CC Minutes 1997 01 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 13, 1997
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Mason, Councilman
Senn, Councilman Engel and Mayor Mancino
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Todd
Hoffman, and Jill Sinclair
OATHS OF OFFICE: MAYOR NANCY MANCINO, COUNCILMAN MARK ENGEL, AND
COUNCILMAN MARK SENN.
Mayor Chmiel: The next order of business is the swearing in of the Mayor and the two Council people and I would
like to have Roger take that and give them that authority that is going to be there and it will hold strong. With
that, Roger.
Roger Knutson presented the Oaths of Office to Councilman Mark Engel, Councilman Mark Senn and
Mayor Nancy Mancino.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
agenda with the following addition: Mayor Mancino wanted to include under Council Presentations an
update from the City Attorney on the Postal Service and a review of the January 6, 1997 Postal Service
letter. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
Mayor Mancino: Don, would you please review for us the organizational items on the agenda.
Don Ashworth: Sure. Included in the City Council packet are the rules of procedure as they have existed over the
past several years. There are a few minor changes dealing with the changing for regular meeting dates where we
have holidays. Did make a change under the special meeting where we have a by a majority. And maintenance of
the agenda. Staff is recommending approval. Oh, staff would recommend that the City Council consider one
motion for all of the items with the exception of the Acting Mayor which is a designation that typically the City
Council itself has dealt with. Under Official Newspaper, Chanhassen Villager has requested to be redesignated.
Under State law a newspaper that exists within a community must be chosen, unless there are more than one.
Again the Acting Mayor is something that you will be discussing later. Weed Inspector. The Mayor is officially
the Weed Inspector. Typically the Council has appointed Assistant Public Safety Director Bob Zydowsky. Fire
Chief Appointment, Mr. McMahon is on his second year of a two year appointment so his, well we show that as
really no action being necessary. Dr. McCollum has expressed an interest and willingness to continue to serve as
the City's Health Officer. Under consultants we really have five. City Attorney, Bond Consultant, City Auditor,
Official Depository and Insurance Agent of Record. All of those are really three year appointments. Currently the
City's in a rotational schedule where at the end of a three year schedule whatever consultant is up at that point in
time, we would go through a new RFP process which this year means that we would be looking to the Bond
Consultant currently held by Springsted and we would anticipate that that would occur approximately mid-year so
the recommendation is really to approve Springsted until such time as the RFP process can be finished and
determination made as to whether or not Springsted would continue or not. That is the staff recommendation on
the organizational items.
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: I'd like to open this for Council discussion. Are there any members that have any questions or
comments? Bringing this to a motion. Then may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following organizational items:
Resolution #97-01: Rules of Procedure as presented.
Official Newspaper - Chanhassen Villager
Weed Inspector - Assistant Public Safety Director Bob Zydowsky
Fire Chief - Jim McMahon
Health Officer - Dr. David McCollum
Agent of Record - Dolliff Insurance
Official Depository - Chanhassen Bank
Auditor - Tautges & Redpath
Bond Consultant - Springsted
City Attorney - Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Turning to Acting Mayor. The Acting Mayor will take over the duties and responsibilities of the
Mayor during her absence or disability. May I please have nominations for an Acting Mayor for the year 1997.
Councilman Berquist: I would nominate Councilman Mason.
Mayor Mancino: Any other nominations? Do you accept the nomination?
Councilman Mason: Oh sure.
Mayor Mancino: Nominations are closed. All those in favor of Mr. Mason please say aye?
Councilman Berquist moved to nominate Councilman Mason as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman Mason: Now you're not planning on being sick at any Council meetings or anything like that are
you?
Mayor Mancino: Going on a prolong...okay, thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Mancino: Item 2(b) has been pulled from the Consent Agenda per staff's request.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to pull 2c please.
Mayor Mancino: Any other Council members that would like to pull an item from the agenda? Consent agenda.
Councilman Senn, can we deal with 2c and make those changes right now?
Councilman Senn: Yep, very quickly.
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And then have a motion for the entire Consent Agenda.
Councilman Senn: Okay, if you go to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, under the Preliminary Statement, in
the last sentence. I would like to change the last sentence where it reads, for the development of programs to for
the development of transportation and mass transit programs. And likewise, in the third line of General Purpose
where it says jointly and cooperatively develop programs. Instead say, jointly and cooperatively develop a
transportation and mass transit program. And then back on page, let's see where are we? Page 7 under Article
10.3 where it says, a proposed budget shall be formulated by the Board and submitted to the parties. Instead have
it read, formulated by the Board and submitted to the Cities for review and comment.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. May I have a motion for the Consent Agenda for items 2a, c, d, e, f, and
g please.
Councilman Mason: Move approval.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items
pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution #97-02: Accept Public Street and Storm Sewer Improvements in The Meadows at Longacres 2nd
Addition, Project 95-10.
Resolution #97-03: Approve Revised Joint Powers Agreement with Suburban Transit Association as
amended by Councilman Senn.
d. Approval of Bills.
City Council Truth in Taxation Hearing Minutes dated December 4, 1996
City Council Minutes dated December 16, 1996
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 1996
f. Approve Certificate of Correction to Prairie Creek Plat.
g. Resolution #97-04: Approval of Gambling Permit Application, Chanhassen Lions.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Senn: Mayor, excuse me. Just clarification. On 2(b), is that being pulled offthe agenda totally or
just off the Consent Agenda?
Mayor Mancino: Totally off the agenda and will reappear January 27th. Thank you.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS~ BRAD JOHNSON.
Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm going to ask Vernelle just to hand out some
information to the four of you, or the five of you. And the staff. First of all, congratulations. To all the new faces.
The two Mark's. The new Assistant Mayor or whatever we are over here and I think we all want to say a fair
good-bye to our previous Mayor. Everybody's in the room so we have of course been very active with you. Over
the last year the City Council, Planning Commission, Met Council and the developers all have made in one way or
another a commitment to attempt to have affordable housing as defined by the Met Council units in the Villages on
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
the Ponds. What that means is that the goal would be to have affordable rental units in the area of $683.00 per
month and/or for sale units at a rate of $120,000.00 for sale. To achieve that goal is fairly difficult. Once we start
looking into the various alternatives of financing this type of transactions where you get the rents down well below
market, we discovered that there was a law passed a couple of years ago, as I mentioned in my letter, that was
basically designed to discourage the development or the classification of redevelopment districts in cornfields. And
they assumed that most of the cornfields would have been green acred and green acred so they prohibited new
districts being formed other than economic districts basically and green acred property. That prohibits the
possibility of using tax increment financing. Then last year they passed the affordable housing legislation, or the
year before. I'm not sure when that was, which says they would like to encourage the communities in the third and
fourth ring suburbs to include affordable housing in their plan. If you took an analysis then of land that's probably
zoned residential or close to residential, I think over a period of time you'll discover that most of it has been green
acred. So that takes away sort of an arrow that you could have in your quiver to try to attack that problem.
Because we felt that we had been given direction, as I said, by just about every body that was here, including the
Council last year, to go ahead and attempt to put affordable housing in it and we have made our commitment to try
our best to do that. We're requesting that, not so much you take action but you direct the staff to work with us and
possibly the Mayor write a letter and we are prepared to try to change that legislation so that within the green acres
we could at least do affordable housing. Now that's not making any type of commitment on your part to do that.
We've agreed to pay for the cost of the change potentially. We've already talked to both, indirectly the person who
wrote and authored the legislation and have talked to Tom Workman and everybody seems to feel that this is a
logical thing possibly to happen. Not just for Chanhassen but for elsewhere if they're going to accomplish this
affordable housing goal. Toward that end I guess that's where we are. We'd like to ask your participation in that.
Now I've talked to a couple of people and of course the first question is, can we see all the numbers. Why do you
need to do it and all that type of thing and I said well, the last time we did this in this community it took us about 3
years to get it done. It's called Heritage Park and was the first of that type of project and it was needed to
accomplish the downtown area. And we used everything that we could imagine at that time, and I think that's
probably one of the last truly market rate apartment houses that have been built since, certainly in Chanhassen, but
probably just about anyplace. We didn't use any bonds that were supported by this City. Everything was paid for
by the developer or on a pay as you go basis. For your information, I don't want to make this real long but I've
handed out sort of a problem sheet. If you look on the first page which deals with the cost of sort of a see thru unit.
That means you can walk in the front door and see out the back door window, of a rental or for sale type of a
product. The cost of that is about $143,000.00. There are units that are being built less than that but they're what
are called back to back, and Rottlund, Centex, Dean Johnson have all built that type of unit here in this community
or in the past and they can deliver that type of a unit for about probably $115,000.00, and there are some low end
see thru units with underground garages or attached garages you can build for maybe $140 for retail sale. And
there are different things but the Villages doesn't have that kind of land. I mean they take a lot of land. It's in
many cases 6 to 8 units per acre and the Villages were in the area, in order to accomplish the density we're trying
to do, they were more up around 16. So that shows in the cost figures that there's an approximately $23,000.00
differential between what a unit costs to be built and to be delivered in the Villages and what purchase price could
be under the guiding lots. So we just have a problem trying to reach that goal. We don't have a problem building
the units and selling them. That's not the problem. The problem is building them and selling them in this price
range. And the next page, also it shows you, which is really astounding, that the current cost of building a
parking, an apartment building with underground parking is about $86,000.00 per unit. When I first started in this
business it was $15,000.00. When we built the Villages over here, it was $55 so this price has gone up
dramatically over the last few years. As a matter of fact, it's gone up about 2 to 3 times as fast as rents have gone
up, and that's probably it's created a problem of the affordability. The next page indicates then, I'm just going to
highlight this. If in fact you're going to charge, if in fact it really costs this much to build the units and you were
getting $683.00 a month rent. The cost and the economic loss when you build a building is a $44,000.00 negative.
In other words, you build a building for $86,000.00 and the value when you're all done is about $42. At that rate.
Everything is valued based upon rent. The next one over shows what we consider to be market rate rent out here at
the Heritage Square and that type of unit's at $900.00 a month and the economic loss to do that is about
$22,000.00. And then in the right is what market is, and it's kind of hard to believe. I mean I have a hard time
adjusting to this, is that the rate of rental for a market rate apartment building currently being built in Eden Prairie,
Chanhassen or anyplace else, with what is called normal amenities, which is two car garage or a garage and half,
that's about $1,100.00 to $1,200.00 a month. That's what it would have to rent for. In order to justify the cost.
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
There has been no apartments built in the metropolitan area for about 8 years. And what we'd like to achieve, and
we think we can do that at this time, because one the rents are coming up. Is to work through the tax increment.
