer and water main from Lyman Boulevard down along
Bluff Creek to the future location of the east/west collector roadway at this location, so it’s the
extension of trunk water main and sanitary sewer to help meet the needs of future development
in this area. The other improvements that’s included as a part of the project is the construction of
a bridge at this location. Basically the reason we’re proposing to do a bid package 1 or Phase I is
the timing. It’s more conducive to do this type of work adjacent to the creek at this time of the
year when the creek’s, when the creek flow is low and we can work with some potentially frozen
soil conditions so there’s really, that’s the primary reason for us proceeding with the Phase I
project. Again the assessments tonight are not for Phase II but I thought I’d just throw this
exhibit up on the overhead really quickly. This ultimately shows the long term plan for the area.
The construction of a roadway through this area between Powers Boulevard and Audubon.
We’re still working on the design issues on this and still working with the property owners on
some issues. In terms of the project cost, total project cost for the improvements for Phase I are
a little over $2 million. Just to reference it back to the preliminary design estimate that we last
presented to the council for basically the same improvements, it’s a little over $2.2 million for
the bids we received did come in under estimate. A majority of the project costs proposed to be
funded through assessments to benefiting properties. I’ll basically walk you through the
proposed funding sources. We’re looking at assessments, funds out of the city sewer and water
utility as well as MSA funds or state aid funds to help pay for some of the roadway
improvements. It shows the components of the financing plan, a little over $1.6 million in
assessments. It also breaks down the funding plan based upon the preliminary estimates as you
can see generally the numbers came in under what the preliminary estimates were. The only one
that came in a little over was the sanitary sewer utility, sanitary sewer costs were a little bit more
than we anticipated. But all the other costs were under. In terms of the assessment methodology
that was used to determine the assessment amounts, the trunk water main is proposed to be
assessed to properties on an area basis, again for the equivalent cost of an 8 inch main. The city
would pick up any costs for the over sizing. The assessment area was determined based upon
benefit. Very similar with the sanitary sewer improvements. Again properties assessed for the
equivalent cost for the 8 inch main, the city pays for the over sizing and again assessed on an
overall project area. And with the roadway bridge improvements, it’s proposed that the
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
17
properties be assessed 80% of the costs of those improvements, just because there is some
widening of the roadway to accommodate a collector roadway, it is proposed that the city pay for
20% of these costs. As I mentioned for the last assessment hearing, we again used an area basis
to determine the assessment amounts. We took total gross property area, less roadway right-of-
way, less wetlands and less flood plain to determine the assessment areas. And really quickly,
again the assessable areas, this is the roadway improvements. The area shown in yellow. Again
the exception is Mr. Dorsey’s property, and I’ll get it right this time. It’s in agricultural preserve
versus green acres which is why it’s not shown on here is the assessable area. The water main
assessment area is again a similar area. The Dorsey property is included. Connection fees at a
future time once the property is developed. And the sanitary sewer improvements shown, or
sanitary sewer assessment area is shown in orange. Similar to the water main assessment area.
Again just to mention on the assessment terms, similar to the last assessment hearing, it is
proposed that the assessments be levied on a 7 year term at a 6% interest rate. Property owners
would have the opportunity to basically pay off their assessments within 60 days. Otherwise it
would be assessed over the 7 year period. Again any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Horn or staff at this time? If not then I’ll open up the
public hearing on this matter. Again prior to the completion of the public hearing any property
owner wishing to object to their assessment must file a written objection or they waive the right
to appeal. So at this time I will open up the public hearing and ask interested parties to come
forward and address the council on this matter. Mr. Martin.
Larry Martin: Thank you Mayor, council members. Again I’ll just restate by incorporating by
reference the comments I made in the earlier hearing and for the same clients. Thank you very
much.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Rick Dorsey: Mayor, council members. Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Again just to
restate the property is in the ag preserve program and by state statute cannot be assessed at this
time nor assessments deferred from this time to a future date. The same as the other first public
hearing, I did not receive any notice of the hearing and my notice has been filed with you.
Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, and just like the last one, he’s not being assessed.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on this matter?
Kevin Clark: Good evening Mayor, council members. My name is Kevin Clark. I live at 3841
Red Cedar Point Drive. I’m here representing Town and Country Homes, a K.Hovnanian
Company. We have a vested interest in 3 parcels covered by these assessments or a third of the
entire assessment. Those parcels are Char Jeurissen, the Luigi Bernardi or Aurora Investments
and the Bruce Jeurissen parcel. We’ve certainly been active over the last 3 years working with
city staff planning a residential component for this AUAR area, and are now in the final stages of
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
18
plan design, having received preliminary plat here on October 10th, and thank you again. We are
in favor of the city moving forward with this assessment process and awarding the first phase of
the project. I know there are a variety of parcels working their way through this system over the
last 3 plus years, starting with concept plan approval, feasibility study, AUAR. There’s been a
lot of effort and even prior investment on the city’s part and certainly it’s hard to make that first
turn and this would be one of those major junctures but I encourage the council to move forward
with this. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council. Please come forward.
John Chadwick: Mayor, council, staff. My name is John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle,
Bloomington. Here representing the Peterson family. Peterson parcel, and something I said a
couple years ago when I addressed here in the same capacity is, our family’s been in farming and
we’ve had chances where utilities have come in early on and we didn’t know quite how it was
going to turn out and I certainly empathize with all the families out here. That can be a scary
deal when a whole bunch of bills show up and utilities start to show up, but it does work out and
I would ask you to have patience and have courage in that. Second thing in that overall process,
the staff has worked very, very hard and we’ve seen many, many different alternatives for roads
and for this and for that and I certainly commend them as being an inclusive process. I think the
third thing is there’s a few things that are known and certainly some other things that maybe
aren’t known or there’s still some questions that could go this way, could go that way, but some
of the simple ones are, water runs down hill. You put your pipes at the lowest point. That’s a
good thing. That’s the way God and nature laid it out so those things are pretty well aligned so
that makes part of it a little easier. Winter is coming and you do need a bridge and that’s the
time to put the bridge in, so those things are kind of easy. So to the extent that those things are
pretty well solved, it makes some pretty good sense to move forward. What I do the rest of my
time is I have an accounting background and interest rates are pretty low and so to move
forward, you know I might fight your guys on a 6% interest spread over some bonds just
awarded at 3 and something. You’ve got a nice spread going. Good gig if you can get it, so in
any case. Also the big yellow army’s coming over the hill with the 212 project. Now is a perfect
time to proceed forward with this and I would speak in favor of it and wish you all well on this
process. It’s very exciting. A signature, a development for your community. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Sever Peterson: Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Sever Peterson and I have some
property at 1600 Pioneer Trail here in Chanhassen. I reside at 15900 Flying Cloud Drive in Eden
Prairie where our home farm is and I’d like to just say tonight that through this process, as John
and other landowners have expressed, it’s a scary process but I appreciate the way staff has
worked with us through this and kept us informed and in a very positive way in my opinion and
it’s worked out. I’m not sure that all of the fright is gone but it’s a new thing and it’s something
that the landowners, at least myself are not, you know are not familiar with but I am eager to
proceed and I wanted to share that with you tonight and I appreciate staff and I’m eager to
proceed. Thank you.
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
19
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Public hearing is still open for anyone else who would wish to
address the council on this matter. Again prior to the completion of the public hearing any
property owner wishing to appeal to their assessment must file a written, must sign a written
objection or waive their right to appeal so if there is nobody else to come forward, we will be
entertaining a motion to close the public hearing. So at this time I’ll ask again if anybody else
would like to come forward and address the council on this matter. Seeing no one, is there, I’ll
ask council if there’s a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. If we could have another motion to table the
approval of the assessments to allow staff 2 weeks to review the appeals and bring back a
recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Would it also be appropriate to capture the next item as well, item
6(b) which is the awarding of contract?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Can we do that in a single motion? Is that okay?
Todd Gerhardt: That’d be fine.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion to table the remaining items of 6(a) and 6(b)?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table 6(a) and 6(b).
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table
the assessment hearing and award of contract for the 2005 MUSA improvements, Phase I,
Project 04-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you and I appreciate everybody’s comments and again I want to,
on these issues as Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Peterson mentioned too, we recognize that this is
significant change to our city and it’s one that I appreciate all the efforts that the property owners
and staff have put in. They’ve put in many, many hours over the last years and we got a little
more work to do it looks like but at the same time I do, on behalf of the council, thank
everybody for what I believe eventually will be a wonderful part of our city and we’ll have some
very nice developments down there so thank everybody for their continued involvement. That
City Council Meeting – October 24, 2005
20
completes the items of, well excuse me. That completes the public hearing items. We have no
items listed for finished or new business. I know we have a number of students here this
evening. I would suggest there is a sign in sheet that went around. You might want to document
your existence here by catching that sign up sheet. I know Mr. Berg likes to see that. And
you’re all welcome so at this point we’ll move on to council presentations.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I have nothing to add Mayor. Just that we will be convening after this meeting
to go through a budget.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and that was on a regularly scheduled work session.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any questions for Mr. Gerhardt?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, and Jerry
McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson
Morris, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE
COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE. APPLICANT, CLINT &
JENNIFER HURT, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-32.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vern Lindemann 552 Mission Hills Drive
Clint & Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle
Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. The applicants, Jennifer and Clint Hurt
presented the facts from their point of view and what they plan to do to help reduce the hard
surface coverage. Commissioner McDonald asked the applicants to explain why they could not
reduce the size of the sport court to meet city regulations. The commission and applicants
discussed different alternatives for reducing hard surface coverage, i.e. reduction of sidewalks,
patio, and driveway. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Vern Lindemann, 552
Mission Hills Drive and President of Mission Hills Garden Homes Association stated no one
spoke to anyone in their association prior to installation and that the Sport Court is very, very
close to two bedroom windows of two of the townhomes and that neighbors in the townhome
association are definitely not in favor of this sport court. He read a letter from the townhome
board stating their opposition to the variance request. Jane Zureich, 8490 Mission Hills Circle,
the adjacent neighbor who will be directly affected by this variance, stated her support for
allowing the variance. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. Commissioner Papke
questioned the effectiveness of the zoning compliance process and asked that the Planning
Commission study the issue at an upcoming meeting. After commission comments and
discussion the following motion was made.
Planning Commission Summary – October 18, 2005
2
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32
for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage
restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot
zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to
comply with ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SPALON MONTAGE TO PLACE
A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE OF THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 600 MARKET STREET, APPLICANT KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY
COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-33.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cindy McDonald Kraus-Anderson Realty
Mitchell Wherley 600 Market Street
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McDonald asked for
clarification on why the Planning Commission shouldn’t approve this request since Americana
Bank has a sign on their gable and what was the original intent for the building. Commissioner
Papke asked for clarification on where currently signage is allowed for Spalon Montage.
Commissioner Papke asked for further clarification of exactly where on the sign band signage
would be allowed. Commissioner Undestad asked if all the space had been leased on the second
floor. The applicant, Cindy McDonald with Kraus-Anderson Realty and Mitchell Wherley,
President of Spalon Montage addressed questions relating to the original sign plan for the
building. Commissioner McDonald asked the applicant to explain other alternatives for signage
on the building. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public
hearing was closed. After discussion the following motion was made.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends City
Council approve Site Plan Amendment #05-33 to place an illuminated sign on the second
level of Market Street Station outside of the approved first floor sign band based on the
findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit engineered drawings showing how the sign will be
constructed before a sign permit will be issued.
Planning Commission Summary – October 18, 2005
3
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
3. All signage must meet ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 2005 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m..
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, and Jerry
McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson
Morris, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE
COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE. APPLICANT, CLINT &
JENNIFER HURT, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-32.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vern Lindemann 552 Mission Hills Drive
Clint & Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle
Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks. Questions from staff. Any questions? Not at this time? Alright, do we have
an applicant here? If you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and
why don’t you tell us a little bit of what’s going on here from your point of view. And you may
want to take that microphone in front of you.
Jennifer Hurt: I’ll take it all the way down here. I’m used to that. Well first of all we want to
thank you for listening to our request. We want you to know that obviously we’re in a little bit
of a bind.
Sacchet: So you are Clint and Jennifer Hurt.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, I’m Jennifer Hurt. This is Clint Hurt.
Sacchet: Just to be clear, thank you.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, sorry forgot. Anyhow we now know that our Sport Court, which was built
in May of 2005 is not in compliance with city code. When we hired our contractor back in May
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
2
of 2005 he assured us that he would be taking care of everything for us, including checking in
with you to make sure that we were in compliance with the city. We felt confident that the work
would be done in accordance with the city but we were let down. We want you to know that we
would have never built the Sport Court had we known this would be in violation of city code, but
now we have to deal with the fact that we have a court that is way too big and that’s why we’re
applying for this variance. So what we’re requesting is a 4.4% hard surface coverage variance
and also a 5 foot side yard setback variance. We plan to remove 8 feet off of the south side of
the Sport Court, which is 320 square feet total. We will also remove a concrete slab that we had
planned on putting a shed, which is 120 square feet and we will also be removing 128 ½ total
square feet of retaining wall. So we have 16 letters from neighbors who support us and have
benefited from our Sport Court as part of our neighborhood. Several children in our
neighborhood have also used the Sport Court. We take comfort in knowing that our children are
in our back yard rather than a mile away or still playing in a park. While the parks are fun to
visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh Lake, which is accessible via walking trail but it’s
approximately a mile away. And we also have Lake Susan Park which is the park we visit
frequently but we have to cross over Highway 101 and in the very near future here we know that
Highway 101 is not going to be a safe thing to cross. So, let’s see our intent of installing the
Sport Court was not to increase the value of our home but rather provide a safe place for children
to play close to our house.
Clint Hurt: My wife being short I’ve got to always lift things up. We’ve also, my name is Clint
Hurt. We also went over to the town houses and actually I talked with several of the people right
in the existing that actually overlook our Sport Court, and by going with them you know we also,
we’re showing a willingness to take care of that, the setback, or the 8 foot. Cutting off the 8 off
the back would actually you know take the town houses and put everything on that back side. In
doing, talking so I did talk with two of the board members. I also talked with several of the
occupants there that a lot of them were just saying why can’t you just leave it all in you know,
it’s for the kids. There’s nothing better than to hear children laughing. It’s also nice to see the
kids playing somewhere not in the streets, and being a nurse I take care of kids you know and it’s
stuff that we don’t like to see happen when kids get hit by cars. This is exactly how we feel. We
absolutely love our Sport Court and we love seeing the kids play back there. It takes them off
the streets and puts them in a safe area. By also taking off that 8 feet off the back, we’re actually
making it so we aren’t able to play tennis anymore, which we already were able to do, so now
what we actually can do is, we can actually play 3 on 3 basketball without crowding each other.
We can Rollerblade on it with you know several kids on it. We can play volleyball. We can
play badminton. We can ice skate on it with the kids in the wintertime too. Keeping kids off the
streets is our main thing. We feel by cutting the Sport Court down to the allotted size that it says,
we wouldn’t be able to have as much fun on it and also we wouldn’t be able to allow as many
kids on the Sport Court at one time to keep that safe also. So please consider our request.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicants? Alright, yep go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: I’ve got one. One of the things I read through here was, I guess you’re real reluctant
to want to, either to take it out or cut it down but what harm would it do to cut down the size of it
so it is in compliance. I mean you’ve got quite a bit area there and even if you were to cut down
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
3
a little bit more, there’s still more than enough area to play basketball on and those types of
things.
Clint Hurt: If we cut it down to the size that it’s, what it is. Wouldn’t have a, wouldn’t be able
to play volleyball. Wouldn’t be able to ice skate. Wouldn’t be able to Rollerblade. Keep the
kids off the you know streets.
Jennifer Hurt: I think in addition it’s, you know it’s somewhat of a financial burden for us. I
mean we invested this money and put this into a Sport Court. Now we have to take it out. I
mean I understand that there are certain rules and regulations and we did break those rules and
again it’s not something that we intended to do. You know like I said if we had, going all back
before this all started we would have never considered something like that but now we are stuck
in the situation and it would be a bit of a financial burden. I mean it’s already cutting, we’re
cutting off a decent chunk at the end of it so that we’re in compliance with the easement on the
townhouse side. On the south side of our court. And if we are to cut as much as we are
supposed to cut so that we can reach that 25% hard surface coverage, we’re cutting our court in a
little bit less than half of what it is.
McDonald: Okay, let me ask you a question about the contractor. When he put this together
were there guarantees that he was going to take care of all the permits and had he dealt with the
city before?
Clint Hurt: …times to make sure that he was going to talk with the council or whoever it was
here to check with any zoning or regulations or rules that we’d actually have to go through and
he said that he’d take care of everything for us.
McDonald: Okay, have you talked to him about any of the costs if you have to comply with the
ordinance?
Clint Hurt: We will have to do that yes. We have talked with him and he’s willing to work with
us but it’s.
Jennifer Hurt: It’s still going to be, we’ve invested the money and I don’t think we’re getting it
back.
Sacchet: So at least it won’t cost you more to change it.
Jennifer Hurt: It won’t cost us more but it sure wouldn’t have cost us so much to begin with.
Sacchet: It wouldn’t have cost you so much in the first place.
Jennifer Hurt: Right, because we pay by square footage.
Sacchet: Any other questions Jerry?
McDonald: No.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
4
Sacchet: Actually I’d like to add on that a little bit. I mean are there any other possibilities to
reduce this hard cover?
Jennifer Hurt: Well I guess if there are suggestions from you we’d certainly would consider that
and.
Papke: Have you considered making a level grass area? Some people do play tennis on grass
courts for instance which would be permeable.
Jennifer Hurt: Okay, we haven’t thought of that.
Metzer: There’s some patio area they could possibly…some sidewalk area up front. That’d be
an option for me to, obviously some is still going to have to be removed from the Sport Court to
comply but.
Sacchet: It’s a pretty sizeable driveway. Almost 1,500 square feet and then there’s the walk
through porch. Maybe some of that could be made impervious.
Jennifer Hurt: Take off the driveway?
Sacchet: Well you need a driveway.
Jennifer Hurt: Well, not really.
Clint Hurt: Just got to shorten it up.
Larson: Or narrow it.
Jennifer Hurt: Narrow it.
Sacchet: And where do you need the side yard variance? Is that to the.
Jennifer Hurt: It appears as though we have the.
Metzer: That’d be the side.
Jennifer Hurt: Right.
Sacchet: So with what you take out to the, I guess that’s to the south. There you wouldn’t need
it on the south side but you would need it on the west side.
Jennifer Hurt: And on the south side we’re complying with the south side. It’s the west side that
we are asking for a variance as well.
Larson: Is that a 3 car garage you have?
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
5
Jennifer Hurt: Yes.
Larson: What if you were to make it closer to 2 car? Well, it kind of looks like it already is but,
you could make it quite narrow and then just at the very end scoot it over so you can get, you
know you could park in front of it if you needed to or whatever but. We’d like to work with you
on this.
Jennifer Hurt: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Sacchet: It looks like you have huge support from all the neighbors.
Jennifer Hurt: We do.
Sacchet: Did any of the neighbors have any reservations?
Jennifer Hurt: Reservations? No. Not that we’re aware of.
Sacchet: It seems like everybody is just.
Jennifer Hurt: Well we love it. I mean we.
Clint Hurt: …the retaining wall and everybody loves the boulder wall on one side.
Sacchet: Now you’re talking about taking out the retaining walls, most of them. What impacts
will that have on your?
Clint Hurt: On one side we actually have to come in with a grader. Hire a grading contractor
and actually be sloped off.
Sacchet: So you have to slope it a little bit, yeah.
Jennifer Hurt: But we met with Dan Remer, the city engineer when we met with Josh and we
talked about that and…
Sacchet: It can be sloped and…
Jennifer Hurt: …when it was originally and he said that would be fine. We didn’t finish it.
When we moved into this house 2 years ago it was obviously already built. There was a
previous owner there and she never finished off that back part so that was ideal to us because we
had plans of either putting a pool or a Sport Court back there so we thought well great, we don’t
have to rip up a bunch of sod and you know whatever else would have been back there.
Landscaping.
Clint Hurt: And I mean there was a lot of, I mean weeds and stuff like that so it’s taking control
over really our back yard.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
6
Jennifer Hurt: Our neighbors are thrilled to see that it’s better than weeds that’s back there.
Larson: It’s beautiful. I mean there’s no doubt that it’s really.
Undestad: Is there, Josh is there, you back up to some townhomes and I noticed one of the
letters in here was from the neighboring association or something. Is there other, I mean is there
common areas out there in the townhomes or in that neighborhood that could be offset or
mitigated somehow with hard surface?
Metzer: We, you know we can’t do a hard surface easement. I don’t think we do that. I guess it
would have to come down to a sale of property to pick up land with the homeowners association.
Al-Jaff: Mission Hills has a totlot. That’s part of the homeowners association for Mission Hills.
Not part of.
Undestad: So there isn’t really any outlots or anything that they’d have an opportunity to buy a
piece of.
Al-Jaff: I can’t think of any.
Jennifer Hurt: To make up for extra land so it comes down our hard surface coverage.
Sacchet: And you said the contractor is not really willing to give anything back.
Jennifer Hurt: The contractor is willing to.
Sacchet: But he’s willing to help you at least not incur more costs.
Jennifer Hurt: Well he’ll take it out for us, you know.
Clint Hurt: He won’t be refunding anything.
Jennifer Hurt: He’s not going to be refunding any money to us and we’ve paid 90% of it.
Sacchet: I mean he did assure you that he would check and he’s.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, and he’s well aware of the fact that he did assure us of that.
Sacchet: You’d have to have some leverage there.
Jennifer Hurt: We do.
Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Alright.
Jennifer Hurt: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
7
Sacchet: This is a public hearing. I’d like to open that. If anybody wants to comment, please
come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say.
Vern Lindemann: Good evening. I’m Vern Lindemann. I’m the President of Mission Hills
Garden Homes Association. The commons property that abuts the property in question here, and
let me give you a little background here. I don’t know who’s planning was involved in this Sport
Court or whatever the situation was but there wasn’t a lot of thought given to the neighborhood
impact when that was put in. No one talked to any of us ahead of time as to what we would
think about it. The Sport Court is very, very close to two bedroom windows of two of our
townhomes. As a matter of fact one of the residents has since sold because she could not put up
with the noise of the banging, of tennis balls of the Sport Court. He echo’s up the hill. It is very
noisy. I live and I realize this isn’t a noise issue but it is an issue of planning. When they put in
that court, they were running cement trucks on our private streets. We are a townhome
association. We own all the streets. We own all the utilities in our association. Cement trucks
were running down our streets. I had to actually kick them out and tell them they had to use the
city streets because of the weight restriction on our streets. No one asked us about that. And
we’re kind of thinking this is one of those situations where some people think it’s better to ask
for forgiveness than permission. And I heard the folks before me say that all the neighbors are in
favor of it. That is absolutely not true. The two townhome owners that are closest to the court
are definitely not in favor of it. They talked to board members, myself included. We refused to
sign the petition. I brought it to the townhome board and I’d like to have you, I’d like to read a
letter from the townhome board to the city. I believe you have a copy of that. It has come to the
attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the property owners
recreational improvement at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota is in violation of
city codes. The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing the
residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain support for allowing a
variance to the city code. The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wish to make it a
matter of record with the City of Chanhassen planning department that the property bordering on
the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on the property owned by Mission Hills
Garden Homes Association. While the border in question is closest to 520 and 528 Mission Hills
Drive, it is the Board’s position that any request for variance should be addressed to the Mission
Hills Garden Homes Association and not to individual residents. It is also the position of the
Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the City of Chanhassen not allow the
property owner at 8491 Mission Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on
property at Mission Hills Garden Homes. I think the City, my personal view is, I think the City
of Chanhassen has done a phenomenal job in the planning and building of the community. I
think it would be a mistake to give a variance to deviations from code after the fact rather than
having somebody apply before they put it in. Now I don’t know who’s fault it was, the
contractor’s or the homeowners, okay. I as a homeowner know that if I put something in, if I’m
going to do some improvement to my property, common sense tells me that I check with the city
and make sure that the contractor, because I as a homeowner I believe have the ultimate
responsibility for adhering to codes. The contractor does not, okay. And so I just think it’s, we
run into this. Mission Hills Garden Homes, we’re a microcosm of the City of Chanhassen. Our
Board of Directors is like City Council and the whole thing. We run into this all the time.
Where somebody does something and then wants a variance or permission and we have found
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
8
that every time we do that we get bit in the back end down the line by somebody who’s, we have
a person right now that’s saying, if you don’t let me do what everybody else has done, I’m going
to sue you for discrimination. Okay. So when you back off from good codes and you allow
variances because of poor planning in advance, I think it is a mistake and I think the variance
should be denied.
Sacchet: I’ve got a question. The townhomes you’re talking about are directly adjacent to the
south?
Vern Lindemann: I’m sorry.
Sacchet: The townhomes you’re representing are directly to the south.
Vern Lindemann: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Just want to be clear.
Vern Lindemann: And our commons property abuts that property.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay.
Vern Lindemann: And the individual homeowners in Mission Hills Garden Homes do not have,
the individual homeowners do not have control of their property. As commons property and any
individual homeowner other than noise and nuisance or any other, really does not have unless
they come to our board and present their case. I don’t believe they have standing in suggesting a
variance on our property line.
Sacchet: Alright. I think you made yourself pretty understood. Thank you very much.
Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address
for the record. Let us know what you have to say.
Jane Zureich: Hi. My name is Jane Zureich and I live at 8490 Mission Hills Circle so I am Jen
and Clint’s next door neighbor and I am the property that will be directly affected by this
variance.
Sacchet: So you’re to the west?
Jane Zureich: I’m directly to the west. It’s a shared property line that the variance would be the
requested on. Once they fix the easement issue takes that back 8 feet off and are in compliance
with the 8 feet on the south side, it is the east side of their property line only that would be
requesting the variance. That is my property line. When we first moved into that property in
2002, as Jen and Clint mentioned, it was not, they had done nothing to the property. They had
brought the sod up not even to where their Sport Court starts now and it, when Clint says it was
weeds, in the summer it was waist high weeds. I could lose my 3 year old in the waist high
weeds. Jen and Clint immediately upon moving in, Clint mowed the lawn. I would say, I don’t
know, 100-200 mice came out of that property. So the fact that they have done this to this is an
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
9
immense improvement on that property from where it was before. You can’t even compare it to
where it was before. They could have I guess chosen to sod the land, but it’s an unusual property
in that it’s very deep. Both of our yards are very deep. Their’s is even deeper than our’s are, so
to have it sodded, yes that was probably an option but it’s a unique piece of property that really
lends itself very well to this Sport Court. I mean it really lends itself well to having something
there for you to use. So I’m kind of in, we absolutely, we’ve taken full advantage. They are
very, very open and welcoming with using the Sport Court. I mean we’ve used it quite a bit this
summer, along with a lot of our other neighbors. We have a 3 year old and a 5 year old and I’d
much rather see my 3 year old and 5 year old out in the back playing basketball, trying to play
basketball, than out in the street and things like that. I mean we do live in a cul-de-sac but we
have no sidewalks in the cul-de-sac. You know it’s gotten to the point where I send my kids,
because we don’t have sidewalks and I’m like, go play in the street and then I’m, what am I
saying? Telling the kids to go play in the street. Go play in their yard. Much better. So you
know to say, and the issue about asking about them to reduce it in size, I do think taking the back
8 feet off is going to be, that’s a manageable reduction in size. I do think if they have to cut it in
half, it’s really not going to be, they’re not going to be able to use it to the full effect. Or really
to that great of an effect. We’re the ones where the retaining wall right now butts up to our
property line. As soon as they remove that from there and then grade it so that it’s a slope, it’s
not going to even be, it’s going to be at least 4 or 5 feet away from our property line, which we
were even happy with the rock wall because as I said, anything was an improvement over what
was there before. I don’t feel, I agree that everything in a perfect world and everything would
have gone a, b, c, d and they would have had the variance beforehand and had all the permits that
they were supposed to have, that would have been obviously the optimal solution. I don’t feel
like you’re setting a precedence because as I mentioned, this is a unique piece of property. Who
else has the amount of space that they have to even put something like this on their property?
But even beyond that, even beyond because there are properties in Chan who do have that kind
of space. It is a unique property that I don’t feel that people are out there going, clamoring for
Sport Courts and this is going to set a unusual, awkward precedence. I think that if they have to
take it out, it’s going to make it a very, almost funny looking piece of, I’d rather have a full Sport
Court as my next door neighbor trying to sell my house, even to somebody who doesn’t have
kids, then I would to have a funny cut up thing. Right now it’s a beautiful Sport Court. I mean
as you see in the pictures, it’s beautiful. So it’s, do I think it’s going to affect my property value?
Absolutely not. Never. I don’t think it’s going to have any negative impact on my property.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Jane Zureich: Sure.
Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I’m closing the
public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion or comments. Kurt, you ready?
Papke: I’ll get the ball rolling. Couple points. First of all in terms of precedence setting. I
noticed that on our November 1st meeting we have two cases for hard surface coverage
variances, one of which is after the fact, so to have those two follow immediately on the heels of
this one I think is a tough spot. So I’m very sensitive to that precedent setting issue. I’m also
concerned with the environmental sensitivity to the area. This is very close to Lake Susan. Very
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
10
close to the creek and I think we have to be cautious of variance in environmentally sensitive
areas. The, my real concern is I think the applicants have come into this with the best of
intentions, and I’m starting to question whether our zoning compliance process that we put into
place, what was it 2 years ago? When, Sharmeen do you know when we started doing this?
Al-Jaff: It was about 2 years ago.
Papke: I’m questioning whether it’s working because you know we’re starting to get some
issues here that seem like people aren’t getting the message somehow properly. I don’t know if
it’s confusing people. People come in and say well do I need a building permit? No, you don’t
need a building permit so I think maybe they’re leaving saying well, I’m good to go. But there’s
this zoning compliance thing that we’re not, it was intended to catch exactly these situations and
it doesn’t so regardless of the outcome tonight, I think we need to take a serious look at that and
see, what can we do because I think they have the best of intentions it sounds like. A good
number of the neighbors are in support of this but because of all the issues, I’m not in favor of
approving this.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Jerry, you want to jump in?
McDonald: Yeah. First of all I did go out and I did check out the Sport Court and looked at it
and I have to admit that you’ve done quite a bit with your back yard. Yeah, it probably is a fun
place for kids to play and all of that. The problem we get into, you talk about precedence. If we
do this, there is another case within your same neighborhood that we turned down oh about 4-5
weeks ago and it was, it wasn’t a Sport Court but it was patios. So this will set a precedence and
it will set a precedence throughout the entire city. And before I came onto this I have to admit I
would have probably been more in favor of this because I am a person that believes in, it’s your
property. You should be able to do with it as you please. However what I have come to learn
over the past 6 months, and I’ll deviate a little bit. I got involved in, out in Woodbury a week
and a half ago. They had a serious flood out there and part of the problem was the City of
Woodbury. There were 3 systems that failed. The particular client that I ended up talking to
swamped out his basement all the way up to the top step. Total basement was wiped out. The
reason why was because of a non-compliance with zoning laws. A drainage ditch had been
covered up. Created a dam. Construction was going on. Debris flowed over into the main
culvert and it just continued to cascade from there. The people of Woodbury were going after
the City of Woodbury. They wanted a redress for all of this. They were blaming the city and the
city may or may not have some liability. That’s something that would be determined if we ended
up going to court. But the point of what that begins to show me is that it’s very important, these
zoning requirements are there for a reason. Especially whenever we talk about water, ponding,
drainage ditches, they’re all there. Everything is designed for a reason. Your back yard is
basically a bowl. If it were to flood, and I went out there and looked at it and tried to see where
the drainage patterns go and…it’s going to go right into her back yard. That’s going to go right
into her house.
Jane Zureich: Actually it’s been better since the Sport Court went in. We’ve had less of a wet
back yard since it went in than we did before. It changed, we actually have better drainage now.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
11
McDonald: Well that, I’ll agree with you to a point but the thing is, I’ve seen it happen and we
just haven’t had the kind of flooding that could occur, and once that happens, the first place
you’re going to come is you’re going to come after the City because why didn’t we enforce
something. Or you’re going to go after your neighbors and you’re going to want to sue them for
creating a problem. The point is, is that these are put there for a reason and it’s not so much to
impede upon your use of your property. Your property is just one of many pieces that connect to
form a subdivision or a group of homes where people live. What you do on your property can
affect others, 2, 3, 4 houses away. Sometimes blocks away so there is a reason for this. I do
share the concern that you’re the second one I’ve dealt with. Contractor said they were going to
take care of everything and nothing was done. I’m a little concerned that our zoning compliance
isn’t working. I share your concern there. Something should be done because to find these
things after the fact, we are now going to impose a great burden upon the homeowner. Not only
do you lose the benefit of what you thought you had, but you may incur additional costs in the
process of complying with the zoning codes. Is that fair to you? No. I’ll be the first one to say
it’s not. But unfortunately you are ultimately responsible for compliance with zoning codes.
Anything with the contractor is a separate issue. It’s not the City’s job to go after these
contractors. I mean based upon all of that and the fact that I feel very strongly about the issue of
precedence and also about the issue of water flow and drainage and ponding and all of this, I
cannot support this. What I would suggest is, and I know in the other case they have worked
with staff to try to come up with solutions. There are a number of things that you can do. We’re
not asking you to give up your driveway, but there are other things you can do to your driveway.
You can make it a porous surface. There are other things to do. It comes down to how bad do
you want the Sport Court and what are you willing to do to offset it. Any offset to keep the Sport
Court, my suggestion would be your contractor should pay for it. But that’s between you and
your contractor. I do believe that we have to enforce this hard coverage surface code and
because of that I could not support it.
Sacchet: Give it a shot?
Undestad: Just have a question. Again I agree with everything you’re saying here. The zoning
ordinances are put in place for this but just a question. What if 2 or 3 or 4 neighbors all wanted
to get together and put in a Sport Court in one location?
Al-Jaff: If they meet requirements.
Undestad: So it would still come down to that lot that.
Metzer: It has to be on one lot and has to meet side yard, rear yard setbacks. And they’d better
pick a neighbor that has the least amount of hard cover to begin with.
Undestad: That’s all I have.
Al-Jaff: Typically we see these type of sites with planned unit developments or as a townhome
or subdivision comes in. Ashling Meadows is a good example. They have a swimming pool.
They have, I think there is a Sport Court out there, so the developer plans it in advance.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
12
Undestad: One more. The boulder wall over in the west property line, that’s affecting the
drainage right now? That’s in that drainage easement? That’s why that boulder wall would
have to come out, is that it?
Metzer: This is the west property line here. Outlined in black.
Larson: Is that considered an improvement? In rocks.
Metzer: I’m not aware what the drainage was beforehand. Well I don’t know, apparently Dan
was okay with the removal of that lawn and berming.
Sacchet: I mean that does bring an interesting aspect. I mean the contractor having slipped with
the hard coverage is one thing but putting a retaining wall on the property line, I mean he didn’t
care a bit about any regulations. I mean everybody knows that we have setback requirements for
something we build. I mean something is definitely way off. Do you have anything else to add?
Larson: Yeah, I just, like I say it’s a lovely Sport Court but like Jerry had mentioned, these 20
year, or 100 year rain events that we’re getting, I’ve been in my home over 20 years. Never had
flooding and all of a sudden this year we’re having flooding and so your homes, your
neighborhood is quite a lot newer than where I live but who’s to say at some point this is going
to happen. You know where it’s all going to, I don’t know if it’s the settling or if it’s things fill
up or whatever but the environmental impact eventually may catch up to you. I personally
would like to see maybe if you can work with the city and see if you really want to keep this, you
know comply with what you said you would do on the Sport Court but then also see what else
you can maybe thin down your driveway or something and get it into that 25%. There are
options and maybe you can just look at some of those.
Jennifer Hurt: Okay so you’re saying though that if we take off, if we don’t take off in the back
but we take off in the front of it, that’s going to somehow affect the flooding issues? That
doesn’t make sense to me.
Larson: The whole purpose of having this coverage on your property is how much water will
actually go into the ground versus running off and going elsewhere and that’s where the issue
comes in and a lot of people don’t quite understand why that is but it really affects an entire
neighborhood. It affects the lakes, the ponds and everything. And so that’s why that
requirement is put in there because it’s really to protect you and to protect your neighbors.
Vern Lindemann: Could I make a comment here?
Sacchet: If it’s real brief because we’re really beyond comments here.
Vern Lindemann: Oh okay then. That’s okay. I was going to…drainage in the last heavy rain
we had, we had rivers running down into the drainage pond down there and a lot of the neighbors
rocks formed up…
Sacchet: Yeah, let’s keep the discussion up here at this point, if that’s alright.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
13
Larson: So that’s all I had.
Sacchet: You know it’s an interesting situation. On one hand I’d like to be the good guy but
that’s not our role here. As a Planning Commission, as I stated in my opening remarks, our task
is to look at to what extent do the issues that are brought before the city comply with ordinance
and regulations. And when it comes to variances, we have a very clear set of standards that we
are to apply. The first one is does it cause a hardship? And that’s not a very fluffy type of
definition of hardship. It’s very clearly defined in the city code that a hardship means if you
cannot use the property in the way that property’s in the surrounding 500 or so feet are being
used, which in this case is to have a single family residence with at least a 2 car garage and you
have that. The addition of Sport Court is not a hardship. Then we have to look at, is it
applicable to other properties? The precedence thing which we heard several commissioners
already express concern, and it is a very big concern because we’ve come across this hard
coverage situation on a regular basis. It comes up a couple times a year at least. And it’s hard
when it’s after the fact. It does set a precedent and from our position at the commission, our aim
has to be to treat everybody the same. If we give him one, then we have to give another two, and
as Kurt you pointed out, we’re going to have similar cases come in front of us within a few
weeks, so that has to have some weight. Does another aspect that we have to look at, does it
increase the property value? Now obviously you didn’t do it for that purpose but the fact is it
does increase it. It’s a nice amenity to have. And then a very important thing that we also have
to look at is it self created. Is it self created? And that’s really a sticky thing because if we do
something and we don’t know the consequences, does that mean it’s not self created? You know
it’s a little bit like if we don’t know that the red light at the light on the street means we have to
stop and we go across and we get hit, it doesn’t mean we didn’t self create it, and that’s tricky. I
mean not knowing about something doesn’t take that out, that it’s self created. And then another
aspect, is it detrimental to public welfare? And as the discussion as we just had about the
impervious limitation is very directly linked with the public welfare, so if you look at these
things, then the last point that we have to look out is does it impair adequate light and the
adjacent properties, which it doesn’t. But if we look at this list of criteria that by ordinance
we’re supposed to look at, you’re really only coming out alright on one of them, and all the
others ones you come at best questionable. Or not good at all so if we go by the letter of the law,
we really don’t have a choice. We have to deny this. However, I do want to point out that you
can bring this in front of City Council and City Council does have the leeway to go beyond just
the letter of the law. In this group here we have a little bit of leeway but not quite that much. So
that is a little bit another aspect here to look at. Let me see whether I have something else there.
I would be willing to support the side yard setback variance based on the immediately neighbor
not having an issue with it, and that does not quite have the same weight. But with impervious, I
really feel very clear that I cannot support that. However, you have options to work around that.
You could reduce the impervious surface in your driveway. Maybe you could do something with
your walkways or patio type of things. Not get rid of them but make them permeable. I mean
there are ways to do it so I think there are alternatives that you could explore that you find a
balance and also we do have to also acknowledge the neighborhood association making a pretty
strong point that not everybody is in support of it. As a matter of fact there have been some
people that have an issue with the noise level, which I can understand. I mean you have kids.
You like to hear them out there having fun and there’s somebody in the condo next door that
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
14
their kids are grown or never had kids or what and they want the quiet. So you know, it’s just
life in the neighborhood. But I think I talked enough. If anybody wants to add anything further
or we can make a motion.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a
4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction
and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single
Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following. Number 1. The
applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use
of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient
impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.
McDonald: I second Mr. Chairman.
Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32
for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage
restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot
zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to
comply with ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: And I do want to encourage you to bring this to City Council. In addition I would
encourage you to before you go to City Council, explore what options do you have that you
could mitigate the impervious surface, particularly further and then you’ll see where you get with
that.
Clint Hurt: I have a question.
Sacchet: Yes.
Clint Hurt: Taking care of that variance in the back, that 8 foot setback, does that take the
townhouses really out of the process situation?
Sacchet: No it doesn’t. I’m not really an expert to answer that but.
Clint Hurt: I’m just asking the question because there is no, we’re not, it’s not about the noise
ordinance. It’s not…the amount of people on the yard at a certain time so…complain about after
that?
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
15
Jennifer Hurt: Even if we cut the sport court in half it’s still going to be a sport court…
Sacchet: Yeah, I would have to refer, I mean you’d have to take up discussion like that with
staff. I mean we’re not in a position here to counsel you on that. It’s, I mean as you well know
with complaining, everybody’s allowed to complain and that’s the purpose of the public hearing
so that everybody can come and make their statement and we try to listen to everybody to the
best of our abilities to try to make everybody happy. But that’s only possible to a certain extent,
and I would encourage you to discuss this further with staff as to how can you reduce the
infringement or maybe eliminate it ideally and if there’s some type of variance you need, you
can appeal our decision to City Council. Or alternatively if the situation gets enough changed,
you may want to start a new variance process, but that’s something you have to discuss with
staff. I mean that’s where you have to go with that, okay? Wish you luck.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SPALON MONTAGE TO PLACE
A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE OF THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 600 MARKET STREET, APPLICANT KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY
COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-33.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cindy McDonald Kraus-Anderson Realty
Mitchell Wherley 600 Market Street
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead.
McDonald: I have some questions for you. Okay, currently Americana Bank has got a gable
sign and I read in here that the developer did that in the beginning. That was part of the
negotiations. As far as building the building. Is that correct?
Metzer: That’s correct. If you were to zoom in right here. This is on page, well it’s one of the
attachments to the report.
McDonald: Well the question I’ve got then, why wouldn’t we allow signage in the gables? Was
the plan from the beginning that there would be signage there and we gave in for some reason
when the developer first came through?
Metzer: Well I guess we consider this a change to what was approved. If you notice on the
north elevation, actually you can see it on the west or the north elevation, there was no provision
for a sign on the second level. Only on the south elevation with the bank. I guess it was felt to
go outside of that would be over stepping our authority.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
16
McDonald: Well when the office building was first built, what was the intent on the second floor
then? What was going to be going up there? That wouldn’t require signage.
Metzer: I don’t believe it was known as any specific tenants. I believe it was thought that all
tenants would have, whether it’s first level or second level, would have signage on the first level
sign band.
McDonald: Okay, so the original intent was the first level was always pretty much going to be
retail space and the feeling was that that second level space there would be sufficient for signage.
We wouldn’t have to elevate things up and have a signage kind of in a big see saw pattern going
across the building. That there would be some uniformity. Was that the intent I guess to try to
control that a little bit?
Metzer: As far as I know, yes.
McDonald: Okay. And I’ll save the other questions for the applicant. I’m done.
Papke: Couple questions. This is the same building that we denied the sign variance for
Americana a couple weeks ago?
Metzer: On the north elevation canopy, yes.
Papke: Okay. What are the alternatives for Spalon Montage? Where else could they put a sign?
Could they put one in the sign band on the first floor? Next to the Bebi, however that’s
pronounced.
Metzer: It’s actually pronounced Bebi, but yeah.
Papke: Bebi, okay. So it could be on the first floor, over the door or over the window to the
right of the door?
Metzer: Right, yes.
Papke: And those spaces are available. So they actually have a viable Plan B if this is denied?
Metzer: As far as the city’s concerned, yes.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: Debbie.
Larson: Well, maybe I read this wrong but I thought that it said in here, and I’m not finding it at
the moment, that the sign wouldn’t be really where they’re renting their space.
Metzer: Well it’s, go ahead.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
17
Larson: Well it just seems to me like that was very poor planning for the second story of this
building and the signage. I mean from the get go, if they’re going to rent out, they’re going to
build a second story that would accommodate a salon, a lovely salon might I add, I think they
should be able to have some decent signage for this. Signage. If they’re just required to have a
little sign downstairs and the property isn’t even down there, I think that’s very detrimental to
their business and I think that would be considered quite a huge hardship because it sounds like
they’re going to have quite a large rental space in there, and I guess you know if you’re going to
allow the gable sign on the other end, why won’t you allow it? The difference of why we denied
the Americana is because they had 3 signs already and that was going to be an additional one.
But this is, this is like their major sign for the business so people know they’re there and I guess
I’m at a loss why, how did it get this far?
Metzer: …staff did not feel they had the authority to allow signage up there so at that point…
Larson: I think as a business, I’d be angry if I couldn’t put a sign up.
Papke: I’m getting confused now because on page 7 of staff report, when I asked before could
they put it up on that sign band, it says Spalon Montage cannot locate their wall sign on the first
level sign band because of city code.
Metzer: Directly above the common entry.
Papke: So their only option is in the sign band area right where it says area? Is that their only
option?
Metzer: Right. Well I mean it’s not, you know. Anywhere on the sign band other than directly
above that main entry.
Papke: But it sounds like the Bebi store is the one on the left. They’re going to take the spot on
the left, yes? I’m trying to understand what the plan is here.
Sacchet: There’s a couple plans is the problem.
Papke: Yeah. Because it says on page 6, future Bebi wall sign and the arrows points to the left
panel of the sign band. They can’t put it over the center one so that only allows the panel to the
right side of the sign band and is there going to be a business that’s going to go in on the right
side of the door?
Metzer: No, that whole area right here is Bebi. This whole first level.
Sacchet: So technically they would get those three signage spaces?
Metzer: The place where this marks the X is where they cannot place the sign because it’s
common entrance for.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
18
McDonald: Okay, could I ask a question because I’m confused too, and maybe you answered it.
My approach was to the left of that X, couldn’t they put their sign there? Right there.
Larson: Which page are you looking at?
Sacchet: It’s page 6 Debbie.
McDonald: Okay, so that space would be available?
Metzer: Right.
McDonald: Okay. Now the other thing too when I went out there today, all 3 of those panels
again to the left are going to be taken by Bebi? Or why do they need 3?
Metzer: No, they have one panel.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other 2 panels there would also be available.
Metzer: Right, except the one in the middle directly above Bebi’s main entrance. The one to the
right of it, certainly another option.
McDonald: Okay.
Sacchet: So really if the Bebi guys would have 2 to the left, Spalon could have the next 2.
Metzer: Sure.
Sacchet: I mean that’s an alternative.
Papke: The one to the left and the right of the common.
Sacchet: Yes, two in the corner. Is that a corner there? So they would be to the right of the
entrance. And I don’t know whether that, I think…right of that entrance too. We can ask the
applicant.
McDonald: Well when you drive up there and you park, you’re parking over in the right. You
get out. You come down and you see that sign. That side to the left of where your X is at
anyway. There is no parking in front. So the signs lined up toward where people would park
anyway. That directs them into the common entrance and from there you’ve got signage. Tells
you to go upstairs. Of course at that point you could find it no problem. But okay. So there are
alternatives.
Larson: I’ve got one more.
Sacchet: Yeah, you’re still alright.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
19
Larson: Look at the amount of space they’re renting, come on.
Sacchet: It’s huge.
Larson: I know. And they get one little sign at the bottom? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Sacchet: Well they do go all the way across actually.
Undestad: I think something else you need to consider too though is Bebi, or whatever you say
move out and then all of a sudden you get 2 or 3 tenants taking up their 1 spot, and they don’t get
a sign down there on the lower level where they’re at so.
Larson: I don’t know, it makes sense to me to have it right by.
Metzer: I really don’t know how much extra space there would be in Bebi’s space because on
the opposite elevation, where I’m pointing, this is the east elevation directly on the west side
which would be right here. That’s Bebi on this other east elevation. That’s a totally separate
tenant space.
Sacchet: There’s going to be different ones there. Do we know how far down Spalon Montage
is going to go? If you don’t know we can ask.
Metzer: It’s the entire second level on that wing.
Sacchet: But how far, how far to, I guess that would be to the west. I mean I understand it’s the
whole width of the building.
Undestad: I think they come down to that next peak.
Metzer: My understanding it’s just this area here.
Cindy McDonald: It starts at the back end and it’s that whole east side and then it goes to the
other side. It’s almost 8,000 square feet. They’ve got the majority of that second level.
Metzer: To about here, was that correct?
Larson: Women will find this place, trust me.
Sacchet: So that would be somewhat consistent with this alternative. Alright, we’re still there.