Other ways of doing things. The fact that we have a mix of retail and different types of housing units. The fact
that we can have some full market rate units in our project. In other words our partners feel that they can charge
$1,100.00. That's not the problem. The problem is how they get the rate down for other people. In other words,
the market in Chanhassen probably for this type of unit is $1,100.00. The market for the condominiums is
probably more like a quarter of a million rather than $120,000.00. So we don't have a problem ourselves in trying
to build this project but we have committed ourselves to work with the City and try to achieve your affordability
goals. So the goal simply is to allow us through the staff to work with probably public corp and see if we can
change the law. Then once all of this is accomplished we come back and maybe even during that period, and try
to figure out how can we meet this goal. And the urgency simply is the legislature has started. They're meeting
and we should get the legislation in the next 30 days. It doesn't mean anything, you know you're not committing
yourself to anything. That's what I want to make sure. You're just committing to seeing if we can change the law.
Obviously a developer like Lotus can't just walk in the door and suggest the law be changed but we feel that the
City of Chanhassen could. And that's why I'm here. Just to ask for permission and some guidance to the staff.
The staff's been working with me on this in the past and are there any questions?
Mayor Mancino: Do the Council members? Thank you. Although this item has not been published and cannot be
acted upon this evening, I'd like Council members to make comments now so that staff can prepare a report and
Brad can be prepared to answer any questions at our next City Council meeting on January 27th so that we can
take action. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Yes. Okay, thank you. I understand that we're not able to take any action here tonight.
However I would, insofar as we've bought into the Met Council's plan of attempting to provide affordable housing
and a certain percentage from the City of Chanhassen. And that this land obviously is not going to be industrial.
It would seem to make sense that we do what we can to make the change. I'd like to see a letter prepared outlining
the change, our support of the change and get it passed at the next session.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Nothing to add. Echo what Steve said makes sense.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: I concur.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: No problems with the letter. I'd like to see the specifics of it. I think it needs to ask only for
the change as it relates to affordable housing. No other purpose other than affordable housing. And that would
probably be it for now.
Mayor Mancino: I too support, am in favor of including affordable housing in the Villages development and would
therefore be in favor of supporting legislation to exempt the Villages from the current law. Some of my, I'm going
to go beyond and give a little bit more of my thoughts on that, and that is that I would, if the exemption is granted
by the State legislature and Lotus petitions the City to create a housing tax increment district within Villages, I
would like to consider creating a redevelopment plan that targets assistance to one, senior citizens, first time home
buyers that work in Chanhassen, so that there is some sort of a local preference standard within that district. I
want to make sure that the assistance goes to the people who need it. Who go through a stringent qualification
test. I'd also like to see the opportunity for local, or some local businesses to get involved. One opportunity may
be for them to contribute to the down payment of a unit for their qualified employees. So that we can be creative
and have different options. And lastly I would like to make sure that the City Council reviews and approves all
material that will be presented to the legislature. That is before it goes before the legislature. And those are our
comments. Next visitor presentation.
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR LOREN VELTKAMP, COUNCILMAN SENN (VERBAL).
Loren Veltkamp: Thank you. I'm Loren Veltkamp, 6724 Lotus Trail. I'm back again to ask for some clarification
on the house moving conditions that were, I think they were written up 4 weeks ago now. I appreciate the work the
Council has done so far but it still appears that the current conditions, in spite of their good intentions and
thoughtfulness may not satisfy the code and prevent material devaluation to the surrounding properties. It is still
possible that the house moving will do the surrounding properties significant amount of dollar damage. I think
this might deserve the Council's attention. City Code, which bounds us reads that a house moved in cannot
materially depreciate surrounding properties so the City may be liable if this is allowed to occur. I have a letter
from my lawyer, which was drafted today. I spoke with Mark Engel the other night and he recommended I show
this problem to a lawyer, so I did that and got a letter from him and I submitted that. That's up there. I also
submitted an appraisal which was done by my appraiser a number of weeks ago when this issue first came up and
the City Council originally asked me to go out and get an appraisal, which I did, and I submitted it subsequently
and you people have looked at it. I think you've all read it. I handed that out too so you have two little packets up
there stapled. I was talking to Mark Senn about this and he recommended I bring the appraiser along so I did. I'd
like to introduce Richard Lubben from the Company Lyle Naegele. I talked to some attorneys here in town and
they recommended this company. They've done legal work and they seem to be highly professional and
independent, and of course certified. So I brought Richard along if there's any questions about his letter of
opinion, which I submitted before. And what I'm specifically asking for tonight is that a certified appraiser get
attached to this project. There's a whole bunch of reasons why I think this should be done. I don't want to go into
all of them. I've written about some of them in letters to you individually but a new reason which came to light
just recently is that my neighbor's house, on the other side of the house that's moving in, recently sold and it sold
for $238,000.00 and that's 70% above the figure that was on the assessment list that was given out by Tommy
Byrne's, the home mover. So if this figure, we know this house sold for 70% above the assessed figure that
Tommy's house was originally supposed to assess at. If this is true for other houses on the neighborhood, then that
would indicate that the current assessment for Tommy's house, bringing it up to $130,000.00 would be low.
Perhaps very low and that might be a further cause for damage to surrounding properties.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Loren. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I do not have the letter from your attorney. Did
you say that you made copies?
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, I handed out five of them up there. I have another one here.
Mayor Mancino: Do you mind, if you have an extra one? Oh, here we go. I've got one, thank you.