Mark, did you want to add anything from your end more? We’re actually in questions. Just to
be clear, we’re not commenting yet. We’re still asking questions from staff as a matter of fact.
Undestad: Is, I mean the upstairs, the upper level, is that all, do you know if that’s all leased out
now?
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
20
Metzer: No. Americana occupies a portion on the west end, and then Spalon on the east. The
area in the middle there’s a potential for 5 separate units. Whether or not 1 or 2 come in there
and take up the entire area, I don’t know yet.
Undestad: So those in the middle then, that small little gable peak in the middle, I think where
Spalon ends, maybe between there and Americana you can get, you’re saying it might be 3 or 4
tenants…
Metzer: As many as 5.
Sacchet: So that would be to the right of the main entrance there.
Undestad: I mean if you look at that, that area there could be as many as 5 upstairs and who’s
downstairs and then you have 3.
McDonald: Actually right now on the south end of that it is occupied by Metz Law Firm. So
they have most of that all the way down to the Americana.
Undestad: On the bottom floor?
McDonald: No, on the top floor. On the south side of the building down here and it’s the north
end that’s totally open at this point.
Sacchet: Interesting. Now, yeah I mean, I’m struggling with the same thing that keeps coming
out. I mean was this just not thought of? I guess that’s an applicant question. Not a Montage
question but the people that thought how these people would be in there. Let’s bring up the
applicant. Let’s hear from you guys.
Cindy McDonald: Cindy McDonald, Kraus-Anderson Realty, 4210 West Old Shakopee Road,
Bloomington, 55437.
Mitchell Wherley: Mitchell Wherley, President of Spalon Montage and I office in our current
Chanhassen location. I have no idea what the address is. Moving 600 Market Street.
Cindy McDonald: To answer a couple of the questions that were brought up. The Market Street
Station was thought of to be retail on the first level with office on the second level. Then we
came upon a great opportunity to relocate Spalon to our property, which is great for our property.
Great for all the tenants and to draw traffic to that building. There is Americana signage on the
second level, the gabled area. I wish we would have thought of Spalon, that they would be at the
second level so we could have put that on the original plan but we didn’t know that then. We’ve
asked for this amendment so we can accommodate their needs, so people can see them when
they come in and I know the signage criteria is strict but I’m pretty picky. All the tenants have to
send their signage criteria to us first to take a look at it. We usually kick it back a few times to
make sure it’s going to look right for the building, and when we asked for this amendment, we
have no intentions of putting any additional signage on the second level. You know were it not
for Spalon, we wouldn’t be putting signage up there but they are retail tenants. They do need
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
21
that signage so people can come in and see them. So we will give you whatever assurance or, in
writing you’re looking for. There will be no more signs on the gabled areas. We want the
building to look attractive as well.
Sacchet: Let me just clarify because I think it’s an important point. You’re saying since
originally it was viewed more office space, you don’t have the same signing need.
Cindy McDonald: No. We told all the office tenants too that have looked, that there is no
signage on the second level.
Sacchet: Okay. So how do we know who’s up there? I mean it’s kind of you have to know
because you’re going there or for the offices.
Cindy McDonald: Oh, there’s a directory inside and there’s a monument sign.
Sacchet: There is a monument sign, that’s what I wanted to know.
Cindy McDonald: They’re for the office tenants, so that’s kind of you know, and one of the first
questions is we want signage. We want signage…monument sign. The Americana doesn’t get it
because you know as you said, they have 2 great permanent signs and people see them when
they’re coming in. And yeah, Chadwick and Americana are there now and Spalon is under
construction and we have 3 other tenants that are looking at the space, all office tenants.
Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you want to add from your end?
Mitchell Wherley: I think from the beginning working on this project signage was an issue for
me as a retail business in general and so we look at what’s been proposed as sort of the most
minimum signage we would need. When we were looking at sort of the rotunda area that is the
entrance to the office facility, I believe you were suggesting a portion that is actually common
area, so the only other option, that I think Josh pointed out, was to the right would be, we’re
concerned going in. We are a destination so that helps but our being able to identify where we’re
at is hugely important to us. We’ve always been concerned about how to portray that message
and we just feel that it’s critical that it’s upstairs so that you know we’re not letting the neon
arrows pointing so…
Cindy McDonald: You know the sign that they’re proposing, they worked very hard in putting it
together. It’s a very, it’s a very tasteful sign. It looks very nice with the building. To put it on
the first level I think would be confusing because it’s going to be right over the retail locations
and this really does designate where they are in the project. They’re estimating to bring in 400
customers on average per day to this building so again this signage is very key to them. And to
us.
Sacchet: Any questions? Let’s start with Debbie this time.
Larson: Is it a lit sign?
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
22
Cindy McDonald: It is.
Larson: Okay, that’s all.
Sacchet: Jerry.
McDonald: Okay. I have a number of questions for you. First of all if we put the sign in the
gable and we go back to the picture that you just, yeah that picture right there that you just put
up. It appears to me like it looks like, as you come in that door that’s almost directly below it.
So while it does give you some visibility, I’m not sure that it takes care of the problem of how do
I get there. The other question I’ve got is, what harm would it do to go into that second level to
the left of the main entrance because again in the parking lot, as people go in, you get out of your
car, that’s the direction you’re facing and it sends you into the common door, and as I said once
you get in there, you know where you’re at.
Mitchell Wherley: I couldn’t agree with you more. The challenge is, you’re looking at about a
section that wide facing a hotel room that I don’t think there’s a ton of visibility right there. I
think that’s a really challenging, you know it would be sort of in the shadow facing the wrong
way. If we could have it, the best world for us we’d put it above the office entrance. I mean
there’s no question I’d love to drive the traffic in that door but I know it doesn’t work for the
landlord. It just, it’s not fair to the other tenants. They walk in our signage. I just think that this
section, this right here is pointing to the direction that.
McDonald: But that’s out toward the parking lot where everybody’s going to be parking and as
they come in they’re going to see that first.
Mitchell Wherley: There is, the majority of the parking for this particular project is out in front
here.
McDonald: But then in that case it doesn’t make any difference where you put the sign then
because now you have nothing on that, on the south end to point you towards you building. I
understand your frustration and everything but let me ask you another question. What are the
alternatives in your view? If we were to deny the signage on the gable, have you looked at any
other alternatives?
Mitchell Wherley: This was a deal breaker for us. We’re way beyond, I mean we’re, and I
apologize for I guess I’m after the fact as well but signage was an issue going into this project..
We’re a million dollars in reconstruction and I don’t see another option for us.
McDonald: Well let me go back to their real estate company.
Larson: I have a question too.
Cindy McDonald: You know when you’re coming in off Market Boulevard where the sign is
proposed, you’ll see it and that’s how you’re going to get the customer into that parking lot and
if it was on that other spot, that’s really part of the three door common area entry way to the
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
23
office. Once they see that sign, they’re going to park in the parking lot. They’re going to go in
those 3 doors because we feel that it’s pretty prominently marked that that’s the entrance to get
in. Once they get in, there’s a directory internally to the right that will say Spalon Montage,
Suite 270. So the stairs are right there. It takes them right up there.
McDonald: Okay, well you realize you’re making the same argument the bank tried to make to
us about the gable sign down at the other end as far as pointing people to the bank and it didn’t
quite fall on the receptive ears.
Cindy McDonald: Yeah but they have adequate signage where people can see them from two
directions. We’re asking for you know a prominent spot for Spalon so people can see where they
are and get to them.
McDonald: Well that is a mitigating factor and that’s why I’m trying to get at, okay what are the
alternatives and are they going to be viable but what I wanted to come back to you about was,
when the building was put up and you went and you got a gabled sign for Americana, why
Americana and why not try to do something so that the rest of the building at some point could
have the gabled signs. I don’t understand the deal that was, you know what was the
understanding there? You know the problem that I understand the city, we’re trying to get things
architecturally so that they don’t look like retail spaces and gawdy and you know lots of lights
and all of this kind of stuff. It should be kind of understated and the building seems to fit that the
way it is but just explain to me a little bit about how the gable signs got down at the Americana
end.
Cindy McDonald: You know when, I can’t, the developer unfortunately is not here but when
they had the vision of putting the building together they thought you know a bank would work.
Again they weren’t planning on any office tenants for the second level and in keeping with the
look of the building, we wanted to limit the signage to have a nice ambience to the property but
yet identify the tenants. So we didn’t want to add all this signage up and down. So yes, it was
put in that one gabled area. If we could go back it would be put in you know a couple areas for
that flexibility. But we really feel it’s important for the Spalon in this location.
McDonald: You know as we said, one of the things we try to do is treat everybody equally.
What’s going to happen if you rent out, you’re right now at 8,000 square feet roughly? What
happens if they rent out 10,000 square feet? Are you going to come back and say you know we
need something over at this gable because this is a big client? I mean where does it stop? It
looks as though when the original development was put together everything was thought out as
to how this was going to operate. I’m having trouble coming up with a reason of why should we
deviate from what we have originally put in place here.
Cindy McDonald: Well besides the fact that Mitchell has told me he’s going to stay forever at
the property, you know this is.
Larson: That’s what he told the last tenant.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
24
Cindy McDonald: I know. If they left they would probably be replaced with an office tenant
thereby no signage. So we are asking not for a sign in that particular gabled area. We are asking
for the Spalon sign in that gabled area. And again any assurances that we can give you in writing
or what not, if we have to say that if Spalon vacates there’s no sign in that gabled area, we are
more than willing to do that.
Undestad: The intent was the office space upstairs.
Cindy McDonald: Right.
Undestad: The bank…signs over the bank. You didn’t want any other gable signage because
you were renting out to office tenants. Now you have a retail tenant in there.
Cindy McDonald: A fabulous one.
Undestad: Obviously I mean retail survives off of signage.
Cindy McDonald: Correct. And you know also the entry area works with the retailers. It’s open
and people, you know they’re counting on Spalon being there and that synergy between
customers coming in and going up there and going down to CPA’s and.
Undestad: How many square feet do you have left upstairs for lease?
Cindy McDonald: We have, it’s about a little less than 10.
Undestad: And do you have people looking in those now?
Cindy McDonald: Yes, office tenants. Accounts primarily. There’s a lot of accountants have
come forward lately.
Undestad: Got to stay close to the money.
Cindy McDonald: I know. So we’re trying to wrap up those deals as well but they all know
there’s no signage.
McDonald: Okay. What other alternatives are there for signs out front on Market Street? I
noticed that there’s a memorial sign that goes there. What kind of play would Spalon Montage
get on that?
Cindy McDonald: They will get a panel.
McDonald: Just a panel.
Cindy McDonald: Just a panel.
McDonald: Okay. I have no more questions.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
25
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? No? Not at this point, no. Thank you very
much.
Cindy McDonald: Thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing. So I open the public hearing and since there’s nobody
here to stand up I close the public hearing. And we had a public hearing and bring it back to
commission here for discussion and comments about this. And I do like to point out a comment
first in this particular case. I like to point out what in the findings of fact it states that, actually
the staff report. The findings of fact which I think is kind of fulcrum what we’re asked to look at
as a commission. We’re asked to look at the creation of the functional and harmonious design
for structures and site features with special attention to the following. The proposed amendment
does not, and that’s the finding, does not create an internal sense of order for the buildings and
uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community because the proposed sign is located outside of the first level sign band. Now I have
a definite comment to make about that but I just want to point this out before I make a comment,
and then I want to hear from you a little more. Any, I mean we already had some discussion so
far.
Papke: I’ll start. Oddly enough I find myself in support of this one. This is different than
Americana. Americana, and correct me if my memory of this is wrong but I thought one of the
sticking points for that one was, that was a sign on a canopy which was against city code.
Sacchet: It already had 3 or 4.
Papke: And they already had 3 or 4. This is not a sign on a canopy so we are not, this is not
asking for a variance from a safety perspective or something of that nature. Americana clearly
had tons of signage there. There was no question that they had plenty of visibility. This one,
boy if I was the applicant, I would want something other than a tiny little sign on the sign panel
there and the fact that the occupy such a huge piece of that second floor. I think this is a
reasonable request. It does not, if we were looking at, if the planning department and they could
say I’m all wet here. If they were planning this building right now and Spalon Montage said we
want this whole corner of the building on the second floor and we want a sign on the gable just
like Americana Bank, I suspect we wouldn’t be here tonight. Okay, this would have been in the
design from day one. So I think this is clearly in the best interest of the city and the applicant so
I support this one.
Sacchet: Who wants to go next? Jerry.
McDonald: I’ll go. We’ll go down the line. Okay, I’m having a lot of trouble with this one.
You know I supported the Americana sign because of advertising and I felt that on that elevation
they had a problem. Evidently that you didn’t care but I guess I can kind of understand why
we’re trying to have consistency. We’ve now fallen back to where, okay if we put one in here,
who’s to say next month another tenant that’s fairly big comes down and wants one on the other
and we’re faced with it. So does this come down to how much square footage you take up is the
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
26
way we end up voting? Shouldn’t be that way. I’m a little concerned that in the beginning you
know some of this wasn’t looked at. That down the road maybe I’ll get somebody big on the
other side because at that point this was totally open. This was not divided space. You know all
of this was set up for you know, we’ll sell to whoever comes. We’ll custom build it. Put the
walls up where you want it so there’s a little bit of short sightedness there and it’s, did they only
do the deal down at the other end just to get the bank? So I’m having a lot of problems with this.
I understand that Spalon Montage needs signage. You’ve got, you know fairly decent signage
where you’re at now. It points to where the location is. Because of the size of it, yeah I lean
towards well maybe you ought to get a little bit bigger sign than what Bebi gets. You are
different. So I’m really having a problem deciding which way to go on this but you know, I did
go to the site today. I looked at it. I do think that some of the alternatives provide you with the
signage needed because even back in that corner people have to know where you’re at anyway
because they can’t see you from the road so this has no effect on Market Boulevard. It has no
effect on anybody driving down West 78th Street. They can’t see it from there. So it’s not to me
the same as what the bank was trying to do was to get visibility on 78th Street. Even if you put it
up in the gable they’re not going to see it on 78th Street. That’s why I asked the questions about
the parking lot and where people are going to park. You tell me everybody’s going to be out on
kind of the south side. There’s no signs there. There’s nothing there to point you to where
Spalon Montage is going to be. How they going to find it? Are they going to have to walk all
the way around the building? So even if you do that then all the parking over there on that side,
once you get out of your car and you start walking toward the entrance, you see that side panel. I
mean it jumps out at you so that’s where I come back and say, no we ought to stay within the
guidelines because really we’re not buying anything and all we’re doing is we’re going against
what evidently the agreement was. What we’re trying to achieve you know with this property as
far as it’s an architectural look. I’m still undecided. No matter what I say it’s, and I don’t know
which way I’m going to vote at this point. I’ll wait and listen to everybody else but I probably
am leaning against it but I could be swayed.
Sacchet: Who wants to go first here? Mark.
Undestad: Well I think the comments about agreements and what was agreed to, what was not
agreed to. I think the space was built out or was originally designed for an office use, which they
don’t need that type of signage. Circumstances change. Tenants come in. Spalon Montage has
been in Chanhassen. They’re a nice tenant in the neighborhood. They’re a retail tenant. They
need that visibility. Whether it brings you right to their front door, or to their building, it’s more
signage that’s going to tell people, here we are. Once you get there, they’ll find them. I think in
the future you know their comments are, you know what if somebody comes in and takes your
other 10,000 square feet you know or it sounds like you’re talking office users that are going to
be in there but I think even at that, again from the beginning they had anticipated office space out
there. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get a tenant on the opposite side of the building that comes
in and might be retail. May need some signage on the canopy on that side. I don’t think the
building is designed and set up so that we’ve got just one after another after another where
they’re going to be annoying. Too many lights. Too many signs. Too much stuff going on. So
I think just the fact that from the retail standpoint and what’s going on upstairs, I guess I would
support it. I’m in favor of putting the signage up there.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
27
Sacchet: Debbie.
Larson: Ditto. The way I see it too, I mean you’ve got 8,000 square feet. That’s considered,
what I would consider anyway an anchor store. You need signage and to have just a small panel
is just, I think it was just poor planning, you know. You didn’t necessarily have the foresight to
think that somebody was going to go take it. I think it’s wonderful that they have because you
know as Mark pointed out, they’re a nice tenant to have in Chanhassen and I’d like to have them
stay. The sign they’ve designed is tasteful and I hope if somebody else were to go in and take
the other 10,000 square feet we’d reconsider for them too. To have a tasteful sign and I would
probably support that one also so my stance is, I would certainly support it. I don’t think it’s a
big deal.
Sacchet: Well I don’t know whether I have too much to add. I mean I want to go back to this
statement in the findings and that our responsibility is to create a functional, harmonious design
of the structures, the site features in compliance with the city guidelines, and then the findings
say the proposed amendment does not create an internal sense of order. Well as a matter of fact I
think it creates a sense of internal order. As a matter of fact without the sign of a major retail
tenant I think we create disorder. I think putting that sign there does create order and it creates a
desirable environment. That’s another thing we have to look at. Does it create, I can’t see why
we would say this does not create a desirable environment. I mean this is Market Square. This
is, there is no residential anywhere surrounding. I mean if you want to put up a sign in the city
of Chanhassen, let’s put it up in Market Square. That’s kind of where I’m coming from. That’s
the use of that. That’s the desirability of that spot. That’s why we have that part of town that we
call downtown and we want to denote, that we want to have business and I think that in this
sense we have to adjust a little bit our criteria. Desirable in this sense. It’s slightly different
desiring in the sense is to have visibility to make the business prosper. To have good business
want to be there. To have this place be successful as a whole combination of businesses. And
then desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community. Well, desirable for
the occupants and visitors is that they know where to go. That people can see where it is so I
really think that we would be cutting ourselves short by getting hung up over it was only the first
band in the first place. Well, there’s the Bebi store downstairs to put a sign up in the same
magnitude of Bebi store, I don’t think is fair. That’s not supporting the business and I think as a
community, as a city we have the responsibility to support the businesses in this town to prosper.
So that’s where I stand with that one so I’m definitely in favor of this. I do think, as Kurt you
pointed out, this is very different from what we looked at with Americana Bank. Americana
Bank has I think 4 signs or 3 signs and a monument sign. And we ask them well, do you want to
give up one of those and you can have the other one. And they decided well, I don’t really want
to do that so then we denied it because we didn’t want an additional one. They already had
plenty signs. Spalon doesn’t have really any viable signage as it is, to put like those two panels
and then I find that would actually be confusing. Maybe the one panel on the left part of the
door could be also small Spalon sign that kind of leads people to the door, and then the big one
would be that makes people know there it is. That’s what I would do personally, and I think that
is within the framework that we’re working with. Basically I do not agree with the finding of
staff that this particular proposal does not create an internal sense of order and desirability. I
think it’s the opposite. I think putting that there does create an internal sense of order for that
type of a building. For that type of setting. That type of use and it definitely creates a desirable
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
28
environment for the business, for the visitors and for the community. That’s my position on that.
Unless there’s more discussion or comments I’d like to have a motion.
Larson: Okay, where is it?
Sacchet: It’s on page 8.
Larson: What do I read?
McDonald: You want the second paragraph Debbie.
Larson: Read this?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Larson: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve Site Plan Amendment
#05-33 to place an illuminated sign on the second level of Market Street Station outside of the
approved first floor sign band based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following
conditions.
Sacchet: 1 through 3.
Larson: 1 through 3.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Undestad: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion and a second.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends City
Council approve Site Plan Amendment #05-33 to place an illuminated sign on the second
level of Market Street Station outside of the approved first floor sign band based on the
findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit engineered drawings showing how the sign will be
constructed before a sign permit will be issued.
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
3. All signage must meet ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 2005 as presented.
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
29
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m..
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
NOVEMBER 1, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie
Larson, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE, MIKE & CINDY KOENIG,
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-34.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Larson questioned the timing
of the request. Commissioner Keefe asked about options for reaching the 25% hard surface
coverage. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification of remarks made in the letter submitted by
the applicant. The applicant, Cindy Koenig had no further comments to add. Chairman Sacchet
opened the public hearing. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked for clarification of the
administrative approval process for shifting lot lines. Chairman Sacchet closed the public
hearing. After discussion the following motion was made.
Zorn moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34
for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface
coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single
Family Residential (RSF), based upon the findings in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to:
1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 2005 as presented.
Planning Commission Summary – November 1, 2005
2
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m..
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 1, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie
Larson, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE, MIKE & CINDY KOENIG,
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-34.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Josh. Any questions from staff?
Larson: Yes.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Debbie.
Larson: How come this just got noticed now? Was there never a survey ever, ever done?
Metzer: Not that we received until the home was ready to be sold. And there was an inquiry as
to permits for an issue.
Undestad: Now that they purchased land on both sides, is the permit sign all squared away do
you know?
Generous: They still need the variance.
Metzer: For the hard surface. It was originally a hard cover and two side yard setback variances.
They’ve eliminated the side yard setback variances and it’s now just a hard cover variance.
Larson: Are they, mention to you how they could possibly get rid of the, is it 500 square feet?
Metzer: About 120. It would probably be removal of.
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
2
Larson: Sidewalk?
Metzer: Little bit of patio and sidewalk.
Sacchet: So it could be done. Reasonably. With like putting pervious sidewalk instead of
concrete sidewalk around, something like that. Any other questions? Jerry.
McDonald: I have one question about the, do we have a recommended list of what you can
substitute for hard cover area that would be acceptable that they could put down?
Metzer: Yeah, there’s you know landscaping mulch or rock. As long as they have a fabric liner
that water can percolate through. Of course sod is ideal. But, paver. Pervious pavers are not
considered by our code to be pervious by any percentage due to the compacting of ground
underneath in order for the pavers to be placed.
McDonald: But all these are items that can be gotten from you as staff as to suggestions for.
Metzer: Right.
McDonald: And then you said one other thing that I didn’t remember reading about. You said
that this came about, it was triggered by a sale of the home?
Metzer: Right. Expectant buyers of this property came to the city and were interested in
knowing a little bit of the history, whether or not permits were pulled for everything.
McDonald: Oh okay. So the current owners are the ones that made the improvements without
the building permit?
Metzer: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. No more questions.
Sacchet: Kurt you have a question?
Papke: Yeah. Could you explain a little bit about the September 4th storm event and what
actually happened there and maybe a little bit of color as to how the hard surface coverage might
impinge on that.
Metzer: That was actually a recommendation of engineering. I know Cindy has a little bit of the
background on that. She discussed that with me. I am not aware of it and unfortunately no one
from engineering is here tonight.
Papke: Okay. So what’s in the report is what we know here tonight?
Metzer: Right, and maybe Cindy can add a little bit more. She’s been in the neighborhood for
quite a while.
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
3
Keefe: I’ve got one more question. Just to zero in on the numbers just a little bit. The amount
of square footage that it would take to get to 25% is what exactly?
Metzer: 520.25.
Keefe: 520.25 and then it looks like the patio, sidewalk and stoop per the calculations in the
report is total 674, is that still an accurate number?
Metzer: Pretty close. It’s somewhere in there.
Keefe: Okay so, in order to get to the 25 but we’re talking some combination of something out
of the driveway potentially and/or.
Metzer: The driveway’s pretty much been reduced I would say to the max that we would expect
them to remove. …and sidewalk are probably the best options.
Keefe: Okay. And from your perspective in looking at it, do you think it’s achievable?
Metzer: Yeah, it could be done.
Keefe: And the stoop portion is just what? Where it comes out of the house or.
Metzer: Right, it’s like a step.
Keefe: And that portion is pretty small I presume.
Metzer: Right you know and I would think removal of the sidewalk wrapping around the garage
would probably be the number one alternative. I’m not exactly sure of the exact amount of
square feet that would be but probably a little bit additional removal from the patio in the back.
There are some pavers in the front off the front of the house there also.
Sacchet: So really for them to be fully compliant they would have to get rid of pretty much all
their.
Metzer: Patio and sidewalks.
Sacchet: Patio. That means the whole hard cover surface there in that little courtyard type of
shape.
Metzer: Majority of it.
Sacchet: Majority of that.
Zorn: Josh, can I ask you a question? Has that been recommended to the property owners as of
yet?
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
4
Metzer: Yes, but they’ve, they have removed quite a bit to this point. They’re just not quite
there yet.
Sacchet: Any other questions? One more question. In the letter from the applicant, you make a
point that in fall of 2002, which is not that long ago, they did the addition of the garage and they
referred to a young man with blond hair that, according to the letter more than once, more than
one occasion stated the setback was 5 feet. Now we’re not to try to point finger at anybody. Do
we have any idea who the young man with the blond hair is?
Metzer: I wouldn’t. I wasn’t here in 2002. I don’t know if Bob would have any idea.
Sacchet: But I have a hard time understanding how somebody at City Hall would not be clear
about side yard setbacks. That’s basically what I’m getting at.
Metzer: And we don’t know who it would have been.
Sacchet: Yeah.
McDonald: Can I ask a follow up to that? In the older neighborhoods in Chanhassen at one
time, have the setbacks always been what it currently is or was it at one time.
Metzer: Well the home was built in 1969. I believe the first, real enforced zoning ordinance was
72.
Sacchet: It was kind of a PUD at the time or it didn’t even exist then?
Generous: It was under village zoning.
Sacchet: Under village zoning, okay.
McDonald: Could it have been 5 feet at that time?
Generous: I haven’t found anything. The only ordinance that I know that has that is up in
Lundgren development in Near Mountain where they alternated it on some houses.
Sacchet: Yeah, but he was a young man with blond hair.
McDonald: It wasn’t me.
Sacchet: It’s not necessarily that he would be familiar with those historic type of setbacks even
if they were at one point and he was a young man.
Metzer: And the point is, any new addition because it’s now zoned RSF.
Sacchet: Right, would be by the current zoning.
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
5
Metzer: Needs to meet current zoning standards.
Sacchet: Alright, well we leave that a mystery then. Any other questions from staff? If not I’d
like to ask, do we have an applicant? If you want to come forward and you may want to add to
what staff presented. Yes, if you want to come to the podium and get this microphone pointing
towards you. State your name and address for the record please and do you have anything to add
or tell us about, please do.
Cindy Koenig: Okay, Cindy Koenig, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. No, the letter pretty much says
what happened. My husband at one point, the people who laid the block were going to get one
of the permits. They didn’t do it. He was in a hurry. He just didn’t do it so now we’re trying to
make amends for it.
Sacchet: Yeah, and you solved that problem with acquiring a little bit of land on both sides, so
that’s not really an issue anymore at this point. The only issue we have is the hard cover.
Cindy Koenig: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Do you have questions of the applicant? I wondered I mean how do you feel
about this? I mean in order to be compliant you would have to get rid, pretty much of the
walkway around your garage and most of the patio in the back. I mean you don’t have anything
to say about that?
Cindy Koenig: Well, we have already gotten rid of a side driveway.
Sacchet: Right, we got the pictures of that.
Cindy Koenig: Yeah. The patio has been there since 19 I think 84 or something like that. I
don’t know what to say. I understand the compliance issue. I understand all of that, but.
Sacchet: It’s been there a long time. I understand.
McDonald: Excuse me, is the patio a slab or is it?
Cindy Koenig: Yeah.
McDonald: Okay, it is a slab.
Cindy Koenig: Yeah.
McDonald: Do you know about how thick it is?
Cindy Koenig: I don’t. We didn’t lay it. Somebody else did.
McDonald: How about the sidewalk? Is it, was it all laid at the same time then?
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
6
Cindy Koenig: The sidewalk was laid after the garage was built. And I’m not sure how thick
that is either.
McDonald: Okay, that’s all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Cindy Koenig: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so I’d like to invite anybody else who wants to comment
about this from our audience to come forward. If you have something to add, please do so. State
your name and address for the record please.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just reading through this today I have a
question about the administrative movement of the other lots. Will the lot 2 really be able to
come down by 8% so their hard surface coverage is 25% and administratively does that make
them a non-conforming lot by giving up square footage?
Sacchet: Can you address that Josh?
Metzer: The driveway was beginning to be removed about 2 weeks before the administrative
subdivision was even received by the city, which has been sent to the city today. To the Carver
County I should say, the administrative subdivision so that, the removal of that driveway on Lot
2 I believe it was, brings them down to 23. some odd percent.
Sacchet: So they’re alright basically.
Metzer: Yes.
Debbie Lloyd: So what kind of surface will they replace their driveway with?
Metzer: They’re sodding it.
Debbie Lloyd: They’re sodding a driveway?
Sacchet: Not the whole thing.
Metzer: It’s the side that pulls around to the side of the garage.
Debbie Lloyd: Oh, and that was 8%?
Metzer: .8%.
Debbie Lloyd: .8%.
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
7
Metzer: It’s more than .8%.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay, and then there’s one other lot that isn’t mentioned at all in the report that
also conveyed land and is that in compliance with code?
Metzer: Which one?
Sacchet: You’re talking about Lot 4, the one on the other side?
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, the one on the other side. There’s no mention of it in the report as far as
compliance.
Sacchet: The building is smaller and the lot is good size, yeah.
Metzer: We’ve got the number here, just bear with me.
Debbie Lloyd: It’s a hard one. Those were my questions, but it seems that there is a way to
bring it in compliance and as hard as it can be.
Metzer: The lot to the east is 20.1%. So it’d be selling the land.
Sacchet: After giving up that sliver of land, okay. So we’re fine with those. Thanks for
checking.
Debbie Lloyd: Thank you.
Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I close the public
hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments, discussion. Whenever you’re ready.
Keefe: I have a question.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Keefe: And really to my fellow commissioners. You know this was a non-conforming lot and
so it’s underneath the 15,000 square foot requirement in the RSF district, right. So I don’t know
how many are out there that are like this, and maybe they are out there and I know we kind of
deal with them as they come in and we run across them, but what, what impact do we have in
terms of, or what responsibility do we have to correct a situation which is non-conforming sort of
to begin with and now the lot size has been put in at 15,000 square feet or we’re saying now has
got to be this amount of square footage for hard surface coverage when prior to the 15,000
square foot, which I presume this was built ahead of that, maybe that requirement wasn’t there.
Metzer: Right, yeah. This was before.
Keefe: So we’ve got a change in the requirements…
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
8
Sacchet: What you’re asking is how can you apply rules that don’t apply?
Keefe: Well yeah.
Sacchet: What you’re asking is how can you apply rules that don’t apply?
Keefe: Yeah well you probably, the rule has been put in place after the property was built and
now we’re asking.
Papke: But those rules were in force at the time the two additions were added.
Sacchet: Right.
Papke: And if a permit had been pulled for the two additions, the drawing would have shown the
non-conformance at that point. So I agree that if there was a grandfathering issue, that would
have been exposed at the time the permits would have been pulled.
Keefe: So to kind of be, kind of follow through to sort of enforce this then, what we would say
is that had they pulled the permits it would have.
Papke: They would have been fine.
Keefe: Right, they would have been fine in this because they would, well they would have had
to correct it at that point…
Papke: …right, right. But there wouldn’t have been an unknown non-conformance.
Keefe: Right.
Sacchet: Deborah, did you want to add something?
Zorn: I was just going to add to that, the patio was constructed in ’84. The four season in ’97.
The garage in ’02 along with the additional sidewalk. It seems as though that garage permit
would have prevented additional coverage and would have caught that variance at that time.
Keefe: And potentially that garage would not have been built.
Zorn: And/or the sidewalks, or there would have been choices, decisions at that time.
McDonald: I guess the only comment I’ve got, you know we’ve been through a lot of these and
the problem before has always been brought before us was that there was a contractor involved
who was supposed to pull the permits. Never pulled the permits and it wasn’t until later on that
we find out that we’ve got a non-compliance. In this particular case permits should have been
pulled. If you do any kind of addition onto a house, that’s a permit. Pure and simple, so I look at
this as kind of a self-imposed problem. And based upon that, even if it’s a non-conforming lot at
that point the 25% would have come into play. You could have asked for a variance at that
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
9
point, if we wanted to do something with the lot but now, I’m flat out just don’t have a lot of
sympathy. I don’t see where a grandfather issue exists. You know we’ve ruled fairly
consistently on these with everyone else that’s come in. This fits into the same category with the
extra caveat that again a building permit should have been pulled by the owner who did all the
work, so it doesn’t even rise to the level to me of what the other non-conforming’s have been.
Sacchet: Any more comments on this end? Not really. I’m struggling personally a little bit with
this one. I mean on one hand, according to the letter from the applicant they did to some extent
work with city hall. It says when they added the garage they took the plans to city hall, planning
and engineering department, and it was okayed by a young, by this famous young man with
blond hair.
Papke: Of course that’s their recollection of the situation.
Sacchet: Right.
McDonald: And that only deals with the 5 foot setback. That doesn’t deal with.
Sacchet: Impervious.
McDonald: That’s right, and the 5 foot isn’t even an issue here because that’s been taken care
of. Now it’s the 25% and yes, even if you went to the city Planning Commission and you talked
about you know, we don’t know the context of well if I put it here, you know what’s the setback
off my property line. You know and it may have answered the question so.
Keefe: Just one other question. I mean this is sort of selective enforcement of a rule. You know
I mean are we comfortable that within that area where there are a lot of non-conforming lots that
everybody is in compliance or are we just selectively enforcing this, they sort of ad hoc come in?
Or are we concerned about that? Maybe we’re not concerned about that.
McDonald: Well we haven’t been, as they come before us, we’ve been pretty consistent on what
we’ve done. We’ve asked staff in the last meeting to do something about these non-compliance
issues that suddenly pop up. That there’s got to be something else in the process besides just
depending upon permits or something. You know a contractor pulling a permit and then they
don’t. So that we can head off some of these injuries to property owners that are caused by
contractors who don’t follow the rules, so we’ve requested that. We are trying to deal with this,
and I know City Council is also, how you deal with an issue such as this to try to head it off
before you’re now going in and asking a homeowner to bear the cost of tearing something out.
So we’re trying not to do selective enforcement. We are trying to put something in place so that
everybody in the city is aware of these hard surface areas and what’s required there.
Keefe: And I think I understand the purpose, you know I mean in terms of the 25%. The
concern I have is in regards to let’s take an area like this is this neighborhood, where this home
resides and is there a way to kind of go on a neighborhood basis and say, alright we’re going to
do a survey of hard surface coverage in this area and we’re going to serve notice to the
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
10
neighborhood so that it…and I don’t know how that, if that’s possible to do or whether that’s the
right thing to do but just to be even handed from a sort of selective.
McDonald: We’re only talking about a percentage. I mean 25% of whatever you lot size is, I
mean that’s the coverage. If what you’re now talking about is 25%’s too little in one
neighborhood, then we need to look at readjusting that figure possibly.
Keefe: That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, within that neighborhood on a lot by lot
basis, which you know are they all in conformance or not. So in other words, this particular one
came before us.
Papke: I’m not sure, are you suggesting some kind of witch hunt to go out and look for non-
conforming lots? I mean I can’t imagine we would, you know the city would do something like
that. Every time one of these comes up we deal with them on an individual basis. And just
because there are non-conforming lots in the neighborhood doesn’t mean we should abandon
enforcement of all variances. I’m not following where you’re going with this at all.
Sacchet: He wonders whether we’re fair in the neighborhood.
Larson: What if we were to average everybody? Is that kind of what you’re grabbing at?
Keefe: No, I mean is everybody in that neighborhood that has a non-conforming lot, if they all
have non-conforming lots, are they all in conformance with the 25% hard coverage.
Sacchet: Yeah, and we don’t know. We don’t have a way to know.
Larson: What if somebody who built back then is above the 25% per se? Just throwing an
example out there.
Sacchet: Well, and that’s a little bit why I feel torn. I mean there’s actually also the mitigating
factor if you want to look at it as mitigating factor, I think the report somewhere says it’s, with
what they’ve removed they’re actually slightly below what they could have impervious if it was
a 15,000 foot lot, but ultimately I mean if you look at our standard rules that we have to look at,
and it’s important for you to understand, we have a set of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 or 6 items that as
Planning Commission we are, by ordinance, by our code we’re required to look at. In order to
make a recommendation, or possibly a decision. And the first one is it a hardship? And a
hardship is not a fluffy thing. It’s defined in the code. Hardship is if you cannot make a use
that’s on the property and they’re surrounding 500 feet, which in this case is to have a single
family house with a 2 car garage, which you do have. So by that definition you don’t pass that
one. You do not have a hardship by that definition. Second point, is it applicable to other
properties? Obviously it’s very applicable because that’s what we’ve just been struggling with.
That, whether it’s fair or it doesn’t apply, it definitely applies across the board. If we try by what
Dan was trying to do, and he bumped a little bit into a concrete wall with it, if we wanted try to
be fair within the context of the neighborhood, that really doesn’t quite fly either. Then we turn
into policing something that we don’t want to go police either. So it doesn’t fly, so they don’t
pass that hurdle. Does it increase the value? Well you didn’t do it for that purpose so that’s kind
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
11
of in the bubble. Is it self created hardship? Now we could argue over that because you tried to
be compliant and all that. Ultimately the fact that you didn’t really pull a formal permit we could
say it’s self created, if you want to be real objectively and that’s kind of harsh but the reality is
such, right? Then is it detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land? In generally
speaking with the impervious, if you’re above the impervious, we can, and that’s why we have
this impervious rule because if you have too much impervious you contribute to the runoff. You
contribute to what ultimately can be injurious to that environment. To other properties around so
there you don’t pass either. And the last point is, does it impair adequate supply of light and air?
Obviously it doesn’t so there you come out well. But if we pile this all on a balance, I mean if
we just follow the steps that are given to us as a commission, as our task, and that’s also where
staff was coming from saying, well looking at this from what our rules that are given to us, we, I
feel we are compelled to deny it. However, I do want to point out that if we end up denying it or
not, if we do end up denying it, that it can be brought in front of City Council and City Council
does have more leeway. It’s their role. They’re not bound as much as we are bound by those
criteria. It’s not that we are necessarily bound totally by it. We have a little bit of leeway, but
this goes a little, in my opinion beyond what a little leeway would be. I mean we’re trying to be
sensitive and we understand your predicament here certainly. We’d like to help you with it.
However with the framework of the code of the city I think that we would have to send you to
City Council to take that step, okay. That’s my comment.
Undestad: Can I add one thing?
Sacchet: Please.
Undestad: You know seeing what’s been done on here, I just have to say that you know the
variances and some of the self inflicted hardships we’ve seen, you guys have done a great job
going out and buying more land on each side you know and trying to get everything back down
to where everything’s within but you’re just right over our heads here I guess.
Sacchet: Taking off that piece of driveway, I mean you’ve shown tremendous effort and
willingness to correct it and from that angle I wish we could be more amenable to your request.
That’s partially what I said when I feel like I’m a little torn about this certainly. Any other
comments? If not, yes Debbie.
Larson: Well Josh had said that on the one side, just going into the lots that they purchased land
from, they’re under quite a bit on one side for sure. I mean is there any way that I know that it’s
lot by lot but averaging those 3?
Metzer: No, we can’t do that.
Larson: Or the neighborhood you know like we were saying. What if you were to look at the
entire area? How many are over? How many are under?
Sacchet: No, that’d be unmanageable Debbie. That’d be a nightmare.
Larson: Not that you would mange it but to, just to you know.
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
12
Sacchet: Right, right. It’s a good idea but very difficult to apply.
Papke: That’s come up on some of these previous cases where there were some larger lots next
door. Then you also run the risk if somebody subdivides that large lot, now you’ve got issues.
Or the neighbor next door adds some more hard coverage. There’s nothing to prevent them at
that point from going over the edge.
Sacchet: Alright, any other comments? If not I’d like a motion.
Zorn: I’d like to motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance 05-34 for 6.88% hard
coverage, hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage
restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned single family residential
based upon the findings in the staff report and the following 1 and 2. As well as the Planning
Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with
ordinance requirements.
Sacchet: Yes, the percentage right? The correct percentage is not 6.8. The new one is how
much?
Zorn: Oh I’m sorry. 4.06.
Sacchet: 4.06. Alright, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
McDonald: I’ll second.
Zorn moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34
for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface
coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single
Family Residential (RSF), based upon the findings in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to:
1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Sacchet: I’d encourage you to bring this to the attention of the City Council and see what they
can do for you. Good luck with it. So that brings us to the minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 2005 as presented.
Planning Commission – November 1, 2005
13
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m..
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 2005
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Steve Scharfenberg, Ann Murphy, and Jack Spizale
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly, Paula Atkins, and Kevin Dillon
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent, and Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the
agenda amended to include an update on the skate park under old business. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Todd Hoffman reminded the commission of the Halloween
Party being held on Saturday from 5:30 to 7:30.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded to approve the
verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated
September 27, 2005 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 4 to 0.
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING 2005 ICE SKATING RINK LOCATIONS. Todd
Hoffman presented background information on this item. Jim Laurent, 8115 Erie Circle thanked
Mr. Hoffman for recommending to open an ice skating rink at Rice Marsh Lake Park and
thanked the commission for their consideration. Commissioner Scharfenberg suggested setting a
time limit when flooding begins if warm weather patterns continue through the second week of
January. Todd Hoffman explained the city’s current flooding policy.
Murphy moved, Spizale seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that a family rink be flooded at Chanhassen Hills Park, Rice Marsh Lake Park and
Pheasant Hills Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
4 to 0.
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT AND APPLICATION POLICY. Jerry Ruegemer presented the
staff report on this item and Todd Hoffman clarified what the city’s current practice is related to
public gatherings. Chairman Stolar asked for clarification on when a permit would be required.
Park and Rec Commission Summary – October 25, 2005
Spizale moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that the City Council review and ultimately adopt the attached race/parade permit
application information and application forms specific to race/parade and other
events/special uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4
to 0.
REVIEW CONCEPT FOR LAKE ANN PARK OFF-LEASH DOG AREA. Todd Hoffman
presented the staff report on this item and recommended that the area at Lake Ann Park was not a
viable option for an off leash dog area. Chairman Stolar suggested that the commission continue
to look at the option of having off leash allowable times in certain areas of certain parks. He also
suggested another option would be the open field between West 78th Street and the parking lot.
There was no action taken on this item.
SKATE PARK UPDATE. Todd Hoffman provided an update that the skate park has been
running smoothly since the last closure.
RECREATION PROGRAMS:
2005 PICNIC SITE EVALUATION. Jerry Ruegemer presented the evaluation of the 2005
picnic sites, noting that the new tiered fee system is working out fine.
2005 HALLOWEEN PARTY. Jerry Ruegemer updated the commission on the Halloween
Party which will be held on October 29th.
2005 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY. Jerry Ruegemer provided an update on the tree
lighting ceremony scheduled for Saturday, December 3rd at City Center Park.
PRESENTATION OF MEMORIAL GIVING POLICY BROCHURE. Todd Hoffman
presented the Memorial Giving Policy brochure.
Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:35
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
2
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 2005
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Steve Scharfenberg, Ann Murphy, and Jack Spizale
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly, Paula Atkins, and Kevin Dillon
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent, and Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the
agenda amended to include an update on the skate park under old business. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Hoffman: Halloween Party.
Stolar: We’re all looking forward to it.
Hoffman: Saturday. What times does it start?
Ruegemer: 5:30. 5:30 to 7:30.
Stolar: Now can you register online for that?
Ruegemer: You cannot.
Stolar: You cannot. But at the door.
Ruegemer: At the door or call us and we can input for you.
Spizale: By the way, what time do they want us there?
Stolar: The volunteers.
Ruegemer: About quarter to 5:00, 5:00.
Stolar: Okay.
Spizale: Do they have costumes for us?
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
2
Ruegemer: Would you like some? Okay. I’ll see if they’re up in the office.
Spizale: They have such good ones.
Hoffman: We might have the largest library in the city, or county.
Ruegemer: I’ll check before you leave tonight. I think Charlie might have brought those up.
Stolar: Okay. Any other announcements? Okay.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded to approve the
verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated
September 27, 2005 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 4 to 0.
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING 2005 ICE SKATING RINK LOCATIONS.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar, members of the commission. Seen a lot of background data
on ice rinks, primarily thanks to Dale who is here tonight to answer your questions and provide
additional input regarding our ice skating program. On average we flood the rink for about 55
days per season and that is an average since 1982 so you’re talking about, just about a 2 month
program. Traditionally our community park sites, those being City Center, and then the
Recreation Center received a majority of the use. North Lotus Park with it’s hockey rink and
lights and warming house and then a family rink as well also is fairly heavily used. And then
rounding the rink locations that we had last year was Roundhouse Park which has the warming
house building as the round house. It does not have the hockey boards or as good of lighting as
the other rinks so it receives the least amount of use out of those 4 sites. Recently as 2000-2001
we flooded 15 rinks at 11 different locations. In 2001-2002 and again the following year the
majority of our low use rinks were not flooded due to a combination of warm winter
temperatures and then the previous year’s low numbers. With a couple of seasons back to back it
just didn’t pay to flood all those rinks. This past season we flooded 8 rinks. We recorded an
investment of about $3,000 in labor, primarily labor and some materials for rinks. If you spread
that over the whole season, each rink requires about a $50-$55 per day investment to operate. If
you divide that by the number of skaters typically found on one of our community rinks, it’s
fairly inexpensive public recreation. Consider locations where days go by without a single skater
and the value goes down slightly. The scenario of deleting rinks and then having residents attend
a park commission meeting asking for them back is not new to the city. We’ve been through this
3 or 4 times in my tenure with the city. Rinks at Minnewashta Heights and Chanhassen Hills
have been deleted in the past and then brought back and then deleted again because of low
attendance. And I think it’s something about you just don’t miss something until it’s gone, even
if you really don’t use it that much. There is some value to all of us in having the opportunity of
at least knowing that it’s there, and I think that definitely comes into play when we have these
conversations about skating rinks. However staff like the commission, we’re not immune to the
desire to provide the service when the community requests it and I think the increase
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
3
neighborhood contact through our summer installs on our playgrounds generated some interest in
those community, neighborhood park sites again. However, I don’t think we’re ever going to
fight the past experience demonstrated that outdoor rinks in general and outdoor skating in
general is on a decline, probably since the 70’s in Minnesota. Staff’s recommendation,
understanding the desire of the Park Commission to once again test the popularity of our
neighborhood ice rink program, will support the flooding of 3, what we would call test rinks this
coming season based upon neighborhood requests and testimony at your last meeting. It’s
recommended that family rinks be flooded at Chanhassen Hills, where we have a skating light
already there. Probably put that on a timer for the year since we won’t have a rink attendant
there. Rice Marsh Lake Park, which has received, at least this year the most input from
neighbors, and then Pheasant Hill Park which will put a rink back into our northern tier of
neighborhoods and you have received requests in the past for a hockey rink, or excuse me, a
neighborhood rink there. Prior to the start of the skating season we would develop a usage
analysis model for implementation over the 2005/06 season. That would include reports from
Dale and his crew as they maintain these on a daily basis, more or less. They can easily see from
that high vantage point in that flooding truck just how much use has been given to a rink on a
daily basis. It would also include some eyewitness counts calculated by staff and the
commission. You have a map as a part of the report this evening showing the four locations I
referenced first. Roundhouse, the Rec Center, City Center and then North Lotus which are fairly
uniformly divided east to west and the central part of our city and then what we would be calling
test rinks at Chan Hills, Rice Marsh Lake and then Pheasant Hill. Staff’s available for any
questions and be happy to work with the commission.
Stolar: What I’d like to do is if there are pressing questions for clarification from Todd, we’ll do
that and then we’ll invite our guest to speak. Any clarifying questions for Todd?
Murphy: Just so only Chanhassen Hills has the lighting?
Hoffman: Yes.
Stolar: Would you like to make a comment then? If you would just state your name and address
first.
Jim Laurent: Sure. I don’t know if you need this or not. My name is Jim Laurent and I live at
8115 Erie Circle near Rice Marsh Lake Park. I just wanted to come down and talk to you, a lot
of our neighbors have been, we understand, we’ve had some e-mail exchanges that Mr. Hoffman
was going to recommend this tonight and we just wanted to show up and we wanted someone
who also would show up and say thank you for the recommendation and thank you for your
consideration of the proposal. We believe that this park, this skate park will be used quite a bit.
We’ve really, you heard testimony last time. We got our, actually I just got done playing with
my kids at our new park. We’ve really pulled together as a neighborhood and as people have
said, every Friday night we’re down there with the kids time one day a week during the summer
for kids time and everybody in the neighborhood comes down there. A lot of people do, I mean
one time we probably had 30-40 people down there. So we’re hoping to continue that through
the winter so we hope it gets used and it will be, that we don’t let you down with your reputation
so I want to say thanks and just show our support.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
4
Stolar: Okay. Any questions for Jim? Thank you Jim. Appreciate it. So, thank you Todd and
staff for putting this together. We do appreciate it. We’ll start with Steve, any comments,
questions, thoughts?