Loren Veltkamp: ...inspector in this situation. You know you have the inspector look at the original plans and
then they come through for a final walk through to assure that everything's been done properly. The appraiser can
work just like that. He can look at the original plans, you know say this looks okay. This doesn't look like it will
do damage to anybody. And then he can come through at the end and make sure that everything is fine. And if
there's any problem with it, he can report directly to the City Council or the inspectors or you know, however you
want to work it. But I really do think this is necessary. I really do sincerely ask the Council to attach this thing on
tonight and then I can rest assured that this development will go along and I don't have to pay any more attention
to it and neither do you, hopefully.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Loren Veltkamp: I'd like to introduce Richard, in case you have any questions for him. He did write the letter of
opinion and I know that there's been some questions about that so.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are there any questions at this point from members?
Councilman Berquist: I had a question quickly for Mr., let's see. I'm sorry.
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Richard Lubben: Lubben.
Councilman Berquist: Richard Lubben. Sir, you had cited external obsolescence as the primary basis of your
assumption of devaluation. And you've been out to the Carver Beach neighborhood?
Richard Lubben: Yes I have.
Councilman Berquist: And looked at the neighborhood aside from simply the lot in question. You've looked at
the surrounding areas of the myriad of different housing styles and values that are there?
Richard Lubben: Right I have. I've gone around the lake to look at the other lake properties. I think it's
important here to know that this property is going to be compared to properties that have lakeshore or lake view
and I think you ought to consider just those properties with those amenities.
Councilman Berquist: His property will be considered to have lakeshore and/or lake view?
Richard Lubben: Well there's a road that goes between the lakeshore and the lot but he does have a pretty good
view of the lake and I think any appraiser in comparison to other houses would only compare that with houses that
have lakeshore or lake view. So houses on top of the hill would not probably be good comparables for that
property.
Mayor Mancino: But they would have lake views too, being on top of the hill.
Richard Lubben: Well, somewhat indirect lake view. There'd be a lot of trees in the way and that sort of thing.
I'm talking more of a pretty good view of the lake without trees that would wreck the view from his vantage point.
Mayor Mancino: They could cut down the trees.
Councilman Berquist: Well I guess my point is, as you carry around, as you carry down past Mr. Veltkamp's
house and around the lake for a short ways, it's an eclectic neighborhood. There are houses of very high value.
There are houses of fairly mediocre value but on beautiful locations. So from my perspective, when I read your
letter, and I read the premise upon which you based your valuation, you used external obsolescence. I mean from
my way of looking at it, the entire neighborhood could be defined as externally obsolescence.
Councilman Mason: Now wait a minute.
Richard Lubben: Actually this letter is not a valuation of the property. What it is is it just shows Loren that there
is external obsolescence that can take place and that's all I was trying to point out.
Councilman Mason: So you used as an example of one thing that could potentially devalue a property, it wasn't
specifically written to address this one?
Richard Lubben: Right. It was just to show that there is something called external obsolescence which has
something to do with value.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much, and thank you Loren. Don, could you give us a little history behind this
and what has taken place so far?
Don Ashworth: I apologize for not putting the item onto the agenda but quite truthfully I could not find in the
materials presented by Mr. Veltkamp exactly what he was asking the City to do. I think he has expressed that
today. Or this evening. The City Council received the request. They received information back from the City
Attorney. A procedure was established whereby the Council would attempt to look at values within the
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
neighborhood and make a determination as to whether or not this house moving in met the State law requirements
as to values, surrounding values. As a part of that you requested and obtained information from the Carver County
Assessor's office and ended up making your decision on that information and the other items that were in that
packet. At this point in time I guess I would ask three questions back to the City Attorney. One in his, does he
believe that the process that we had previously established was somehow flawed based on what I'll call new
information? Secondarily, can the City Council reasonably carry out a reconsideration? I believe there's certain
time requirements as to when that can be done. And third, what type of financial impact might the City face if we
were to somehow reconsider that decision from before. If I may?
Mayor Mancino: No, no, no, no. Just wait until we're done Loren, thank you.
Roger Knutson: I don't think the procedure was flawed. You looked at the evidence that was presented to you
and the decision that it would not, relocating this building would not depreciate the surrounding property values
was the issue specifically looked at... Can you reconsider? Under Robert's, reconsideration can only be made at
the meeting.., motion is made and passed, if you want to reconsider it, Robert's provides to reconsider it must be at
the next meeting .... pass that motion to reconsider and you can table it for... Under Robert's provides that once
something has been approved and action has been taken based upon your approval, then you cannot reconsider.
Now in this case I don't have the answer to that question as to whether action has been taken. But for example, if
he had moved the house into this location immediately following your approval, or he had built the foundation or
incurred expense based upon what you approved that night, then under Robert's you cannot reconsider .... financial
impact to the City. First just to kind of... against the City for depreciating property values based upon issuing a
permit. Chapter 466 of the Statute specifically states that we have immunity from any financial recourse regarding
a permit. So they cannot successfully sue you. Of course getting sued, expensive and attorney's fees, if you don't
have insurance coverage, depending upon the nature of the claim. You cannot be successfully sued because
someone says you should...
Mayor Mancino: Do Council members have any other, more questions at this point? Has action been taken on the
property? Please come up. State your name and address.
Tom Byrne: I'm Tom Byrne, 6726 Lotus Trail. Yeah, action has been taken. I've dug out the lot with a loader
and I've also had NSP come out and put their temporary service in. So I've got power to the lot now. I have taken
a lot of action. I completed cutting the house in half. We've basically been hung up since day one because of the
SHOW.
Mayor Mancino: So the house has not been actually moved there?