Scharfenberg: I was just thinking that should we, I would like to see potentially a time, potential
time or date put on it that if by such and such a date, and I know this is up to Dale and his staff,
but if by say the second week of January, given the weather patterns we’ve had most recently,
that I don’t know that it’s time, given the time intensiveness of everything and keeping those
other 3 rinks open, that we would do this. I hope that it’s cold enough that by the end of the
summer we can flood but I would say if by the second week of January, you know we’re still in a
warm weather pattern, that I don’t know that it’s worth it to flood these 3 rinks and then maintain
the other ones also. I’d rather see the 3 or 4 that we have main sites and just do those.
Hoffman: We have a policy in place that after January 11th or after we would cancel the season
on all of our rinks.
Scharfenberg: On all of our rinks, okay.
Hoffman: And in the interim we flood, opening between the 21st or January 5th, between that
time. The last time this was updated we flooded Roundhouse, City Center, Chan Rec Center,
North Lotus and so we flooded only those rinks. And then December 20th or before we flooded
all rinks and established so if you want to keep that policy.
Scharfenberg: That would be fine.
Hoffman: If we’re not flooding before December 20th, then we would not flood the three outside
rinks. If we’re flooding prior to that time or earlier than that time, we would. There’s not as
much time necessary for these neighborhood rinks so if you have interested, even if we,
December 20th comes and goes and we haven’t started yet because of number one, frost isn’t in
the ground and we don’t have snow available to make it is one of the most important things.
You may want to make an exception this year and allow us to continue on even, we like to try to
open them by the Christmas break because of the daylight hours when they get out of school.
Stolar: It’s an interesting point because it’s a question of whether we just follow the standard
policy during this test time or not. I think it would be appropriate for us to make a judgment call
I think at that time, don’t you think? Because it depends on what we see, yeah. I mean we want
to try, because that’s what we’ve lost the last 2 times right, is being able to test is that we
couldn’t flood. With the community that we saw, I’d like to try and do it as much as possible but
at the same time within reason so I assume what you’re saying Steve is we’ll stick by this but
then Todd you offered the opportunity for us to discuss it at that time if need be. Does that
sound...?
Spizale: That’s fine.
Hoffman: You can tell if you’re getting close or if you’re in this long.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
5
Stolar: Exactly. That’s, we have to have a judgment there that yeah, December 20th, that’s not
good but we’re going to have a massive freeze over the next 10 days, we don’t want to just cut it
off at that point. I believe we trust Dale’s judgment on all these. Okay, anything else? No?
Hoffman: Dale’s probably spent more nights in a flood truck…
Spizale: The only thing, it looks like everything’s really spread out nicely. I think they did a
nice job of picking the spots and it’s going to make it a little bit more accessible to people to use
a rink so it looks good.
Hoffman: We’ll also put out a press release in the newspaper for when we start, we’ll explain
the current program. The standard and then these 4 or 5 rinks. Give the community an
opportunity to respond.
Stolar: And so in November or December timeframe you’ll come out with a list for us to
volunteer for tracking and such.
Hoffman: We’ll modify the schedule that we had from the last time and we’ll modify that.
Spizale: Maybe we can use Jerry’s snowmobile to track.
Ruegemer: Any time.
Hoffman: It’s also another good opportunity to talk with our residents, similar to what you’ll be
doing with the playground projects. Find out some more about their interests…park system.
Stolar: Any other things Jack?
Spizale: No.
Stolar: Okay, seeing no other comments, do I have a motion to approve the staff’s
recommendation for the, concerning the 2005 ice skating rink locations.
Murphy: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation.
Stolar: Motioned by Commissioner Murphy.
Spizale: Second.
Stolar: Seconded by Commissioner Spizale.
Murphy moved, Spizale seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that a family rink be flooded at Chanhassen Hills Park, Rice Marsh Lake Park and
Pheasant Hills Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
4 to 0.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
6
Stolar: Thank you guys, all of you for putting this together. I appreciate it and thank you to the
community for bringing it to our attention again.
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT AND APPLICATION POLICY.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Stolar. Obviously the City of Chanhassen really believes in special
community events. We have a very rich history in providing opportunities for our residents to
enjoy not only the Halloween Party coming up, Feb Fest, you know Easter Egg Candy Hunt and
many special events that we have throughout the course of time. It really is a great opportunity
for us to promote our city facility, business community and event sponsors. We do hear many
positive comments about our special event series that really does bring our community together
to make it really kind of a feel good special place to live. So many good comments through the
years. As our community has been growing, steadily increasing over the last 2 or 3 years we’ve
been getting a lot of requests for other community organizations to host some type of special
event or you know kind of parties and that sort of thing within our park system. Just to name a
few, certainly would be fresh in our minds the triathlon, Miracles of Mitch Foundation certainly
has been growing leaps and bounds on an annual basis. Next year now they’re looking to do
probably 2 adult triathlons in town. One in June and one in September, so really a lot of people
are really starting to really, really take advantage of our nice, quality facilities and our nice
infrastructure here within Chanhassen. We’ve also had cancer and MS walks go through town
that have taken staff coordination to kind of make sure that everybody is safe with that. And also
the energy health fair that happened out at the Rec Center here in September. There seems to be
just a lot of new organizations coming into town and wanting to host kind of their own events.
There hasn’t been necessarily a problem in the past. It just created some additional work load for
staff in trying to coordinate between departments and organizations and Carver County Sheriff
Department who are involved more often than not, more involved than city staff is with
providing safe streets and safe environment for the event organizers and also participants. So we
do have you know Miracles of Mitch. We certainly have the street department involved,
engineering, public works, Carver County, park and rec was all involved in that organization so
it really does involve a lot of departments and kind of pull all that together. And really like I said
before, Carver County has a really an integral part in that since they’re the ones that are really
are out on the front lines so to speak and directing traffic and closing down streets and that sort
of thing. You know really I’ve really felt that it was necessary to kind of draft some type of
special event policy for permitting application kind of a process for kind of a uniform process for
people to come in. Whether it’s having a rally or a triathlon or other types of events, kind of
have everybody go through roughly the same process of filling out applications. Going through
the necessary steps to insure that they have a successful event. Not only on safety but
organizationally as well. I have put together a couple different applications. You know in the
past we’ve also had Joe Advertising Agency, Fallon, whoever come in from Minneapolis or
wherever, different parts, want to shoot promotional or commercial types of situations within our
park system. That’s kind of another thing that we’ve tried to address in the past. You provide us
a certificate of insurance and make sure you take care of the park and it’s okay. But now going
forward now and looking at this type of event permit or policy, certainly then we can have kind
of safeguards in there to take a look at the whole big picture here and make sure we have all the
information in place so we can base our decisions on some sound information that they provided
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
7
to the city. It is my recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to the City
Council to review and ultimately adopt the attached race/parade permit application information
and application forms specific to race/parades and other events or special event uses. If you flip
over from the cover sheet, just kind of some application information that not only kind of
addresses kind of the amount of business days that’s required for the city to kind of review. 14
days is not a lot of time on a lot of events, and like Miracles of Mitch we certainly try to do that
months in advance just to make sure that we have coverage from Carver County not only from
labor but if there’s volunteers that we can also pool that way.
Stolar: Yeah, I was wondering why that’s so low.
Ruegemer: Well in reviewing a lot of other cities’ information, they have 5 days on that. A lot
of the bigger cities but we certainly can adjust that if you’d like to. That would be fine with me.
Stolar: I was just surprised as to how you get all the coordination done in 14 days. Or does that
mean that just the final application has to be submitted.
Ruegemer: No, I mean that’s really start to finish. But more the better.
Hoffman: Yeah, you could soften that by saying a minimum of 14 days. Or 30 days. Most of
these events we are notified months in advance but some you’re not so.
Ruegemer: For example, if you look at the President Bush rally. That was less than 14 days in
advance that we kind of knew all of that was coming. Coming into town.
Hoffman: Five.
Ruegemer: Five days, so that’s the exception. Or like Todd had commented, you know Miracles
of Mitch we certainly secured the date already for next year. Now that it’s kind of in it’s third
year next year, a lot of the things kind of fall into place so to speak, but Dale and our department,
Carver County, Public Works have always met 3-4 months in advance just to make sure that all
the pieces are kind of put into place. The adult triathlons there’s already discussion about that.
Already kind of starting for next year so a lot of these events do kind of happen in advance but
it’s just.
Stolar: Yeah, I think the difference, and I was just thinking through that, sometimes for rallies of
whatever cause, you don’t know in advance that you’re going to have to need a permit for the
rally, right? If something happens, whatever. Whereas you know races, advertise it and do all
that so, maybe 14’s a good compromise. It’s a starting point. So if the City Council chooses to
do any…they may have questions up there also.
Ruegemer: You bet.
Hoffman: And this page is specific to race and parades, so you have really two different
applications.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
8
Stolar: Well this one says parade and race on top here.
Hoffman: Race/parade and then that goes with the race/parade permit application. This
application would be self standing. These rules here.
Ruegemer: Kind of provide a different information but this one is more for you know, whether it
be rallies or photo shoots or that sort of thing. Some different information.
Hoffman: The one that says rally/march/filming, television, that stands on it’s own. So this is
the one piece of paper they get. If you’re going to stage a race or a parade then you’re going to
have to abide by these items as well.
Stolar: Gotch ya.
Ruegemer: So going back to that application information, it kind of covers you know providing
a map for kind of traffic flow, parking, what streets are going to be closed, that sort of thing
needs to be provided to be reviewed and approved by our policing agencies. It notifies Gopher
One call. Brings out the stakes or tents put out or into the ground. Portable restrooms, refuse
containers, a lot of that type of information is pretty standard but wanted to include it as
information so. And if you have information that you’d like to add or delete I certainly am eager
to listen.
Scharfenberg: I’m assuming Jerry the reason that we did this is that we just didn’t have anything
like this before?
Ruegemer: That’s correct. It was, I’ll say based on individual basis but I wouldn’t say that, but
you know you kind of take it as it comes before. You know like Miracles of Mitch certainly has
been kind of coordinated through our department and a lot of the kind of the facets of it and with
coordinating meetings and combing of the beach and that sort of stuff so I guess what I would
like to do is have something kind of uniform. Say okay, you want to do a children’s health fair
next summer. Here’s an application to fill out just so we can have kind of the proper
documentation in place and it’s consistent for everybody.
Scharfenberg: Who ultimately has authority for granting of the applications?
Ruegemer: I think it depends on the magnitude of the event. A lot of the, ultimately like
Miracles of Mitch, that sort of thing, you know council certainly would need to approve that sort
of thing. A triathlon coming through town. They need to approve. President Bush they wanted
to approve.
Hoffman: Anything over 50 people as a public gathering needs to be approved by the council.
There are some things to think about and that’s what we’re looking at the commission to do is,
this is not a full proof process. Many, not many but the 4th of July is a jointly sponsored event.
So the city is the main sponsor but then there are other joint sponsors. Are they going to be
subjected to these requirements? The main test of this policy, in conversation with Roger
Knutson our city attorney is that it needs to be equitable because the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
9
of America want to host a parade in the city, you treat them the same as if the Anti-American
Group Incorporated of the United States wants to come to town and host a parade. They need to
be treated the same as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. So you need those regulations, how
you’re going to treat each one of those equitably.
Stolar: Can we make an assumption that these permits are going to be for non-city sponsored
events?
Hoffman: Probably not a safe assumption. Should be defined in there.
Stolar: That’s what I’m saying. As a commission and from the staff’s recommendation, is that
how you viewed it? It was more for non-city sponsored events.
Hoffman: Well yes and no. Should the city be incurring all the expenses for the 4th of July
parade? Sponsored by another agency. There’s a lot of costs that go into that that we currently
don’t pay for. Some traffic control. Restrooms. Cones. It’s always been, that’s what agencies
do the first time they make that call. They say we’ve got a great idea. We’d like to try to
sponsor it with you because it’s a great way to get into your pocket book you know. We want to
organize a race for our group. We’d like the city to sponsor. You get that, that’s the first call
that most people make. And you say, you know we have to make a decision. Typically it comes
down to the park commission. We have our standard slate of activities and since that time races
come to town, …it’s like well if you’d like to do a parade, it’s not a core responsibility of a
public recreation agency so if you want to put it on, here’s what it’s going to take. Much of this
is driven by public safety. Because we have a responsibility to respond and if we don’t put
enough out there through a policy and there’s issues on the race course that day, and it’s a
Sunday morning, they’re going to call out additional police force and it’s going to cost another
$800, $1,200 that day and that cost goes back against the full citizenry of Chanhassen for a
special event sponsored by an individual agency, either for profit or not for profit, and that’s not
fair to the taxpayers as a whole. So that’s what we’re trying to get at. Is to how to treat these
things fairly for everybody. The sponsors, the applicants and then the community.
Stolar: Questions, comments?
Spizale: I think it’s kind of a nice policy. You’ve got a list here of what you need to do. You
know and who you have to call and I think that if someone gets this, I would imagine this would
come with it too, it basically shows you all the people you have to contact with some of the
who’s responsible for what and…
Scharfenberg: You know just thinking about the 4th of July parade and how you would handle
something like that. Who’s involved in that? What primarily is done there?
Hoffman: Currently it’s the Rotary. Prior to that it was a parade committee. And so the race, or
excuse me, the parade started at our.
Ruegemer: 1996.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
10
Hoffman: Yeah, which was it?
Ruegemer: Centennial.
Hoffman: Centennial and then it was kept going by the race committee and they sponsored it
and individually as far as a cap to take and hire the entrants that were paid entrants, but then
throughout those years the city typically chipped in for the traffic control, law enforcement, those
type of things. And then this year the parade sponsored by the Rotary, they paid for phones and
restrooms for the Taste of Chanhassen, which is another Rotary sponsored event as part of the 4th
of July. The Chamber paid for half of the trade fair tent that they have on site, but the City
would typically pick up things like overall refuse, overall restrooms at the street dance. So
there’s a combination of things. You may just want to make a disclaimer saying this excludes
events jointly sponsored by the city which are governed under a separate agreement. Because
each time we go into one of these events we talk about it and say, yeah joint sponsors, they want
to do more things. Okay, that’s fine. We’ll go along with that but you’re going to have to chip
in, you know generate some cash. You’re going to have to pay for some of the things. Another
way to look at it is, you don’t want to just be subsidizing, I don’t care what organization it is.
The Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts or Chamber, the Rotary or the Lions and say yeah, come on in.
Make a bunch of money. We’ll provide the tents, tables, chairs, garbage and then you go take
the money and put it in your checkbook. That is again, that’s not in the public’s best interest, but
it is in the public’s best interest to provide great community celebration so there’s a dividing line.
Stolar: …on a couple things. One is permitting and one is the splitting of the costs, right? So if
we say it’s not a city initiated event, you need a permit. That doesn’t prohibit the city from
participating in something. It’s just says we’ll have a permit that says okay, they clearly define
here’s what the city’s responsible for and here’s what they’re not. Would that work for what
you’re trying to say that if it’s not a city initiated event? I’m trying to think of how we want to
word it so that we’re clear of what we want. Or no? I mean I don’t know that we should decide
it now either but is that what you’re kind of intending is that you’d like for anything that’s not a
city initiated event so please strike out.
Hoffman: Halloween. 4th of July.
Stolar: Halloween. 4th of July, yeah. Those we wouldn’t probably necessarily go through this
per se although you may individually want to use the same format. Right, for the events that you
do, but we would require you, where the city is not the initiator.
Hoffman: Yeah, for events other than these…events. So then we just have a separate letter of
agreement for the joint sponsorships with other, you know we currently do with the Chamber and
Lions. The Lions sponsored the Feb Fest. Rotary again the 4th of July along with the Chamber,
along with the Boy Scouts.
Stolar: Right, but in those cases where the city is initiating the event so we’re just taking people
to participate.
Hoffman: Right.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
11
Scharfenberg: The only other thing Jerry I saw in the application for the facilities use permit
with the liability insurance, do you want to put a time line on that as to when that has to be filed?
Ruegemer: Must be received prior to the event date.
Scharfenberg: Yeah, something like that.
Stolar: From a format perspective on this first one for the facilities use, it’s really more than just
parade/race right, at the top?
Ruegemer: Ah yes.
Stolar: Okay. Okay. Any other questions? I think this is a good idea. Motion to approve
staff’s recommendation on the special event permit and application policy?
Spizale: So moved.
Stolar: Second?
Murphy: I’ll second.
Spizale moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that the City Council review and ultimately adopt the attached race/parade permit
application information and application forms specific to race/parade and other
events/special uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4
to 0.
REVIEW CONCEPT FOR LAKE ANN PARK OFF-LEASH DOG AREA.
Hoffman: Thanks Chair Stolar, members of the commission. First I’d like to have you put the
aerial photo, it depicts an area for the proposed dog park. I was at Lake Ann two times today and
I can attest that it still is acting as a dog park. Others will probably attest to that as well. Saw all
sorts and shapes and sizes coming in and out of the park. So I showed an area 400 by 600 feet,
approximately 5.5 acres. If we flip back the cover page talking about some of the costs. Fencing
is $15 per foot. At that size that would be $30,000 and chain link fencing and gates, that would
be necessary. Then you start talking about, do you have to bring water to the park, and for a dog
park you probably would have to bring water to the park. If you serviced the area with water,
then you also have to service it with a sanitary sewer connection for the drain water, similar to a
drinking fountain. In the old days you could just run a water line out, let the excess water bubble
down into a gravel pit. You can no longer do that due to code restrictions. Same thing at a dog
park. So it gets expensive quite rapidly so $77,000 is a conservative budget to fence it, bring
water, do some signage, those type of things. Offering some other input on the site, staff’s talked
about it and during weeknights and weekends, parking areas in Lake Ann are already routinely
overwhelmed. It’s one of our biggest complaints ever received from the public is about
enforcement of no parking on the grass. Typically what people do is they try to find the quickest
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
12
spot to park, and if that happens to be on the grass, it’s on the grass. But these parking lots are
used fairly heavily already. And a dog park I think is going to be an area that would add
additional parking loads to Lake Ann. The area is currently enjoyed by people for it’s relative
solitude and beauty. It’s an area unlike most in the city so the people that have discovered it, use
it and appreciate it. There’s considerable lack of visibility from the parking area, entrance
location into the site. During at least the times…people would pull in and really be able to see
what kind of dogs or how many people are in the site so it would be a difficult visual thing.
There’s some trails in there that currently are used and would be cut off. One of my greatest
concerns would be that the site is heavily wooded with little or no ground cover and muddy
spots. A person bringing their dog out of there today was washing off the dog’s feet before they
went into the car. And then due to the forested conditions, if you try to make it smaller to reduce
the cost I think you’re just going to make the erosion issues worst in that wooded and soil area.
And then installing a big chain link fence inside a wooded area is going to result, would result in
maintenance because you’re going to have trees that fall down, wind storms and limbs that fall
down so it’s not an ideal location from a maintenance, and then you have fences out in open field
areas, they don’t have issues with those type of things. Staff has always maintained that an off
leash dog area would be welcomed. We just haven’t identified a good site. It’s kind of like the
analogy that you go buy clothes and if it doesn’t fit, it just hangs on the shelf and you really
don’t wear it and that’s what we’ve been looking for is this good fit for a dog park where you can
say aha, that’s going to work and it’s going to, it’s not too visible. It’s visible enough. It’s got
some nice open fields that people can see. In our community unfortunately we just don’t have
that big open field and many other communities have found those areas, either in some of their
land that they’re already holding or industrial area. Eden Prairie is using some industrial type
park areas and then they’re also using hockey rinks for smaller dogs. Minnewashta, I haven’t
talked to Marty since the last time we spoke but I just trust that he’s continuing on in their efforts
to get the park up and running so I’ll continue that conversation over the winter but it would be
staff’s recommendation that, or it’s just our opinion that we don’t believe that Lake Ann is the
most viable place for a dog park. As much as we would like one.
Stolar: Ann, you’ve got...
Murphy: Well, Jack and I went back and forth on this because I kind of saw that. Well we just
knew it was so heavily wooded that it’s going to be tough to open as an off leash dog area, and
now there’s so much focus on the off leash dog area in Chanhassen. So many people are
interested in it. If we open something that’s not going to work or isn’t quite right, doesn’t have
the visibility that we need, I don’t think it’s, I mean I agree with you that it’s probably not a good
idea.
Hoffman: People are, you’re back to what they’re, people, they go all over to all the different
parks and they find their little nitch where they, and I think most of them know they’re not
supposed to be there but if this one worked, they’re just going to revert back to their old habits
and stay where they’re at. If it’s not safe, if it’s not visible, if it’s not clean, then the site would
be difficult. 6:00 or 6:30 on a softball night, there’s just going to be conflict with parking.
Spizale: I can see the reasons. It’s a shame we don’t have an open spot and I think we should
keep our eyes open and keep looking. It’d be nice to have a dog park where the people are so to
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
13
speak. We’ll just have to keep looking. You know maybe somebody will donate something or
something will happen, but.
Murphy: Or keep pursuing the Lake Minnewashta place, which is really our best option. That’s
kind of what we came up with anyway in our research.
Spizale: Yeah.
Hoffman: I’m also quite convinced that the attitudes towards pet ownership and pets in general
is going to continually to evolve in our society and there’s probably going to be things permitted
in the future that aren’t permitted today or are viewed as being something that’s acceptable.
These almost dog playground sites, talked to a gentleman from California where they used to
have very, very small dog parks, or dog playgrounds where people would pull up, park and there
was nothing other than poured in place rubber surfacing and where people could enter into the
park and a playground for dogs. Very small. Quarter of an acre, less than that and they put these
strategically located throughout their urban park systems where they didn’t have the space.
Space in Chanhassen, open space is going to continue to be very difficult to acquire. We’re
going to face that with the 2005 MUSA area where land prices are $200 to $300,000 per acre.
It’s going to be a tough council you’re going to convince to buy 10 acres at $200 to $300,000 per
acre for a dog park. So if you don’t have it today, and I think we have it at Lake Minnewashta
hopefully. I think that’s going to be our go to location because if we don’t have the land
resource today that’s viable, I just don’t see us acquiring it in the future. Our park system is
pretty well filled out with the exception of the Bluff Creek corridor greenway and a couple of
neighborhood parks as we continue on. We don’t have a large tract of open space. Up in the
Fox Woods, which you generally land in the same issue. Fox Woods will come into our park
system probably in about 2010 when that area starts to develop and we start getting some roads
down there, and you need to be aware there’s also, there exists a large horse population or horse
lover population that is currently using that park along 96th Street, and they’re going to lobby the
city and the commission at that time to continue riding horses on that property so, there’s going
to be competing interests for the use of that open space.
Stolar: I just have a few questions. One, we also talked about, okay. Start off, I think we all
agree pretty much between this and the work that Ann and Jack did that Minnewashta for a dog
park is our primary goal, so I agree with that, and I don’t see an opportunity in this location to
put a dog park. It’s just not there so I agree with staff’s recommendation. We did talk about off
leash allowable times in certain areas of certain parks. It’s something I think we need to revisit
at some point because this, you know, the risk and I talked with some people who live out in the
Minnewashta area and of course they’re very anxious for the dog park but they told a great story.
They have greyhounds and they said, you know they walk them like everyone who came here
and spoke to us, right. They walked in that wooded area with the path off leash. Well this one
person did that. Got the dogs, as walking out, got the dogs on the leash and was walking out and
saw the sheriff’s walking in to go give tickets. And that’s a risk I think even in Lake Ann still
has, right? They can get a ticket for doing that. I would like us to still explore the times that
could be balanced against the usage that would allow, middle of the day, whatever where yes.
You know don’t worry about a ticket here other than not cleaning up. Like the appropriate
things. But outside of that don’t worry about a ticket. That’s the only thing I still think we have
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
14
a possibility in this site to do. People are doing it now anyway but at least it’s a time where they
can do it risk free. Just as a thought. The other question, we did talk at one point about this front
park here. That area, understanding the cost probably is not viable but from all other aspects that
you mentioned here, right along this parking lot here on this front part towards 78th Street.
That’s a big open field. So for many reasons that might work if at some point we decide that
there’s something worth doing. It won’t give us the 15 acres I don’t believe, right? That would
be an acre maybe.
Hoffman: Yeah, if you look at 5.5, it would be less than an acre.
Stolar: Less than an acre, but like you just mentioned with smaller parks, that is something in the
future we can potentially look at if we wanted to do a smaller one, because it does have some of
the other things that’s visible, pretty easy to chain in. You still have the cost though, factor.
Spizale: What space is that Glenn?
Stolar: That was right by the parking lots in the front there. I thought we at one point had
mentioned that that’s a good space.
Spizale: On this south side?
Stolar: Yes.
Hoffman: Between the road and the parking lot.
Stolar: Right. Because that is easy to fence off. There’s parking right there. Doesn’t have the
water. Fencing costs money.
Hoffman: I think the challenge there is that people are going to show up and they’re going to go,
I can go in this little fenced area over here, or I can go in the big soccer field over here. I think
I’ll take the soccer field.
Stolar: I think the recommendation is fine. I’d still like us to at some point think about off leash
times.
Hoffman: Yeah, that is the off leash, unofficial off leash dog parking area today and they go out
on the soccer field or else they go in the woods. The difficulty with amending ordinances where
you’re putting off leash animals into an uncontrolled area is that you’re going to get some issues
of…concern. We have a property owner to the west with German Shepherds that aren’t going to
mix very well with off leash dogs in that woods if it’s, especially if it’s advocated by the city.
He’s going to come to this meeting and he’s going to tell you right there that it’s not a very good
deal. There’s challenges.
Murphy: Yeah, without fencing it’s always going to be tough to enforce anything.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
15
Stolar: So again this probably rounds out our work on this though that we’re focusing on
Minnewashta.
Hoffman: And then focus on the CIP for the council. Hopefully they approve that so we can
move our support of the Minnewashta site.
Stolar: Was yesterday’s pre-meeting with the City Council for the CIP or just for the operating
budget?
Hoffman: For the operating budget.
Stolar: Okay. Because I didn’t get a packet so I didn’t go to the meeting but I noticed that was
on it. Okay. Great. Any other questions? Okay. I don’t believe there’s action required on here
is there?
Hoffman: No.
Stolar: Okay. Thank you again for pulling this together.
SKATE PARK UPDATE.
Hoffman: It’s been going very well since the last closure. I’ve not spent as much time up there.
Little quieter. We had some school days off over MEA when it was fairly busy. Dale, any
comments from your crew?
Gregory: No, it has definitely gotten better. Now with the kids back in school and that. I mean
there was a lot of time in the evening that they’re there but it is cleaner.
Stolar: With the comments that Councilperson Lundquist made regarding the sheriff’s contract
he brought to bear, he said he wanted other things to consider including skate park. Was that
discussed again?
Hoffman: No.
Stolar: Did you understand what his concerns are? It’s just how the deputies will help us out
over there or?
Hoffman: Yeah, I read the newspaper article. Like the rest of you I didn’t, have not had
conversation with Councilman Lundquist but just, I think he wanted to see more of a presence by
the law enforcement at the Carver County Sheriff’s level at the skate park. They do stop by
regularly so he thought it was improved…
Stolar: Okay, so not a new issue. Just making sure that we’re on top, okay. Thanks.
Hoffman: And we’ll open it up again. We’ll most likely go through a similar site. Thanks Dale.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
16
Stolar: Thank you Dale.
Scharfenberg: Wait, before Dale leaves, did we get the poured, is the poured in place at Lake
Susan? Is that?
Hoffman: It’s going to happen next year.
Scharfenberg: Next year? Okay.
Stolar: So everything else is in but that so it’s still closed off, right?
Hoffman: Yeah. We’re going to fence it. Construction fence it over the winter and then bid the
rubber in probably February or March for installation.
RECREATION PROGRAMS:
2005 PICNIC SITE EVALUATION.
Ruegemer: I’ll give kind of the cliff note version of this. Just information for the council, or
excuse me, for the Park and Rec Commission tonight. We seem to be kind of staying in that 90
to 100 picnics per year kind of timeframe. Seems like the players kind of shift around a little bit.
We do have quite a bit of repeat people but we also have new people that try it on an annual
basis. Total revenue again was around that $9,300 mark for the four sites. We had certainly
Lake Susan and Lake Ann. The pavilion and the shelter at Lake Susan are the most popular.
Something new this year, I wanted to kind of see how many participants that we were hosting at
that. We had over 7,000 people use our picnic facilities over the summer time. Probably May 1st
to about October 1st, first weekend in October for our last picnic so that was interesting to kind of
see how many people that we were touching and how many customers that we were having at
our facility so that’s kind of neat thing to see. As you can kind of see there, we did break down
kind of each facility again on kind of what days of the week. How many reservations were made
at each picnic site. I think that’s helpful for the commission to take a look at. They want to
gauge a tiered system on certain days of the week, which we’ve done and really at this point I
think people have really accepted our tiered system. You know the weekday and weekend rates
and I think people have embraced it and gotten used to it and are fine with it so I think that was a
good recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission did kind of changing that fee schedule
around. This seems to be working out just fine. A lot of people like our picnic facilities. The
two shelters in particular with the restrooms and electricity, access to water. Those type of
things. We hosted a number of graduation parties this year. Weddings. Family reunions.
Anniversary parties. That sort of thing so a lot of people like kind of that park setting. Certainly
Lake Ann, Lake Susan have their own individual amenities that appeal to a wide variety of
people so, that’s always good. Certainly we could do at times a little bit better job at cleaning
the facilities. We do get some comments back to that. They’re cleaned 7 days a week during the
summer time and every time there is a picnic say we do make sure that the garbage is picked up
and the coals are emptied and the bathrooms are stocked, that sort of thing but sometimes some
things are overlooked and we certainly look to improve on that. Certainly look to, as you see the
Lakeside and the Parkview picnic areas are really minimal reservations. Very minimal.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
17
Hoffman: That shows you how important the shelter is.
Ruegemer: Yeah, I think that really is illustrated within the reservations at those two facilities so
with, to look down at the 5 year CIP I think we’ve talked about that at Parkview. That may be
something that we should consider at some point in time to at least add a minimal shelter.
Whether it be a simple roof situation with some electricity. People really do like having the
security blanket of having a covered area just in case of weather. And we all know how things
quickly things can change with that so, I know people are going to be thrilled with the new
playground at Lake Susan Park. That certainly is a popular location. They like the close
proximity of the playground equipment to the picnic site itself. They can, everybody can sit at
picnic tables and still feel comfortable that their kids are in sight and that the new equipment is
only going to increase the popularity of that park system itself so. We’ve had real good response
to that. I did kind of break those down again and we had, I did also include 2004 for comparison
sake to kind of see where we increased or decreased on overall reservations and kind of where
we were for residents. You know regular resident, private resident business rather than school,
non-resident and non-resident businesses and so forth so you kind of see how that breaks down
per location and per day. Just information I thought that the commission would like to take a
look at tonight.
Stolar: Jack, any questions?
Spizale: Jerry, why such a…revenue between 5 and 4?
Ruegemer: Between the 5 and 4?
Hoffman: 05 and 04.
Ruegemer: Oh I’m sorry.
Spizale: Is that up or down or same or?
Ruegemer: You know I want to say it was probably within $500 of last year.
Spizale: Up?
Ruegemer: Yeah, right. You know it seemed like we kind of, we maintained that you know,
from 90 to 100 and the revenue was right around that same. Where we 93 this year. I think we
were in the 95 range last year so we’re give or take we’re about in the same ballpark every year.
It’s pretty consistent.
Hoffman: Down 3 picnics.
Spizale: And how long do the shelters stay open as far as.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
18
Ruegemer: It’s May 1st we open up and give or take, you know maybe somebody wants to do
something a little earlier but typically it’s on the tail end the October. You know October 1st is
kind of our soft date that we have, but the Dance Warehouse today open house their October 3rd I
think it was this year. So give or take. If the weather’s nice, we’re not in really, if we’re not in
real danger of things freezing up like that, we may keep it open another week or two after
October 1st.
Spizale: So it kind of goes into the fall a little bit.
Ruegemer: Yeah, you bet. Just to increase the revenue a little bit and then the park maintenance
staff typically drain water on rainy days in October before the cold weather kind of hits us. So
it’s a little bit different now that we have constant heat down there, just to make sure the form,
that it doesn’t freeze up and push frost, but give or take about the first couple weeks of October.
Spizale: That’s all I got.
Stolar: Okay. Thank you very much.
2005 HALLOWEEN PARTY.
Ruegemer: Yeah, Halloween we did talk about already. I do have the volunteer list from last
month as well, if people want to kind of revisit their times and kind of program they signed up
for. I can check upstairs and see if the costumes.
Stolar: Was he just going to bring them on Saturday?
Ruegemer: Well, if you want to stick around tonight, let’s see if they’re up there, if you want to
take them with you tonight or we can bring them out there as well. If we kind of know what we
want. So I can take a look at that. I processed a couple checks in Corey’s absence. He’ll be
back tomorrow but Corey did a lot of the check processing and stuff here last week to get into
finance so we’ll get everybody paid Saturday night. Corey and I went and bought oh, about
15,000 pieces of candy that’s already to go and all set.
Stolar: Did we talk to Cub at all about helping us?
Ruegemer: It works out better for us in a lot of ways to go to Target. They store it for us and do
a lot of different things for us. We can pick it up then on Friday and it’s a little bit more
seamless for us and that application. Plus bigger quantities is helpful for us as well. You know
other than that, we’re pretty much ready to go. People have been calling and registering and also
turning in registration forms so, we’re all set.
2005 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY.
Ruegemer: The 2005 tree lighting ceremony is going to be coming up again Saturday, Decembrt
3rd at 5:00, right here at City Center Park.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
19
PRESENTATION OF MEMORIAL GIVING POLICY BROCHURE.
Hoffman: I’ll present the Memorial Giving Policy brochure. It formalized trees, benches and
then dispersing of ashes if people would desire in our park system is all explained here. The
memorial tree plaque, we get to plant the tree. You know location of your choice and then
there’s going to be a plaque, memorial tree program. It will be fairly well established plaque and
probably out in this hallway, in the public hallway out here. So then the names will start to begin
to assemble on here. We have this type of a program for some years but just no formal
recognition. And then the benches, the plaque goes right in the bench. Some of these benches,
some in the park system already. Lake Ann, Carver Beach, Roundhouse. So they’re around
already. Permanent bench guaranteed for 10 years and trees are guaranteed for 5 years. People
can go online and fill out a form and send it right in.
Stolar: When we first talked about it there was some statements about wording that I didn’t see
in here. Where those had to be taken out or?
Hoffman: What about?
Stolar: …name of the person or what was the other, I didn’t see it mentioned here.
Hoffman: Number 4 on memorial bench. A brass plaque in memory of the name of the person.
Recognition of public office, dates of birth and death.
Stolar: Oh okay. Yeah, I’m sorry, yeah, it’s okay.
Hoffman: And then memorial tree, the name plate, a memorial plaque shall give the full proper
name. Nick names where appropriate may be included…and then it talks about no additional
metals. Just want to stay away from the graveyard effect.
Murphy: How common is that? The ashes being scattered in a park.
Hoffman: We’ve never had an ashes scattering in our park system but throughout the country
it’s very popular. Especially at national parks, ocean fronts.
Stolar: If we build a dog park.
Hoffman: …we’re not going to put them at home plate, but you know wooded area or if
someone’s favorite beach front, that’s…
Stolar: If anyone wants to build a Parkview shelter for us, we’ll put a plaque.
Hoffman: Absolutely. We’ve accounted for that. Other memorials. Picnic shelters,
playgrounds. …of Plymouth he told me the story once where a person walked into his office and
said I’d like to make a donation. Well what would that be and she wrote a check out for
$50,000. I want to buy a playground.
Park and Rec Commission – September 25, 2005
20
Stolar: Again we will welcome that. I would love to have that.
Hoffman: Don’t see that every day.
Stolar: Great. Anything else? Any questions on correspondence?
Hoffman: There was a great report on the bluebirds from Director Dale Rusch. He is a fine
gentleman out at Arboretum Village who maintains the bluebird houses at Lake Ann Park. Does
a great job. Look at the fledglings. 34. That’s a lot of bluebirds.
Stolar: Is that the most?
Hoffman: Most I think he’s counted out there. I mean we had one house missing so he does a
great job for us. And he bikes from there to here, back and forth and I’ve never seen him in a car
so he’s a great guy.
Stolar: Alright, seeing no other business, motion to adjourn.
Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:35
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
MEMORADUM
TO: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
FROM: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent
DATE: October 26, 2005
SUBJ: Acceptance of $500 Donation from the Dave Huffman
Memorial 5K Race Committee
Annually, the Dave Huffman Race Committee discusses which community
organizations should be the beneficiaries of the race proceeds. The race
committee had prior knowledge that Dave was an Eagle Scout and that scouting
was important to Dave and his family. The city coordinates Eagle Scout projects
every year and the race committee thought it would be appropriate to donate $500
to help fund these projects. The Eagle Scout projects are funded through the
Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) and the $500 would be welcomed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council accept the $500 donation from the Dave
Huffman Race Committee to assist with Eagle Scout projects in Chanhassen.
Upon receiving approval from council, staff will send a letter thanking them for
their contribution.
G:\Park\Jerry\Huffman Race\Donation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director
DATE: October 27, 2005
SUBJ: Approval of 2005/06 Ice Skating/Hockey Rink Program
Annually the Park and Recreation Commission reviews and makes a
recommendation to the City Council concerning the city’s outdoor ice skating
and hockey rink program. Outdoor skating reached its peak in the late 1970’s.
Indoor ice arenas with refrigerated ice and climate controlled spectator areas
quickly eroded the popularity of outdoor skating. This being said, there remains
a segment of winter recreation enthusiasts that appreciates the value of skating
outdoors.
Fifteen to twenty years ago, the city flooded approximately one dozen outdoor
ice sheets in various parks across the community. In that same twenty years, the
city’s population has more than quadrupled. The same cannot be said for
outdoor ice sheets. Last year, the city flooded eight sheets of ice in four
locations. In addition to decreasing use, a stretch of mild winters has
contributed to the reduction in this program.
This past summer, four neighborhoods were involved in volunteer playground
installation projects. One outcome of these projects has been an increased
interest in neighborhood park programs. The Rice Marsh Lake Park neighbors
held not one, but two neighborhood block parties following the completion of
their new playground. In addition, they have scheduled a weekly play date at
their park drawing 30 – 40 kids and parents each week. With the coming of the
winter season, these residents expressed an interest in continuing to meet at the
park, but lacking the presence of the ice rink, recognized that it would be
difficult to continue their new found tradition.
At the September 27, 2005, Park and Recreation Commission meeting, residents
from both the Rice Marsh Lake Park and Chanhassen Hills Neighborhoods
voiced their desire to see neighborhood ice rinks reinstated. The minutes of that
discussion and a petition submitted are attached to this report. Having expressed
a desire to “test the water” on neighborhood ice rinks, the Commission asked
staff to bring this item back to the Commission at their next meeting with data
and a recommendation.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
October 27, 2005
Page 2
On October 25, staff presented a recommendation to the Park and Recreation
Commission to flood three additional ice sheets this season—one at Pheasant
Hills Park, one at Chanhassen Hills Park, and one at Rice Marsh Lake Park.
Records of the amount of use these rinks receive will be kept for use in
evaluating future ice skating programs. No additional overtime will be required
to provide neighborhood rinks at these locations. Neighborhood rinks require
the least amount of time to install and maintain. Hockey rinks are the most labor
intensive.
RECOMMENDATION
Following public comment, the commission unanimously recommended that the
City Council approve the flooding of 11 ice rinks at seven locations as depicted
on the attached map for the 2005/06 ice skating/hockey season. Approval
requires a simple majority vote of those City Council members present.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo to the Park & Recreation Commission dated October 14, 2005
2. Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 27, 2005
3. Petition from the Rice Marsh Lake Park Neighborhood
4. Ice Skating Policy Concerning Rink Flooding
5. Ice Rink User Totals from the 2001/2002 Season
6. Skating Rink Usage, 2000-2001
7. Skating Rink Open/Close Dates
8. Volunteer Rink Attendant Schedule, 2002/2003
G:\park\th\ice skating rink recommendation.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM: Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: October 26, 2005
SUBJ: Approve Addendum to Pinehurst Development
Contract - Project No. 05-03
The developer of Pinehurst has requested an extension for the time of
performance. The development contract for Pinehurst, approved by the City
Council on March 14, 2005 and recorded on July 25, 2005, stipulates that the
developer shall install all required improvements by November 15, 2005. Due to
the number of rain delays this project has experienced, staff recommends that the
time of performance be extended to November 15, 2006.
g:\eng\projects\pinehurst\approve addendum a.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ADDENDUM “A”
TO PINEHURST
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated November 14, 2005, by and between the CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and Ploweshares Development,
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”).
1. BACKGROUND. The City and Developer entered into a development contract for the
Pinehurst dated March 14, 2005, recorded July 25, 2005 as Document No. A419431 with the
Carver County Recorder’s office (the “Development Contract”).
2. EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. The Development Contract shall remain in
full force and effect subject to the following amendment:
All required improvements must be completed by November 15, 2006. The Developer may,
however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned
upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended
completion date.
2
3. RECORDING. The Development Contract and this Addendum “A” shall be
recorded against all lots, blocks, and outlots in Pinehurst.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Addendum “A” was executed by the parties the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC
BY:
Todd M. Simning, Chief Manager
3
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________,
2005, by Thomas A. Furlong and by Todd Gerhardt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of
the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF ________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of __________,
2005, by Todd Simning, the Chief Manager of Ploweshares Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Drafted by:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Approve Expenditure of Funds for Raw Watermain Improvements
in the Lake Harrison Development - Project No. 05-13
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve expenditure of funds for trunk watermain improvements in the Lake
Harrison Development.
BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2005, Council approved the Development Contract for Highcrest
Meadows with raw watermain and trunk oversizing cost reimbursement
requirements.
On July 11, 2005, Council approved the Development Contract for Lake Harrison
Development with raw watermain cost reimbursement requirements.
On August 8, 2005, Council approved expenditure of funds for trunk and raw
watermain cost reimbursement requirements.
On September 12, 2005, the City approved the purchase of land for the future
west water treatment plant.
DISCUSSION
Twelve and 20-inch diameter raw watermain are proposed to be constructed in
conjunction with the Lake Harrison development. The proposed raw watermain,
or well collection pipe, will convey untreated water from Well Nos.7 and 8 to the
future west water treatment facility. The collection pipe is proposed to be
extended through the Lake Harrison Development at this time because it will be
more costly to do when the area is developed. The collection pipe will connect to
the collection pipe already installed with the Highcrest Meadows development.
The reimbursement for the cost of installing the raw watermain was included in
the Lake Harrison development contract and site approval conditions approved by
Council.
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 2
The cost to construct the raw watermain is $283,123.84, which includes $8,246.33
in engineering costs. Staff has reviewed the costs and finds them acceptable.
The financing for the improvement was included in the 2005 rate study update
since this project was not programmed in the 2005 CIP. The total cost for the
water system improvements is $283,123.84 and will be 100% funded from the
Water Utility Fund.
Attachment
c: Daniel J. Herbst, Pemtom Land Company
g:\eng\projects\lake harrison\trunk watermain bkgd 11-14-05.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Approve Work Orders for TH 312/212 Betterments
Project No. 03-09
REQUESTED ACTION
The City Council is requested to approve the utility betterment work orders associated
with the TH 312/212 Improvements, Project No. 03-09. The total cost for the work
orders is $1,493,504.00.
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2005, the City Council ordered the portion of the 2005 MUSA
Improvements to be built in conjunction with the TH 312/212 Project. These
improvements included the following:
Utility Betterment Description
UDS 3-10 Lyman Boulevard Watermain (Powers Boulevard to TH 101)
UDS 3-11 Powers Boulevard Watermain (Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer
Trail)
UDS 3-12 Pioneer Trail Watermain (Western City Limit to Powers
Boulevard)
UDS 3-13 Sanitary Sewer Crossing Under Lyman Boulevard at TH 101
UDS 3-14 Pioneer Trail Sanitary Sewer (Bluff Creek Drive to Powers
Boulevard)
UDS 3-15 Powers Boulevard Sanitary Sewer (Pioneer Trail to the Future
Lift Station South of TH 212)
City staff received costs from MnDOT for these six utility betterments as a part of the
RFP process for the TH 312/212 Project. Most of the betterments are associated with
the 2005 MUSA. The total cost provided by MnDOT for these improvements was
$1,429,000.00. The costs received at that time were from a 30% design status and did
not reflect final comments by the City.
City staff has requested changes to the scope of the utility betterments warranting
modifications to the work orders for each of these betterments. The modifications
include the following changes:
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\1g. Staff Report.doc
UDS 3-10
· Deletion of a 16-inch watermain along Lyman Boulevard between Powers
Boulevard and TH 101. Staff has modeled the proposed watermain improvements
and found a more cost effective alignment that will be installed through the 2010
MUSA.
· Installation of an 8-inch watermain along the south side of Lyman Boulevard
(CSAH 18) from Lake Susan Drive to Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17).
· Installation of an 8-inch watermain stub crossing Lyman Boulevard at the old TH
101 intersection for a future connections.
· Installation of two 8-inch watermain stubs to the proposed park and ride facility
along the east side of TH 101 north of Pioneer Trail.
UDS 3-11
· Installation of 8, 12 and 16-inch watermain stubs along Powers Boulevard (CSAH
18) to service adjacent properties.
· Construction of a pressure reducing valve (PRV) along Powers Boulevard south
of TH 212.
UDS 3-12
· Installation of 8- and 12-inch watermain stubs along Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14) to
service adjacent properties.
UDS 3-13
· Installation of a 21-inch PVC sanitary sewer stub across Lyman Boulevard
(CSAH 18) at the old TH 101 intersection.
· Installation of 8-inch sanitary sewer stubs to the proposed park and ride facility
along the east side of TH 101 north of Pioneer Trail.
UDS 3-14
· Installation of 8- and 15-inch sanitary sewer stubs along Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14)
to service adjacent properties.
UDS 3-15
· Installation of 8- and 18-inch sanitary sewer stubs along Powers Boulevard
(CSAH 18) to service adjacent properties.
The total cost for the additional work is $64,504.00. Therefore, the total cost for the
utility betterments including the additional work orders is $1,493,504.00. The total
costs have been reviewed and assessments calculated based on benefit to the
benefiting properties and the City’s trunk utility oversizing contribution practice.
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 3
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\1g. Staff Report.doc
These costs only reflect the work orders for the utility betterments. Additional costs
of $1,138,917.16 for turn lane, signal and storm drainage improvements are included
as a part of the Cooperative Agreement process that has been previously approved.
Funding for these work orders is proposed through a combination of special
assessments to the benefiting properties and City costs. The total cost for these
improvements, including engineering and administrative costs, is $1,493,504.00.
The proposed funding allocation for this project is:
Funding Source Total Amount
Assessments $ 923,681.00
City Cost $ 569,823.00
Financing for the project will be from the State of Minnesota Loan Agreement that
the City approved on April 11, 2005.
The City Attorney has reviewed the work orders and finds them in order.
RECOMMENDATION
At this time, staff recommends that Council “Approve the utility betterment work
orders for the TH 312/212 Improvements”.
Attachments
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: 2005 Environmental Excellence Awards
REQUESTED ACTION (Simple majority vote of the City Council)
Authorize the presentation of 2005 Environmental Excellence Awards to the
following award winners on November 28, 2005:
· Dry Cleaning Station
· Mark Taintor
DISCUSSION
Environmental Excellence Awards are given by the City of Chanhassen to
recognize environmental improvements and encourage environmental stewardship
throughout the community. These awards are designed not only to recognize
achievement, but also to communicate new ideas and help educate the members
of the Chanhassen community. For 2005, two nominees have been recommended
by the Commission.
The Dry Cleaning Station’s application is attached and has been reviewed by the
Commission. This innovative dry cleaning business uses environmentally-
friendly, non-hazardous solvents in their cleaning process. They have also
implemented company-wide recycling of their cardboard boxes, accept hangers
brought to them by customers and use dry cleaning bags made from recycled
plastic.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 2
Resident Mark Taintor is a dedicated bicycle commuter. For the last four years, Mark has biked
to work year round. The benefits of this choice of transportation is not only personal – Mark
saves money, stays healthy, reduces wear and tear on his vehicle, but also regional – less traffic
congestion, no air pollution, and no additional maintenance costs for roads.