Tom Byrne: No, it's not moved yet. It's ready. We're just waiting for a break in the weather. That was the hold-
up in November too.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Tom at this point? Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Tommy for you, or Don I guess, one way or the other. Have you complied with the information
we requested? Have you delivered a financing commitment for mortgage on the house?
Tom Byrne: Yes. Yeah, all that stuffwas turned in and I have all necessary permits now as requested by you. I'd
also like to point out that my neighbor's house that sold, sold for the amount they had agreed on before I requested
any of this and I didn't hurt their property values because the one way you can tell is how much would the house
sell for. Well, there you go. So and yeah, everything was turned in that you people had requested. I kind of
wonder why this was brought up because I have until June 1st to move so what's the, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Tom. Comments from Council members on consideration, or actually legally Roger
we cannot reconsider because this is not the next meeting after the action that we took, correct?
Roger Knutson: Yes .... that's my advice to you but you make the decision.
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Loren.
Loren Veltkamp: I was under the impression I was asking for a clarification, not a, what was the other word? The
reconsideration. I think there's a difference there. I don't want to reconsider anything that the Council's decided
here. You know the clarification that I was seeking is that we add an appraiser to the process just to be sure that
nobody's property is damaged. And I'm not asking for a reconsideration here. And also I did make this motion at
the last meeting which was the meeting after the thing was decided. In fact I did it like the next day. I think I was
calling people already so. I'm not asking for much here you know. It's just a little added insurance because you
know this house was assessed in Excelsior I think at $40,000.00 when it was on it's original lot and now it's being
moved you know in-between two 200 some thousand dollar houses. It makes me very nervous and when I look at
the conditions for moving, there's no penalty. You know he says it's got to be done in 6 months. Well there's no
penalty if it's not. You know it doesn't say anything about the outside of the house. It doesn't say anything about
landscaping or how the roof looks or if there's any eaves or just anything. And you know, I'm concerned. I've got
to live next to this thing and maybe the house, this house, this guy was you know put his money down before, you
know Tommy moved in and he did try to back out you know because he's very concerned about what Tommy's
doing. And you know he couldn't get out of the deal, but he wanted to, you know. And that's the kind of situation
I don't want to be in when I sell my house where somebody, well they want to get out of the deal or they just don't
want to go through the house. So you know there are problems here. I'm not asking for much. You know just
having the appraiser go over things with Tommy and check things out, I mean that's a professional doing a
professional's job. If any plumbing needs to be done on the house, you know they have to have a certified plumber.
If he's going to do electrical work, he's got to have a certified electrician. You know and that's pinky little stuff.
You know here we're talking about tens of thousands of dollars of property values which could be, and maybe even
likely be damaged. And all we've got to do is have the appraiser look it over, come on you know, let's... It's a
clarification.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Let me get comments from Council members. Roger, can we, can the City legally
require someone to add an addition to the house or to get the appraisal to go up on a house that is being moved?
Can we require that? We don't in any subdivisions.
Roger Knutson: No, you have standards, and I don't have them in front of me. You have three or four standards
in your City Code that have got to be met. You can attach reasonable conditions to make sure those standards are
met. Say you want a larger house there. No, you couldn't do that. You couldn't say add bedrooms per se.
Councilman Senn: Roger, point of clarification. It's a little awkward because I haven't seen it and it's not in our
attachments here but when we approved this before we specifically approved it with the appraisal to be attached
and work that are totaling $130,000.00 with the value on the house going to this site. So I mean effectively I
believe the approval that we've made, and that he's required to adhere to means he can move the house onto the
property but when he's done with the work, all that work that was cited in the appraisal for $130,000.00 needs to
be done and we will have a house worth $130,000.00. So we effectively do have that professional appraisal on it
already attached. I mean unless there's a discussion of what level we're talking about, because we've already made
a decision that that level's $130,000.00. And as far as penalties go, there are penalties. I mean if that isn't done,
we have a right to go in and effectively do that and put it on the taxes of the property. I mean that was my
understanding at least of what we approved.
Mayor Mancino: And is that consistent?
Roger Knutson: I don't remember the dollar number but, $130,000.00. That's exactly what you said with three or
four conditions. He had to have the letter and the appraiser and the construction statement or...saying here's what
1 or...
he's going to do to do all the things and that's what he's required to do by whatever date you set. June st
Mayor Mancino: So Councilman Senn, you feel comfortable with what has been done? Action that the City
Council has previously taken?
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Senn: I do. I just, this is the first time I've seen this letter from Mr. Byrne tonight and I guess I
would encourage staff to maybe strongly clarify that because the issue of the $130,000.00 was left out of here,
which I think was a pretty key point to our approval. So all parties make sure they understand that from both sides
of this deal.
Don Ashworth: I couldn't see what you were holding up.
Councilman Senn: It's an attachment that, it's a letter from Steve Kirchman to Tom Byrne dated December 3rd.
It's in the packet of information that Mr. Veltkamp gave us tonight. Again, there's nothing really, since this is
visitor presentation we don't have anything in our packet.
Don Ashworth: Could I ask for a copy of that and I'll return yours or whoever wants to give theirs up.
Councilman Senn: Sure. You can have mine or whatever.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: I'm comfortable with what's been done.
Councilman Engel: I'm concerned about what it is we're debating here. If we're going to attach an appraiser, I
wouldn't have an objection to that but you've got to decide on two things prior to doing that and that is, the
number of the surrounding homes you're going to use to draw your average value. It appears we've got a real
difference of opinion on how to do that. And the second is, once you've done that, what's the percentage of the
value you want this new neighbor of yours to attain. I think we're on two different planes here. The City's down
to $130. It sounds to me like you want it up significantly higher. I don't even know if that's an option for us
though really. So I think before we debate all this, let's set this level here.