The award presentation is scheduled for the November 28 City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The Environmental Commission recommends the following awards for the recipients:
Plaque – Dry Cleaning Station
Chan Bucks – Mark Taintor
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application from Dry Cleaning Station
2. Application from Mark Taintor
g:\plan\js\ec\projects\ee award\ee award memo 05.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Appointment to the Environmental Commission
REQUESTED ACTION
The Environmental Commission recommends that the City Council appoint Shirley
McGee to the Environmental Commission for a term expiring March 31, 2008.
DISCUSSION
One position on the Environmental Commission is currently vacant. The position’s
term is through March 31, 2008. The Environmental Commission interviewed Shirley
McGee on November 8 and recommends her appointment to the Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application from Shirley McGee
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I
DATE: September 26 November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Troy & Virginia Kakacek – Planning Case #05-18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item was appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request for a
4.23 1.77% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface
coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property
located in the Single-Family Residential District at 380 West 86th Street. These
improvements have already been built. Since this request was first presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council, staff noticed some inaccurate data
on the as-built survey. The portion of the driveway that lies within the public
right-of-way was included in the hard cover calculations of the applicants’
property. Furthermore, the applicant has removed an additional 90 square feet
from the patio in the rear yard. This report has been revised to reflect accurate
calculations.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the
proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the request.
That decision was appealed by the applicant.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 12, 2005, to review the
request. Council tabled the application in order to give staff and the applicant
time to explore alternative solutions to resolving the hard cover issue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page 7 of the staff report
dated November 14, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 19, 2005.
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 19, 2005.
3. City Council Minutes dated September 12, 2005.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variance\executive summary 10-10-05 cc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
PC DATE: July 19, 2005
CC DATE: October 24 November 14, 2005
REVIEW DEADLINE: November 21, 2005
CASE #: 05-18
BY: JM, JS, DR
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Request for 4.23 1.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard
surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property
located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86th Street. These
improvements have already been built.
LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition
380 West 86th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
APPLICANT: Troy & Virginia Kakacek
380 West 86th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE: 0.35 acre
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.23 1.18% hard surface coverage variance
from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall.
These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial approval of this request.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19 September 12 November 14, 2005
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the
proposed variance. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the request. That decision was
appealed by the applicant, and thus, has come before the City Council. The summary and verbatim
minutes are Attachment 8 of this packet. Since this request was first presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council staff noticed some inaccurate data on the as-built survey. This report
has been revised to reflect accurate calculations.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86th Street and is zoned
Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4.23 1.18% (which represents 642.24
178.63 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface
coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These structures have already been built
bringing the existing hard surface coverage to 29.23 26.18%.
N o r t h B ay Dr
W 86th St T
i
g
u
a
L
a
n
e
MissionHills
Crt
Missi
o
n
H
i
ll
s
L
a
ne
H w y 101 G re at P l ain s Blvd
W 86th St
Marshland Trl
M
o
n
k
C
r
t
Ric e C rt
Missio
n
Way Hill W Mission W ay Hill E
Heart
l
and Crt
Bla
c
k
bird Crt
M
a
y
f
ield Crt
M i s s i on Hills Dr.
Mission Hills
D
r.
Fris
c
o Crt
Mission Hills La
n
e
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
H
ills Circle
P r o p o s e d T .H .2 1 2
Subject Site
Lake Susan
Rice Marsh Lake
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review.
(a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require
building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage,
structure height, etc.
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19 September 12 November 14, 2005
Page 3
(b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall
be denied by the community development director.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent.
Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm
water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures.
BACKGROUND
The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition which was recorded on October
22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the
plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential
(RSF) district and has an area of 15,180 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted
impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hard cover of 29.23 26.18%.
The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as-built survey from
Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover
percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as-built survey. The
City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%.
Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover
restrictions or apply for a variance.
This application was originally scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005.
The original proposal included the concrete and gravel sidewalks as part of the variance request. The
applicant requested the application be tabled in order to revise the variance proposal. The Kakacek’s
have since removed the concrete and gravel sidewalks and have replaced them with landscaping rock
and mulch. In doing so the applicant has reduced the existing hardcover by 248 square feet, or 1.63%.
This put the hard cover request at 30.86%. Therefore, a correction to the survey hard cover calculations
needs to be made. The as-built survey includes the sidewalks as part of the hard cover calculation. The
City does not consider landscape rock and mulch, with a fabric liner, to be impervious surface.
Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations shall be ignored for the purposes of this
variance request.
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19 September 12 November 14, 2005
Page 4
Before – Gravel Walkway After – Mulch Walkway
Before – Concrete Sidewalk After – Rock Walkway
Revised as-built survey calculation:
House = 2,537.24 sq. ft.
Patio = 519.00 sq. ft.
Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft.
Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 4,437.24 sq. ft. 29.23%
In addition to the corrections discussed above, staff recently noticed that the surveyor had
incorrectly included that portion of the driveway which lies in the public right-of-way (not on the
applicants’ property) in the hard cover calculation. The area of driveway located on the
applicants’ property is actually 995.39 square feet rather than 1,369 square feet as noted on the as-
built survey. This erroneously contributed 373.61 square feet, or 2.46% to the hard cover
calculations. The applicant has also removed 90 square feet from the patio in the rear yard.
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19 September 12 November 14, 2005
Page 5
Revised as-built survey calculation #2:
House = 2,537.24 sq. ft.
Patio = 429.00 sq. ft.
Driveway = 995.39 sq. ft.
Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 3,973.63 sq. ft. 26.18%
Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as-built survey are the
dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which
was proposed. The as-built survey shows that the home and driveway alone are at 25.8% (111.24 square
feet over the maximum permitted hard cover). The area of the driveway on the building permit
survey totals 896 square feet. The area of the driveway located within the applicants’ property
lines was actually built at 995.39 as shown on the as-built survey.
In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the
violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City
approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with
staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed
the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting
between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the
attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants’ interpretation of landscaping included patio
areas. Had staff been aware of this interpretation, the applicant would have been informed that hard
cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios.
ANALYSIS
The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the
patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for patios. However, such
structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure
that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a
zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height.
Patio Retaining Wall/Rock Sidewalk
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19 September 12 November 14, 2005
Page 6
There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code.
The applicant would need to remove 178.63 square feet of hard cover in order to comply with City
ordinance. This could be achieved through removal of patio area, driveway area or a combination
of removal from both. Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace
them with wooden decking with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to
enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. In addition, in order to reach 25%,
the size of the driveway would have to be reduced by at least 111.24 square feet.
At the City Council meeting on September 12, 2005, the City Council tabled this item to provide
time for the applicant to work with staff to find alternatives for the resolution of the impervious
surface issues. One of the alternatives mentioned was the construction of an infiltration basin on
the Kakacek property. An infiltration basin (rain garden) is not recommended in this instance.
Chanhassen's soils are typically quite clayey and do not permit large amounts of infiltration to
occur. In addition, small, privately owned infiltration basins are often designed and/or
constructed improperly. As a result, they often require more maintenance than anticipated and
do not perform as well as property owners expect. For these reasons, staff does not recommend
infiltration as a condition, should the City Council recommend approval of the hardcover
variance.
While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the
granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of
the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property
would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-
car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to
the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e.,
use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request.
LANDSCAPING
The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition included a total of 12 trees to be
planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned
trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86th Street is required to have a total of four
trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found
only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot
requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means
that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500
feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19 September 12 November 14, 2005
Page 7
that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie
within the Single Family Residential District.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of
the parcel of land.
Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance
review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in
runoff from this property.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the
following motion:
“The Planning Commission City Council denies Variance #05-18 for a 4.23 1.18% hard surface coverage
variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining
wall on a lot zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the
following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
Planning Case #05-18
Kakacek Variance
July 19 September 12 November 14, 2005
Page 8
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission City Council orders the property owner to:
1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.
2. Plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements.”
Should the Planning Commission City Council choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that
the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion:
Staff recommends City Council adopt the following motion:
“The Planning Commission City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 4.23 1.18% hard surface
coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio
and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped “Received May 6, 2005”.
4. Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
6. Building Permit Survey.
7. As-Built Survey.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variance\staff report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Spalon Montage – Planning Case #05-33
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a request for a Site Plan Amendment to place an illuminated sign on the
second level of Market Street Station, outside of the approved first floor sign band
on property zoned Central Business District (CBD) at 600 Market Street, Suite
200.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2005, to review
the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the
request.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page
8 of the staff report dated October 18, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 18, 2005.
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 2005.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-33 spalon montage site plan amendment\executive summary.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
PC DATE: October 18, 2005
CC DATE: November 14, 2005
REVIEW DEADLINE: November 15, 2005
CASE #: 05-33
BY: JM
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Request for a Site Plan Amendment to place an illuminated sign on the second level of
Market Street Station, outside of the approved first floor sign band on property zoned
Central Business District (CBD).
LOCATION: 600 Market Boulevard, Suite 100
Chanhassen, MN 55317
APPLICANT: Kraus-Anderson Realty Company Spalon Montage
c/o Michael Korsh 600 Market Street, Suite 200
4210 W. Old Shakopee Road Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bloomington, MN 55437
PRESENT ZONING: Central Business District (CBD)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
ACREAGE: N/A
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to install an illuminated sign on the second
level of Market Street Station, outside of the approved first floor sign band. The placement of the sign will
require a Site Plan Amendment because the site plan approved by City Council did not allow signage to be
placed at the proposed location. Staff is recommending denial of this request.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Site Plan Amendment is limited to whether or not
the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a Site Plan Amendment. The
City has a relatively high level of discretion with a Site Plan Amendment because the applicant is
seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
2
Planning Case #05-33
Spalon Montage Sign Site Plan Amendment
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Amendment in order to place an illuminated sign on the second
level of Market Street Station, outside of the approved first floor sign band. The purpose of placing the
sign on the second level would be to create visibility to traffic along Market Boulevard.
Proposed Wall Sign
SIGN BAND AREA
Planning Case #05-33
Spalon Montage Sign Site Plan Amendment
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 3
Construction Drawing
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS
Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc.
All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible,
as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multitenant commercial and industrial buildings shall
have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented for site plan review,
proposed signs for the development should be presented concurrently for staff review. All planned
centers and multitenant buildings shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Sec. 20-1251. Purpose and findings. (Attached Below).
Sec. 20-1303. Highway, general business districts and central business districts. (Attached Below).
Planning Case #05-33
Spalon Montage Sign Site Plan Amendment
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 4
BACKGROUND
The site is located north of Highway 5 and south of West 78th Street along Market Boulevard. Access to the
site is gained via Market Boulevard and/or Market Street. 600 Market Street was created with Site Plan
#2003-09, known as Market Street Station and was approved by the City Council on October 13, 2003.
The subject property, Lot 1, Block 1, Market Street Station, is owned by Kraus-Andersen LLC. Spalon
Montage occupies the second level of the east wing of 600 Market Street Station.
ANALYSIS
Sec. 20-1251. Purpose and findings.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of
communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's ability to
attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to
minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable
the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to
promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating
signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1) Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to
advertise their name and service;
(2) Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective
because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination;
(3) Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards;
(4) Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does
not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
(5) Preserve and protect property values;
(6) Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with,
the principal structures.
(b) Findings. The city finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health,
safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location, size and
maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds:
(1) Permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship to, the image of
the community;
(2) The manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health,
safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
Planning Case #05-33
Spalon Montage Sign Site Plan Amendment
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 5
(3) An opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions must be
established;
(4) The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and property is
affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly divert the attention
of drivers;
(5) Installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of buildings,
walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and an
obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service;
(6) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of
the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth
Spalon Montage is proposing the placement of an illuminated sign on the second level of Market Street
Station. The north elevation does not have street frontage. However, there are tenants whose individual
entrances are located at this elevation. Therefore, these future tenants will be permitted wall signage on
the north elevation. The applicant is requesting wall signage on the north elevation where their entrance
is located (Picture A). Site Plan approval for Market Street Station did provide for wall signage to be
placed on the north elevation of the building; however, signage was limited to the first level sign band.
Market Street Station Site Plan Layout
MARKET
BOULEVARD
MARKET STREET
Proposed Second
Level Wall Sign
(Picture A)
Picture D
Picture B
Picture C
Spalon
Montage
2nd Level
Planning Case #05-33
Spalon Montage Sign Site Plan Amendment
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 6
ILLUSTRATION OF GABLED MARKET STREET STATION ROOFLINES
(Sign band represented by black line)
Picture A (Spalon Montage Entry on Right)
Picture B
Picture C Picture D
Americana
Gable Sign
Spalon
Montage
Propos ed
Spalon Sign
Location
Spalon
Montage
Bebi Baby
Store
Common Entrance
(Spalon Access)
Future Bebi
Wall Sign
Spalon
Montage
Planning Case #05-33
Spalon Montage Sign Site Plan Amendment
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 7
Market Street Station has the potential to lease an additional nine individual units to future tenants. It is
assumed that along with these future tenants will be future signage. Four vacant units are available on
the first level; three on the south elevation and one on the east elevation. Five vacant units are available
on the second level; two on the south elevation and three on the north elevation.
Spalon Montage cannot locate their wall sign on the first level sign band directly above the entrance to
access the second level, on which they’re located, because it is a common entrance for multiple tenants.
Chanhassen City Code states:
Sec. 20-1303. Highway, general business districts and central business districts.
(3) Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business
occupant within a building only. In multitenant buildings where individual entrances do not
front on a public street, a wall sign may shall be permitted on the entrance facade if the
following apply:
a. The entrance is a unit entrance and not a common hallway,
b. The entrance is not an emergency exit or "exit only" for the unit.
Reference Picture A. If Spalon Montage were to locate a wall sign on the first level sign band below
their space they would have to place it on Bebi’s store front. The same is true if Spalon Montage were
to locate wall signage on the east or south elevation sign band; and this will also be the case in the event
that the two second level units on the south elevation request wall signage. The three second level units
on the north elevation could place signage on that elevations first level sign band.
Americana Community Bank has a wall sign in the gable roofline and was permitted signage at that
location through provisions made in the original site plan. This was the only gable allowed to have
signage in such a location. The gables shown in Pictures C & D are not permitted signage by code
because they do not have street frontage and are not main entrances to tenant space. However, staff is
concerned that permitting Spalon signage outside of the approved sign band will set a precedence
opening the door for other tenants to request signage on the gabled rooflines on the south elevation of
Market Street Station (Picture B) which has street frontage. In addition, the proposed sign is not placed
in a location that gives patrons a visual cue to the entrance to access Spalon Montage. While it is on
Spalon Montage’s leased space it is over the entrance of another individual tenant. Kraus-Anderson
stated in their letter that the owner is willing to provide assurance that there will be no additional
requests for second level signage. However, this statement holds no weight in that the City would not be
able to enforce such a restriction.
The City Building Official does not have an issue with the proposed placement of the wall sign. If the
Site Plan Amendment is approved the City will need to review and approve engineered drawings
showing how the sign will be constructed before a sign permit will be issued. Any proposed signage,
regardless of location, must comply with all sign code requirements.
Planning Case #05-33
Spalon Montage Sign Site Plan Amendment
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 8
FINDING
In evaluating a site and building plan, the planning commission and city council shall consider its
compliance with the following:
(5) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following;
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable
environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept
and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and
Finding: The proposed amendment is not consistent with the design requirements for Market Street
Station signage in that the proposed location is outside of the approved sign band. Based
upon the foregoing, staff is recommending denial of the site plan amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the
following motion:
“The Planning Commission recommends City Council deny Site Plan Amendment #05-33 to place an
illuminated sign on the second level of Market Street Station, outside of the approved first floor sign band
based on the findings of fact in the staff report.”
Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this request staff recommends the
Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve Site Plan Amendment #05-33 to place an
illuminated sign on the second level of Market Street Station, outside of the approved first floor sign band
based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit engineered drawings showing how the sign will be constructed before
a sign permit will be issued.
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
3. All signage must meet ordinance requirements.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Letter from Michael Korsh of Kraus-Anderson stamped “Received September 16, 2005”.
4. Letter from Cindy McDonald of Kraus-Anderson stamped “Received October 5, 2005”.
5. Proposed wall sign graphic submitted by applicant.
6. Site Plan Elevations of Market Street Station illustrating sign plan.
7. Potential Proliferation of Signage.
8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-33 spalon montage site plan amendment\staff report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: November 3, 2005
RE: Joint Powers Agreement with Appletree Institute for Health
Insurance Benefits
BACKGROUND
Each year, the city solicits bids from the marketplace for health insurance
benefits. Traditionally, Medica has been the provider for the City of Chanhassen
employees, however, their rates for 2006 came in 27.66% higher than our 2005
premiums. Clearly, this was not an option, and therefore staff and our agent,
Unison Benefits, solicited bids from other companies. Two companies provided
bids, with Blue Cross/Blue Shield providing the lowest bid, coming in with an
11.58% increase over our 2005 premiums for a similar plan structure.
While this was significantly lower than the Medica proposal, staff and Unison
Benefits wanted to see if another option was available. During the search, the
Appletree Institute provided a proposal for the same Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan
for an increase of only 7.09%. The Appletree Institute is a cooperative
arrangement of southwest Minnesota and metropolitan cities, counties, and non-
profit organizations that have pooled their resources to create a more competitive
bidding environment for health benefits. A list of the member communities and
organizations is attached to this report.
Joining this cooperative will allow the city to leverage the size of the group and
hedge against large claims that otherwise would penalize a smaller group such as
ours. There is no cost to join this cooperative, and all billing is done directly
through Appletree. The one detriment to joining the cooperative is that the city
must agree not to solicit competitive bids on our own each year. If we do, we can
be forced to leave the cooperative for a period of two years. However, our agents
are very aware of the trends in the health insurance industry, and they would only
recommend that we solicit bids individually in they believe we can secure a better
rate than is provided by the Appletree Institute.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached Joint
Powers Agreement with the Appletree Institute for providing health care benefits
for the City of Chanhassen employees. Approval of this item requires a majority
vote of the city council.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. Of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Adoption of Assessment Roll for TH 312/212 Improvements
Project Nos. 03-09, 04-05, and 04-06
REQUESTED ACTION (Simple Majority Vote Required)
Staff requests that the City Council consider a resolution adopting the Assessment
Roll for the TH 312/212 Improvements.
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2005, the City Council ordered the portion of the 2005 MUSA
Improvements to be built in conjunction with the TH 312/212 Project. These
improvements include the following:
1. Roadway improvements as follows:
· Turn lanes on Powers Boulevard at the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Turn lanes on Powers Boulevard for future roadways, south of the south TH
212 ramp.
· Turn lanes on Pioneer Trail at the future north cul-de-sac across from Bluff
Creek Drive.
· Turn lanes on Pioneer Trail at the South Connector Roadway.
· An additional through lane for the westbound TH 212 off ramp at Powers
Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway.
2. A traffic signal at the Powers Boulevard and East-West Collector Roadway
intersection.
3. A stormwater pond at the southeast quadrant of the Lyman Boulevard and
Powers Boulevard intersection.
4. Trunk watermain improvements as follows:
· Along Pioneer Trial.
· Along Powers Boulevard.
5. Trunk sanitary sewer improvements as follows:
· Along Powers Boulevard.
· Along Pioneer Trail.
These improvements are illustrated on the attached Exhibit 1.
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 2
There are also some TH 212-related improvements that are proposed to be assessed to
benefiting property owners that are outside the 2005 MUSA Improvement area.
These include the following:
1. Roadway improvements as follows:
· Turn lanes on Lyman Boulevard at old TH 101.
· Signal improvements at TH 101 and Lake Susan Drive.
2. Sanitary sewer and water improvements on Lyman Boulevard at old TH 101.
All of these improvements will be constructed as part of the TH 312/212 design-build
project through a cooperative agreement with MnDOT. MnDOT has provided costs
for all of these improvements consistent with the feasibility study for the 2005
MUSA Improvements. A majority of these costs are proposed to be funded through
assessments to the benefiting property owners. Bonding for the assessments will be
from the State of Minnesota Loan Agreement the City approved on April 11, 2005.
On September 26, 2005, the City Council called the assessment hearing for these
improvements. The Notice of Assessment Hearing was published in the October 6,
2005 edition of the Chanhassen Villager.
The assessment hearing was held on October 24, 2005. Objections were filed for the
following properties:
· G & M Laurent Family LTD Partnership
PIN 250260600
· Arthur B. Johnson
PIN 250260610
· Jeffrey and Terry Fox
PIN 250230320
· Fox Properties, LLP
PIN 250230300
Revisions have been made to the final assessment roll based upon additional
information that has been provided for the Laurent and Johnson parcels. In both
cases, the assessment area has been changed based on new information from the
property owners because of additional property taken as a part of the TH 212/312
project.
The following is a summary of the assessment revisions for these two parcels:
Original Revised
Parcel Assess. Amount Assess. Amount
G & M Laurent $ 173,442.60 $ 164,728.50
Arthur B. Johnson $ 50,499.49 $ 41,593.31
Both properties have withdrawn their assessment objections. A revised final
assessment roll is attached including these changes. The difference between the
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 3
revised assessment amount and the original assessment amount, the City is proposed
to pay.
The Jeffrey and Terry Fox, and Fox Properties, LLP parcels are currently undergoing
concept planning for future development and the property owners are not ready to
accept the assessments. Staff is continuing to work with the property owners to
address their concerns.
Staff is requesting the Council adopt the assessment rolls in order for the process to
stay on schedule.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The total project cost for these improvements, including engineering and
administrative costs, is $2,632,421.16. The proposed funding allocation, considering
the revised assessment roll, is:
Funding Source Total Amount
Assessments $ 1,679,131.53
City Cost $ 953,289.63
The City portion of the cost is for oversizing of infrastructure consistent with the
City's reimbursement practice. The portion of the total assessment amount that is
allocated to the Jeffrey and Terry Fox, and the Fox Properties, LLP parcels is as
follows:
Jeffrey and Terry Fox $ 80,017.40
Fox Properties, LLP $ 136,446.63
Total $ 216,464.03
Financing for the project will be from the State of Minnesota Loan Agreement that
the City approved on April 11, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
At this time, staff recommends that Council “Approve Assessment Roll for the TH
312/212 Improvements”.
Attachments: Assessment Rolls
Exhibit 1 - Project Improvements
Letters for withdraw of objection to the proposed assessments
CIP Pages
c: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
g:\eng\th 312\111405 bkgd th 212 assessments.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. Of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Adoption of Assessment Roll for 2005 MUSA Improvements,
Phase I - Project No. 04-05
REQUESTED ACTION (Simple Majority Vote Required)
Staff requests that the City Council consider a resolution adopting the assessment
roll for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I.
BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2005 the City Council ordered the portion of the 2005 MUSA
Improvements that will not be constructed in conjunction with the TH 212
project. These improvements include various street and utility improvements
within the 2005 MUSA.
Two separate bid packages are being prepared for the 2005 MUSA Improvements
to allow some of the construction to occur in 2005. The City Council approved
the plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for Bid
Package #1 on September 12, 2005. The following is a description of the
improvements included as a part of Bid Package #1.
Bid Package #1 - Bluff Creek Bridge and Trunk Water Main and Sanitary Sewer
· Installation of trunk water main along the east side of Bluff Creek between
Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Installation of trunk sanitary sewer along the east side of Bluff Creek between
Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Construction of a bridge across Bluff Creek including the realignment of a
portion of the creek channel.
These improvements are illustrated on attached Exhibit 1.
These improvements are proposed to be constructed during the late fall/early
winter months of 2005 to take advantage of frozen ground conditions and low
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\3a. Staff Report.doc
flows in Bluff Creek. The necessary easements have been obtained to allow the
construction of the Bid Package #1 improvements to proceed.
Consistent with the Feasibility Study and Report for the 2005 MUSA
Improvements, a majority of these costs are proposed to be funded through
assessments to the benefiting property owners.
On September 26, 2005 the City Council called the assessment hearing for these
improvements. The Notice of Assessment Hearing was published in the
October 6, 2005 edition of the Chanhassen Villager.
The assessment hearing was held on October 24, 2005. Objections were filed for
two (2) separate properties in the project area as follows:
· Jeffrey and Terry Fox
PIN 250230320
· Fox Properties, LLP
PIN 250230300
These properties are currently undergoing concept planning for future
development and the property owners are not ready to accept the assessments
until they have additional information on how the proposed infrastructure works
with the proposed concept plans. Staff is continuing to work with the property
owners to address their concerns and hopes to have this issue resolved in the next
30 days.