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah I'd love to set the level. I think a professional appraiser should do that.
Mayor Mancino: It's already been set.
Councilman Mason: It's been set.
Councilman Engel: That's what I'm afraid. It's already been set. So your request therefore to hit this higher level
based on your surrounding house values, I don't think that even gets in the park. I don't think it's an option. If it
is, then attaching the appraiser makes sense. I don't sense that we can do that.
Mayor Mancino: And as Councilman Senn said is we already have that attached.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and just to maybe help clarify things. I think what this request really is, is that he's
saying our $130,000.00 is still going to devalue his property and he is raising issue with that as it pertains to our
code which says, or has some reference to it as it relates to devaluation of surrounding properties. I think that's
really where the issue comes down to and what's requested, if I'm seeing it correctly.
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, I have no right by law to care what he pays in taxes or what he's assessed at or anything
like that. The only thing I can care about is that, if he's assessed at $130, that may be fine, I don't know. But the
point is I don't know and it looks suspicious so I'm saying let's have an appraiser just guarantee one thing...
$130,000.00 or $150,000.00...talking about. That's exactly your point. I'm just here to protect you know...
Councilman Engel: You're in agreement with the $130,000.00 figure?
Loren Veltkamp: I'm saying I don't know if that's enough or not. I can't care about that by law. You know
Tommy can pay all the taxes in the world. I don't want to raise Tommy's taxes. That's... You know I'm only
concerned with one thing here, is that whatever he does on the property doesn't hurt my property. That's what...
10
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
and I'm just saying, if we get an appraiser, then we're all off the hook. It's just so simple and clean. You know
get an appraiser in there and...have him look at the plans and say are you sure, sure, sure this isn't going to
damage other people's properties. That's what we need to uphold the law. And you can appraise it whatever you
want. It doesn't matter.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well we made a decision 6 weeks ago I think or so that $130,000.00 was going to be our
base line. On December 3rd we had a letter written by the Building Official to Mr. Byrne requesting the appraisal
and the information that that appraisal contained. That needed to be done to the house to make it achieve
$130,000.00. Mr. Byrne now says that we have that information and he also says that he has a building permit. I
am frankly comfortable with that $130,000.00 base line. I think we need to ensure that everything that is outlined
in that appraisal that makes up that base line be done. I'm a little bit concerned that the penalties, if any, that we
included in our motion. I don't remember specifically what those penalties were. But given the state of the, given
the way the winter has gone and I suspect what that house has gone through sitting where it's sitting, I'm a little
bit concerned as to Mr. Byrne's abilities to bring it back up to habitable conditions. But that's probably not
something I should worry about. I truly do believe that that neighborhood probably exhibits the most glaring
example of external obsolescence throughout the entire neighborhood and I honestly do not feel that $130,000.00
valuation on that house will negatively impact your valuation. That's my honest opinion.
Loren Veltkamp: I just want to be sure...
Councilman Berquist: Pardon me?
Loren Veltkamp: You're not a professional appraiser?
Councilman Berquist: No, I'm not a professional appraiser.
Loren Veltkamp: I appreciate everybody's opinion but I'd really like to get some professional...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Loren. Okay, we understand. So with that, well and I would just say, I'm not sure I
could say it any better than Councilman Berquist. I also agree with the action that has been taken by the Council
and the value of the $130,000.00 for an appraisal and I would like to get the penalties put in a letter and corrected.
If you can do that in the next week. So with that we will move onto the next visitor presentation. Is there anyone
else wishing to address the City Council?
Mark Halla: Good evening. I'm Mark Halla representing Halla Nursery. I reside at 770 Creekwood,
Chanhassen. Each of you has received the copy of the stipulation and the site plan regarding the lawsuit between
Halla Nursery and the City of Chanhassen. We're here tonight hoping to resolve this lawsuit once and for all. To
date the City has spent.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Mark, we can hardly hear you.
Mark Halla: I'm sorry, is that better?
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Mark Halla: Okay. To date the City has spent approximately $30,000.00 on this case. I'm flattered that we're so
important but frankly I think the money could be spent better elsewhere. I personally have spent about 30 to 40
hours negotiating the settlement with the City's attorney. I believe he will continue to support this stipulation with
our proposal as a part of it. The attorney realizes that Halla Nursery has resolved all aspects of the City's lawsuit
and it is only because of our counter suit that this case has continued to this point. We have refused to drop our
counter suit against the City because it has allowed us to negotiate the stipulation as a permanent settlement so as
to avoid ongoing issues and the expense of a trial. In early December we agreed with the City's Attorney that we'd
11
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
be on the agenda for tonight. At the last minute staff removed us from the agenda without notifying us until it was
too late to get back on. We had every intention of resolving these issues once and for all here tonight. We made
commitments based on this expected resolution. When I am done explaining Halla's addition to the stipulation I
sincerely hope you will move to have an executive session this evening and take a vote to adopt the stipulation with
our additions. If you vote to include our proposal in the stipulation, this expensive lawsuit can be over tomorrow
morning. The terminology and phraseology within the stipulation and our proposal has all been agreed upon by
the City's attorney and Halla Nursery. The question before you tonight is simple. Do you agree that it is worth
settling this lawsuit by adding Halla's proposal to the stipulation or not? Both the staff and Halla Nursery feel they
have conceded too much already. It is my forecast that this is a last ditch effort by both parties to resolve the
litigation outside of Court. Our proposal and the stipulation mitigates the staff's concerns about our business
remaining where it is. We have agreed to add berming, screening or fencing to lessen impacts on future neighbors.
We have agreed to never have more than 89,120 square feet of greenhouses, ever. Which is only about 15% of our
site. We think that's a huge concession. We've agreed to remove all of our outdoor loud speakers by February 1,
1997. Another big concession. We've also agreed to down size our current signs by almost 50% to only 8 foot by
12 foot, and furthermore to remove them when the lot they occupy is sold. We've also agreed to remove many
other signs as a part of this stipulation. When I evaluate this stipulation I do it rather simply. I ask myself what
does Halla Nursery have to gain if we sign the stipulation without our proposed addition. The answer, not much.
I give up a bunch of grandfathered rights as well as the right to improve my business in the future just so that I
may be allowed to stay when it isn't illegal to kick me out after 30 years anyway. That's a losing proposition for
me. What if the stipulation includes my proposal? That's a different story. I'm legal. I can improve my business
within certain guidelines and I don't spend a lot of time and money in an expensive lawsuit. That's a winner. I
ask myself what does the City have to lose by failing to reach an agreement. Well, they may spend a lot of time
and money on an expensive lawsuit. If they lose, they may pay out large sums of money for damages or appeals.
And if they win the suit, what do they have to gain? Well nothing. Halla remains as it is. Where it is. The
speakers, signs, garden center and grandfather rights. That's a losing deal for the City. What does the City have
to gain by adopting the stipulation with Halla's proposal? A lot. They get a written document filed in District
Court that allows certain rights and no more. They erase the cloud of grandfather rights. They get rid of some
signs and speakers. They get limitations on how much we can improve our business and they can completely
eliminate future battles and expenses. That's a real winner. I hope you go to the executive session. I hope you
vote in favor of ending the lawsuit and I hope we can all win and no one loses. Thank you. Are there any
questions?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from the Council members?
Councilman Engel: I have one. I've got a copy of the letter from Mark that you dropped off at my house and it's
dated January l0th from Elliott Knetsch.
Mark Halla: That's correct.
Councilman Engel: Have you had discussion with that person?
Mark Halla: Elliott is the City's attorney being represented tonight by Roger Knutson from Knutson's law firm.
Councilman Engel: Okay. And the first sentence of that letter it says, enclosed are the revised pages 3, 8 and 9 of
the stipulation which contain the changes we agreed upon this afternoon. Did you come to agreement with Elliott
that afternoon? Is this letter...
Mark Halla: That's correct. What I should point out is that everything in that stipulation, including our proposed
changes to it, was previously agreed upon with Halla Nursery and the City's attorneys. The City was requested, at
the last minute, once we were taken off of the agenda, the city staff requested the attorney remove the things, the
items that we had agreed upon, the options we had agreed upon. Remove them from the stipulation and write them
separately so they didn't appear to be included in the stipulation. It was originally written that the stipulation had
essentially an A or B. Choose one of them. They're both okay with me as the attorney. It's up to the City to
choose A or B item. That's how it was originally written. The City staff requested that be removed so that it
12
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
became a separate item. The stipulation as it's written now is not currently as good as the last stipulation that was
approved by Council.
Councilman Engel: So you're saying these things have been agreed to before? Your list of three things that you
wanted added.
Mark Halla: The list of items that I want added are not items that the attorney will say he's in favor of or against.
They're not legal items. He will support the document with those items, it's my opinion. He will support the
documents with all of our additions. He will support the documents without any of the additions. The document
doesn't change. The difference is simply are you going to come up with a stipulation that we agree on or are you
going to come up on a stipulation that we may not agree to. Our additions are something we said, if you amend the
stipulation to include these agreements, we will sign it tomorrow morning. The attorney doesn't have any legal
problem with that. It's up to the City Council and the City staff to decide whether or not it gets adopted with any
or all of those additions.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Mark.
Mark Halla: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: I just would like to make a comment, and this is in all due respect to Mark. I don't feel it's in
the City's best interest to go into an executive session at this point when there are two of us that don't have any
background information on this lawsuit and have not met with the City's attorney to discuss the current proposal. I
would sincerely like to end this lawsuit as quickly as possible but only when I have enough information to act
prudently, impartially and in the best interest of the City. I therefore suggest that the City Council discuss this.., at
the work session scheduled for February 3rd. Any comments from the Council members. Halla has asked us for an
executive session. I have asked to have a work session on this so that Councilman Engel and I can get up to speed
and understand what is happening.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think it's important, at least from my perspective to point out that difference. I mean
we've been at this a long time and we're very close to ending it. I'd love to get it over with. I'd love also not to
have to address the issue again, but at the same time, with the timing and you and Mark coming on, you know I
can appreciate that request you know, and would go with it if that's the will of what everybody would like to do.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: I think in fairness to you two that makes a lot of sense. I certainly would, in your shoes,
hesitate to make any vote one way or another tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I feel the same.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: I concur. The only other question I have, I know in talking to Mr. Halla, there was some
discussion as to the construction. The eminent construction of a new greenhouse and.
Mayor Mancino: In this weather?
Councilman Berquist: Believe it or not. If the sun comes out, it will get warm in there. If the sun comes out. And
future greenhouses have always been the issue on the agreement. If we go ahead and put a work session on for the
3rd of February, that then probably delays the decision until the following Council meeting the week following that.