The necessary construction easements for the Phase 1 project have been obtained
and therefore the project can be constructed.
Staff is requesting that the Council adopt the assessment roll in order for the
process to stay on schedule. The assessment amounts are summarized on the
attached assessment roll.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The construction contract amount is for $1,615,113.00. The total project cost
which includes engineering, soil borings, legal costs, etc. is $2,019,000. The
proposed funding allocation is:
Preliminary
Funding Source Total Project Cost Design Estimate
Assessments $1,613,295.28 $1,772,200
Water Utility Fund
San. Sewer Utility Fund
$102,462.34
$117,007.35
$136,900
$106,500
MSA Fund $186,235.03 $206,600
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\3a. Staff Report.doc
The portion of the total assessment amount that is allocated to the Jeffrey and
Terry Fox, and the Fox Properties, LLP parcels is as follows:
Jeffrey and Terry Fox $ 109,660.39
Fox Properties, LLP $ 249,552.88
Total $ 359,213.27
RECOMMENDATION
At this time, staff recommends that Council “Approve Assessment Roll for the
2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I ”.
Attachments: Resolution
Assessment Roll
Exhibit 1 - Project Improvements
CIP Pages
c: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Award Contract for 2005 MUSA Improvements - Bid Package 1
Project No. 04-05
REQUESTED ACTION
Consider resolution accepting bid and awarding contract for Bluff Creek
Lowlands Public Infrastructure Improvements - Bid Package 1, Project No. 04-05.
The award of the contract should be contingent on adoption of the assessment roll.
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2005, the Council approved plans and specifications and
authorized advertisement for bids for the Bluff Creek Lowlands Public
Infrastructure Improvements – Bid Package 1, Project No. 04-05. The
improvements included as a part of this project are as follows:
· Installation of a 12” trunk watermain along the east side of Bluff Creek
between Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Installation of a 21” trunk sanitary sewer along the east side of Bluff Creek
between Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Construction of a precast concrete arch bridge across Bluff Creek including
realignment of a portion of the creek channel.
These improvements are proposed to be constructed during the late fall/early
winter months of 2005 to take advantage of frozen ground conditions and low
flows in Bluff Creek. These improvements are necessary to prepare for the
development of the 2005 MUSA Expansion.
Bids were opened for the project on Friday, October 14, 2005 at 11:00 AM. Five
(5) bids were received as follows:
Bidder Amount
Veit & Company, Inc. $1,615,113.00
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $1,645,978.72
Utility Systems of America, Inc. $1,670,427.00
Ames Construction, Inc. $1,738,783.00
LaTour Construction, Inc. $1,766,827.39
Engineer’s Estimate $1,760,000.00
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\3b. Staff Report.doc
The bids have been tabulated and an error was found in the bid of Utility Systems
of America, Inc., however, it did not affect the bidding order. All bids were
submitted with proper bid guarantees in the amount of 5% of the bids.
Veit & Company, Inc. was the low bidder with a total bid amount of
$1,615,113.00. The low bid is approximately 8% less than the Engineer’s
Estimate.
Veit & Company, Inc. has not recently completed any similar projects for the
City; however, they have worked with our consulting engineer on similar projects
in other local communities. We believe that they are competent to successfully
complete this project. Award of the project to Veit & Company, Inc. is, therefore,
recommended.
Funding for this project is proposed through a combination of special assessments
to the benefiting properties in the 2005 MUSA, Water Utility Funds, Sanitary
Sewer Utility Funds and MnDOT State Aid Funds. The proposed financing plan
is summarized in detail in the project feasibility report. Based upon the low bid
cost, the total estimated project cost (including indirect costs) is $2,019,000.
Special assessment amounts for individual property owners have been determined
based upon this total estimated project cost. Any additional projects costs will be
funded through a combination of Water Utility Funds, Sanitary Sewer Utility
Funds and MnDOT State Aid Funds.
Funding for the total project cost is proposed as follows:
Assessments $1,613,295.28
Water Utility Funds $ 102,462.34
Sewer Utility Funds $ 117,007.35
MnDOT State Aid Funds $ 186,235.03
The proposed schedule for the project is as follows:
Award Contract November 14, 2005
Start Construction November 21, 2005
Construction Complete June 3, 2006
Attachments: 1. Exhibit 1 - Project Location Map
2. Resolution
3. CIP Pages
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
Veit & Company, Inc.
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\3c. Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: Approve Construction Inspection Contract
2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase 1
Project No. 04-05
REQUESTED ACTION
The City Council is requested to approve a Consultant Work Order with Kimley-
Horn and Associates in the amount of $187,000 for construction phase services
for Phase 1 of the 2005 MUSA Improvements.
BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2005, the City Council ordered the portion of the 2005 MUSA
Improvements that will not be constructed as a part of the TH 212 project. These
improvements include various street and utility improvements within the 2005
MUSA as detailed in the August, 2004 Feasibility Report prepared by Kimley-
Horn and Associates.
On March 28, 2005, the City Council approved a Consultant Work Order with
Kimley-Horn and Associates for preliminary design services for the 2005 MUSA
Improvements. This included efforts to further develop plans for the
infrastructure required to support development in the 2005 MUSA. These
improvements include various roadway, watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer improvements as described below.
1. Roadway Improvements
· East-West Collector Roadway between Audubon Road and Powers
Boulevard.
· East-West Collector Roadway/Audubon Road Turn Lanes and Traffic
Signal.
2. Watermain Improvements
· Extension of existing trunk watermain in Lyman Boulevard to the
proposed location of the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Trunk watermain along the East-West Collector Roadway between
Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard.
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\3c. Staff Report.doc
3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
· Extension of trunk sanitary sewer from an existing lift station along
the south side of Lyman Boulevard east of Audubon Boulevard.
· Trunk Sanitary Sewer along the East-West Collector Roadway
between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard.
4. Storm Drainage Improvements
· Storm sewer and ponding improvements along the East-West Collector
Roadway between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard.
On August 22, 2005, the City Council approved a Consultant Work Order with
Kimley-Horn and Associates for final design services for the 2005 MUSA
Improvements. This included the design of two separate phases of the project,
with the understanding that some of the project construction could occur in 2005.
The following is a description of the improvements included as a part of the first
phase of the project:
Bid Package #1 - Bluff Creek Bridge and Trunk Watermain and Sanitary Sewer
Improvements
· Installation of trunk watermain along the east side of Bluff Creek between
Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Installation of trunk sanitary sewer along the east side of Bluff Creek between
Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway.
· Construction of a Bebo bridge across Bluff Creek including the realignment of
a portion of the creek channel.
These improvements are proposed to be constructed during the late fall/early
winter months of 2005 to take advantage of frozen ground conditions and low
flows in Bluff Creek.
A preliminary schedule for the Bid Package #1 improvements is provided below:
Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Ad for Bids Sept. 12, 2005
Accept Prelim. Assessment Role & Call Assessment Hearing Sept. 26, 2005
Bid Opening Oct. 14, 2005
Assessment Hearing Oct. 24, 2005
Award Contract Nov. 14, 2005
Start Construction Nov. 21, 2005
Construction Complete June 3, 2006
Todd Gerhardt
November 14, 2005
Page 3
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\3c. Staff Report.doc
Staff has solicited a proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates for construction
phase services for the Bid Package #1 improvements. These services include
construction administration, inspection, staking, and quality control testing. It is
staff’s opinion that the construction phase services should be performed by
Kimley-Horn and Associates due to the following:
· The quality of their previous services for the 2005 MUSA.
· Their knowledge and background of the project area.
· Their knowledge of the property owners in the project area.
· The tight schedule required to allow these improvements to proceed to meet
the needs of the area property owners.
· They are already working in the project area providing construction phase
services for the TH 212 project.
Kimley-Horn’s estimated cost for the Bid Package #1 construction phase services
is as follows:
Work Task Estimated Fee
1. Construction Administration and Inspection $ 120,000
2. Construction Staking $ 40,000
3. Quality Control Testing $ 20,000
Subtotal $ 180,000
Reimbursable Expenses $ 7,000
Total Estimated Cost $ 187,000
These services will be performed on a time and materials basis not to exceed
$187,000. The hourly rates Kimley-Horn and Associates are proposing are the
same as for the previous preliminary and final design work tasks and are very
competitive with other consulting firms. They will be required to submit time
sheets verifying the hours worked on the project. Staff will review these time
sheets for accuracy.
Funding for these construction phase services will be provided primarily by
assessments to the benefiting property owners as identified in the 2005 MUSA
Feasibility Study.
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: CLINT & JENNIFER HURT: Request for After-the-Fact Hard
Surface Coverage Variance for a Sport Court, 8491 Mission Hills
Circle – Planning Case #05-32
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is being appealed to City Council by the applicant. Since this
application was presented to the Planning Commission the applicant has
proposed the removal of additional hard cover which has reduced the variance
percentage being requested and has eliminated the need for a 5 foot side yard
setback variance. The staff report has been revised to reflect these changes.
This is a request for a 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum
25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on
property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills
Circle.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2005, to review
the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to deny the
request for a 4.5% hard cover restriction variance and a 5 foot side yard setback
variance. That decision is being appealed by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page
7 of the staff report dated October 18, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 18, 2005.
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 2005.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-32 hurt variance\executive summary.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
PC DATE: October 18, 2005
CC DATE: November 14, 2005
REVIEW DEADLINE: November 15, 2005
CASE #: 05-32
BY: JM
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Request for 4.5 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard
surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a
sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission
Hills Circle. The sport court has been built.
LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen
8491 Mission Hills Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
APPLICANT: Clint & Jennifer Hurt
8491 Mission Hills Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE: 0.47 acre
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.5 2.76% hard surface coverage variance
from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the
addition of a sport court. The sport court has already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this
request.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
1
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The subject property is located
southeast of Great Plains
Boulevard and north of West
86th Street on Mission Hills
Circle and is zoned Single
Family Residential (RSF). The
applicant is requesting a 4.5
2.76% (which represents 926.78
568.25 square feet of site
coverage) hard surface coverage
variance from the maximum
25% hard surface coverage
restriction for the addition of a
sport court, approximately 53’x
40 35’, bringing the hard
surface coverage to 29.5
27.76%. This structure has
already been built.
APPLICABLE
REGUATIONS
Sec. 20-91. Zoning
compliance review.
(a) Zoning compliance
review shall be required
for the construction of
structures which do not
require building permits
to determine compliance
with zoning requirements
such as setback, site
coverage, structure
height, etc.
(b) Any zoning compliance
review application that
fails to meet zoning
ordinance requirements
shall be denied by the
community development director.
Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm
water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures.
W 86th St
Mission Hills
C r t
Miss
io
n
H
i
l
l
s
L
a
n
e
H w y 101 G re at P l ains Blvd
W 86th St
M
a
y
f
ie
ld Crt
Mis si on H ills Dr.
Mission Hill
s
D
r.
Fris
c
o
C
rt
Mission Hills La
n
e
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
H
ills Circle
SUBJECT SITE
Lake Susan
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 3
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent.
Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures.
(3) Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side and rear
yard setback of ten feet, but must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks.
Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations.
(6) The placement of any structure within easements is prohibited, except for those structures
specified herein. Fences may be allowed within an easement with an encroachment agreement if
they do not alter the intended use of the easement. A driveway or sidewalk from the street to the
house crossing drainage and utility easements at the front of the property are exempt from this
requirement.
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 4
BACKGROUND
The subject property was platted as part of
Marsh Glen which was recorded on
November 8, 2000. The house was built in
2001. The 60’x40’ sport court was not
shown on the plans for the building permit
application. The subject property is
located in the Single Family Residential
(RSF) district and has an area of 20,595
square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the
maximum permitted impervious surface
coverage for a lot. The applicant has a
hard cover of 32.11%, is proposing to
remove 539 897 square feet (2.62 4.35%)
of hard cover, and is requesting a 4.5
2.76% hard cover variance. The
applicant is removing enough of the
sport court to eliminate the need for a
side yard setback variance. The
applicant is also requesting a 5-foot side
yard setback variance for the sport court.
The hard cover issue came to the attention
of the City in the spring of 2005 with an
anonymous phone call from a resident
inquiring about construction of the sport
court close to the applicants’ property line. Upon inspection of the property, it was clear that various
portions of the improvements were on, or extended across property lines onto neighboring property. It
also appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. When it was clear the sport
court did not meet required setbacks, the applicant was informed that the property would have to be
brought into compliance with City Code or a variance would be need to be applied for. After meeting
with staff to discuss the
issues surrounding the
sport court, the applicant
decided to have an as-
built survey completed on
their property. The as-
built survey revealed the
existing hard cover was
32.11%. Variance
requests for relief from
hard cover and setback
restrictions were applied
for on September 16,
2005.
Rear
Property
Line
West
Side
Property
Line
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 5
ANALYSIS
The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the
sport court in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sport courts.
However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance
reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning
ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and
structure height.
The applicant has proposed the removal of the concrete slab (120 sq ft), the area of the sport court lying
within the 10-foot drainage & utility easement on the south edge of the property (300 sq ft), the area of
the sport court lying outside within the 5 foot side yard setback (265 sq ft), the paver patio in the
rear yard (93 sq ft), those portions of retaining wall located within drainage and utility easements
surrounding the sport court (119 sq ft) and that portion of retaining wall extending 9 feet across the
southern property line onto Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association property.
Existing Hard Cover Calculations:
Lot Area = 20,595 sq. ft.
House = 1,968 sq. ft.
Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft.
Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq. ft.
*Patio = 93 sq. ft.
*Retaining Walls = 281 sq. ft.
*Concrete Slab = 120 sq. ft.
*Sport Court = 2,437 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 6,614 sq. ft. 32.11%
*Portions of indicated items proposed to be removed.
Proposed Hard Cover Calculation:
House = 1,968 sq. ft.
Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft.
Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq. ft.
Patio = 0 sq. ft.
Retaining Walls = 162 sq. ft.
Concrete Slab = 0 sq. ft.
Sport Court = 1,872 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 6,075 sq. ft. 29.5%
TOTAL = 5,717 sq. ft. 27.76%
The applicant would have to remove will be removing 5 feet by the entire length of the west side of the
court to comply with the 10-foot side yard setback. while removing 926.25 square feet from the sport
court The applicant would have to remove and additional 568.25 square feet of hard cover in order
to comply with ordinance. The applicant could maintain a 1,210.75 1,303.75 square-foot sport court
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 6
(approximately 40’x30’ 38’x 35’); this would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard
while complying with ordinance requirements. The area of a basketball court inside the three-point arc
is approximately 628 square feet. The applicant could maintain a sport court nearly twice this size and
still comply with ordinance. Another option for removal of hard cover would be reduction of driveway
area.
The post-construction runoff pattern appears to be consistent with the drainage pattern that existed
before the sport court was constructed. Drainage flows to the existing pond southwest of the Hurt
residence within the Mission Hills townhome development. Based on the Mission Hills storm water
design calculations, this pond can accommodate the additional runoff from the impervious area for
which the Hurts are requesting a variance. However, staff is concerned that, should the Hurt variance
request be granted, future requests for a variance within this drainage area may be requested and granted
based on precedence. Should future variances be granted, the capacity of the pond may be exceeded;
therefore, staff recommends that the hard cover variance request be denied.
While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the
granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of
the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property
would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-
car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to
the principal use. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means
that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500
feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize
that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a
single-family home and a two-car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property.
Additionally, the applicant could maintain a smaller sport court.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie
within the Single Family Residential District.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of
the parcel of land.
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 7
Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: Construction of the sport court was completed before a zoning compliance review was
performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in
runoff from this property.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the
following motion:
“The Planning Commission City Council denies Variance #05-32 for a 4.5 2.76% hard surface coverage
variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance
for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in
the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission City Council orders the property owner to:
1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.”
Should City Council choose to approve this request staff recommends the adoption of the following
motion:
“The City Council approves Variance #05-32 for a 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the
maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned
Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following condition:
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 8
1. The applicant shall remove the following areas of hard cover: concrete slab (120 sq ft), the
area of the sport court lying within the 10-foot drainage & utility easement on the south
edge of the property (300 sq ft), the area of the sport court lying outside within the 5 foot
side yard setback (265 sq ft), the paver patio in the rear yard (93 sq ft), those portions of
retaining wall located within drainage and utility easements surrounding the sport court
(119 sq ft) and that portion of retaining wall extending 9 feet across the southern property
line onto Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association property.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Letter and Variance description from Clint & Jennifer Hurt stamped “Received September 16,
2005”.
4. Letter from Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association stamped “Received September
20, 2005”.
5. Numerous letters from various Chanhassen residents in support of Hurt Variance.
6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
7. As-Built Survey.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-32 hurt variance\staff report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I
DATE: November 14, 2005
SUBJ: MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: Request for a Hard Surface
Coverage Variance for a Garage and a Four-Season Porch, 8005
Cheyenne Avenue – Planning Case #05-34
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is being appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request
for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard
surface coverage restriction on property located in the Single Family Residential
District at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 1, 2005, to review
the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the
request. That decision is being appealed by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends adoption of the motion as specified on pages
7 & 8 of the staff report dated November 1, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1, 2005.
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 1, 2005.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig variance\executive summary.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
PC DATE: November 1, 2005
CC DATE: November 14, 2005
REVIEW DEADLINE: November 29, 2005
CASE #: 05-34
BY: JM
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Request for 6.88 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard
surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four-season porch on property
located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. These
structures have already been built.
LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates
8005 Cheyenne Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
APPLICANT: Mike & Cindy Koenig
8005 Cheyenne Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE: 0.29 acre (12,803 square feet)
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 6.88 4.06% hard surface coverage variance
from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four-season porch.
The garage addition and four-season porch have already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this
request.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
1
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1, 2005
Page 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The subject property is located south
of Highway 5 and east of Dakota
Avenue at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and
is zoned Single Family Residential
(RSF). The applicant is requesting a
6.88 4.06% (which represents 871.5
520.25 square feet of site coverage) hard
surface coverage variance from the
maximum 25% hard surface coverage
restriction for a garage addition
(20’x16’) and a four-season porch
(13.2’x14.3’). This brings the hard
surface coverage to 4,082 3,721 square
feet which is 31.88 29.06%. These
structures have already been built.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Sec. 7-19. Plans and specifications.
Impervious surface means any
material that substantially reduces or
prevents the infiltration of storm
water. It shall include, but not be
limited to, gravel driveways, parking
area, buildings and structures.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and
setbacks.
(5) The maximum lot coverage for
all structures and paved surfaces is 25
percent.
S T A T E H W Y . N O . 1 0 1
78th S t r e e t
S t a t e H w y N o . 5
Hidd
e
n
C
o
u
rt
a n e
E
r
i
e
A
v
e
Dakota Ave
Cheyenne
A
v
e
Dakota Ave
E r i e A v e
Lake D r iv e E a s t
Lake Driv e E a s t
Dakot
a
A
ve DakotaCir
C h e y
S p u r
R O A D
Subject Site
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1, 2005
Page 3
BACKGROUND
The subject property was platted as part of Chanhassen Estates which was recorded on August 3, 1966.
The house was built in 1969. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF)
district and has an area of 12,803 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted
impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant has a hard cover of 31.88 29.04%.
The issue at hand came to the attention of the City when inquiry was made regarding permitting of the
subject additions. It was discovered that a four-season porch was constructed in 1997 and a garage
addition was constructed in 2002. Both of these structures were built without building permits from the
City. Subsequently, the applicant applied for after-the-fact building permits for the garage addition and
porch. An as-built survey was submitted with the permits. This survey revealed the garage addition and
four-season porch both had nonconforming side yard setbacks. It also appeared the lot could be over on
the maximum hard cover percentage. A revised survey showed that the existing hard surface coverage
is 36.12%. At this point the applicant was informed that the property would have to be brought into
compliance with City Code or a variance would need to be applied for.
Garage Addition Four-season Porch Addition
On the survey dated September 29, 2005, it is clear that the applicants’ fence lies outside of their
property lines. It is not clear why the fence was located so far out of place with the property lines. The
fence was installed by Montgomery Ward in 1980.
After meeting with staff to discuss the issues surrounding the nonconformities, the applicant decided to
purchase land from their neighbors to the east at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue and to the west at 8003
Cheyenne Avenue and have also removed a portion of their driveway in order to eliminate the two
nonconforming side yard setbacks, reduce the property’s hard surface coverage percentage and bring the
side yard fences onto their property. Both neighbors have submitted their written agreement to sell a
portion of their property to the applicant.
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1, 2005
Page 4
ANALYSIS
Through two administrative subdivisions currently being processed, the applicant is acquiring a total of
1,568 square feet of land from neighboring properties to increase their lot area from 11,235 square feet
to 12,803 square feet. 361 square feet of driveway has been removed as well. As a result, their hard
surface coverage percentage has been reduced from 36.12% to 31.88 29.06%. The applicant would have
to remove an additional 881.25 520.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard
cover to 25%.
Old Lot Line
New Lot Line
Old Lot Line
New Lot Line
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 2005
Page 5
Back Yard Patio &
Wrap-around Sidewalk
Existing Hard Cover Calculations:
Lot Area = 12,803 sq. ft.
House = 2,178 sq. ft.
Driveway = 1,230 869 sq. ft.
Patio, Sidewalk, Stoop = 674 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 4,082 3,721 sq. ft.
= 31.88 29.06%
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 2005
Page 6
Lot 2 (8007 Cheyenne Avenue), located to the west of the subject property, is at 11,208 square feet in
area and currently has a nonconforming hard cover percentage of 25.8% as a result of conveying land to
the applicant as part of the administrative subdivision. However, the property owners of Lot 2 have
proposed in writing to remove the portion of the driveway that wraps around the side of the garage. In
fact, removal of this portion of the driveway has already begun.
The area is quite flat with a storm sewer at the front of the lot that extends east within Cheyenne
Avenue, then to the northeast within Cheyenne Spur, and connects to the storm sewer within the ravine
to the west of the development, which outlets to Rice Marsh Lake. This area of the City was developed
before water quality and quantity ponding requirements were established, therefore a pond was not
constructed to pretreat this water before entering Rice Marsh Lake.
During the September 4, 2005 storm, a property within Cheyenne Spur sustained water damage after the
storm sewer system surcharged and water entered the garage. Although the rainfall intensity during the
September 4th storm was significantly higher than the storm sewer systems are designed to handle, staff
recommends denial of the hard surface cover variance in order to minimize/eliminate storm-related
flooding to the maximum extent possible.
The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The minimum lot size in the RSF is
15,000 square feet. Therefore, the subject property has a nonconforming lot area of 12,803 square feet.
With a total hard surface coverage of 4,082 3,721 square feet, the property exceeds is just below the
maximum hard cover that would be allowed on a lot with an area of 15,000 square feet (3,750 = 25%).
If the subject property’s hard cover was reduced to 3,750 square feet, it would still be over the maximum
allowed in the RSF district with a percentage of 29.3%
While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the
granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of
the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property
would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-
car garage, already exists but is exceeding City hard cover restrictions. The applicant would have to
remove an additional 881.25 520.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover
to 25%. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use.
Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means
that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500
feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 2005
Page 7
that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a
single-family home and a two-car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie
within the Single Family Residential District.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of
the parcel of land.
Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: Construction of the garage addition and porch were completed without building permits;
therefore, this is a self-created hardship. Had building permits been sought, the hard surface issue
would have been addressed.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in
runoff from this property.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the
following motion:
“The Planning Commission City Council denies Variance #05-34 for a 6.88 4.06% hard surface coverage
variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four-season
porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the
following:
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 2005
Page 8
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission City Council orders the property owner to:
1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.”
Should the Planning Commission City Council choose to approve this request, staff recommends the
adoption of the following motion:
“The Planning Commission City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 6.88 4.06% hard surface
coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a
four-season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions:
1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance
with the Minnesota State Building Code.
2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage
& utility easements adjacent to new property lines.
3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying
property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Letter from Mike & Cindy Koenig stamped “Received September 29, 2005”.
4. Letter from Jim & Jan Gildner stamped “Received October 17, 2005”.
5. Letter from Pat Dolan stamped “Received October 24, 2005”.
6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
7. As-built Survey of Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped “Received September 29, 2005”.
8. As-Built Survey of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped “Received October 13,
2005”.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig variance\staff report.doc