Mayor Mancino: Which would be February l0th.
13
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Don Ashworth: Well I could pre-publish. I don't have a calendar in front of me but it would be, I could do it in
such a fashion as to anticipate that you will have reached a conclusion at the work session. Therefore you will be
in a position to take action that following Monday.
Councilman Berquist: Well I know this may be a silly question, given everything that's gone before but is it
possible, I mean a greenhouse building is considered an agricultural building. There are still areas of that site that
are considered agricultural. Is it possible that the construction of the greenhouse would commence without the
issuance of the building permit?
Mayor Mancino: Roger?
Roger Knutson: Agricultural buildings, and we can debate all night what they are and not I guess, do not require a
building permit. But they still must comply with the zoning ordinance requirements, even though they don't need
a building permit. So we would have to look at that issue.
Councilman Berquist: So there's no easy answer.
Roger Knutson: Our judgment would be, I'm afraid if I say too much I'll stir things up and get people excited.
Councilman Berquist: You probably will.
Roger Knutson: So I'll just leave it at that.
Mayor Mancino: I'll bring it back to Councilman Berquist for just one minute please.
Roger Knutson: Well I'm not of a mind to take the top of the basket offthe hornet's nest but I know you're under
time constraints from a greenhouse perspective. I know the spring planting season will start quickly and that a
greenhouse is an integral part of your business.
Councilman Berquist: When, if in fact we go into a work session on the 3rd of February and then make a decision,
pro or con at the next meeting the l0th, what does that do to you?
Mark Halla: I think that puts us a year out on the greenhouse. You can't build it during the season, because it
obviously disrupts quite a bit of your business, so that means that the earliest you're looking at September-October
before things slow down enough to where we could construct it. We've already postponed this two years. The
lawsuit's been going on a long time. I discussed it with Elliott and part of for what could possibly be resolved
tonight was something he recommended, and that is, you know I hesitate to build it because I don't want people to
take it as a slap in the face. That I'm just going to do what I want without permission. If you vote to go to
executive session, maybe you can discuss with Kate whether or not she would allow that one greenhouse. That one
greenhouse that we're currently wanting to build is in front of and connecting to the existing greenhouses. It
already was approved on the last stipulation. We don't see that as being a major item. I don't, it's already been
approved once if we had signed the stipulation. We wanted to add some other terminology. We gave up a little bit
more this time than originally we said we were going to. I think we're getting closer and closer. I don't want to
blow the deal with my greenhouse. If that happens, I think it's going to be difficult for us to come to a conclusion
on this. I agree it's nice for the two new Council people to get up to snuff on it and understand. I think we're
awful close to a decision. It pains me to think we're going to spend this kind of money, this kind of time and
postpone it just a little more. In addition to that, I've already been told I was on the agenda for the 27th of January.
I don't want to be continually told something and then have it postponed and postponed. We had a decision it was
going to Council tonight. It's going to be done. Decided. Over with. That didn't happen. Now we've been told
by the attorney that we're on the agenda already for the 27th. Now we're talking about a work session and possibly
February l0th. You know we need to work together to get this finished. We're all conceding more than we want.
None of us really likes this other than it settles things forever for Halla Nursery and Chanhassen. That's the big
win. I don't want to be postponed any more than I have to be. If we can get permission to build the greenhouse
14
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
that we had. It is an ag building. It's ag land. The permit will allow it. You don't need a building permit. We
need approval from Kate and that's what we're trying to approve this site plan. Because the zoning ordinance does
need to approve it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Mark Halla: Thank you.
Councilman Berquist: Mark, your intent well then was to construct an additional greenhouse in the site labeled E
on your landscape plan dated 3 January. That was directly east of the two existing greenhouses.
Mark Halla: That is correct.
Councilman Berquist: But that greenhouse is going to run perpendicular to those two existing?
Mark Halla: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Did you find the old, your copy of the old stipulation and does that E in fact exist on
that agreed upon plan?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. A bigger E.
Councilman Berquist: A bigger E in that site on that location.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Another question for Council members. What about having a work session earlier?
Councilman Senn: Yeah I was thinking, just a suggestion. What if we had, I mean we have our pre-meeting to the
27th meeting. Why don't we take 15 minutes of that as executive session and set it now and notice it as that and we
can make the decision in that executive session and then formalize it at the meeting of the 27th, which gets
everything done before February 1st to do it. And then that gives you guys at least a little time you know between
now and the 27th to go get up to speed on the issue and stuff so it seems to me that might satisfy everybody.
Councilman Engel: Will that allow you to get the greenhouse built and use this year?
Councilman Senn: Well I heard a February 1 start date, right?
Mark Halla: Yeah. You know as I said, we had this all negotiated. We were done with. We thought it just simply
needed approval up until about a week ago. We've got part of the greenhouse being constructed already in Canada.
It's being put together. It's being fabricated. He wants to start February 1st. That's my dilemma. I've made
commitments to other people.
Mayor Mancino: Then that's what we'll do. We will have a work session prior to the Council meeting on the 27th.
And make a decision.
Mark Halla: That's tremendous. My concern is, what if this guy's on the road, ready to come. He's got all the
parts. All the glass. Come the 27th we find out there's a problem. That's my concern. At that point I'm
committed. I'm not going to go back on it. I don't want to start another lawsuit with the City saying well you
didn't get zoning approval. I should say we need planning approval, not zoning.
Mayor Mancino: Well we can't take action prior to that meeting regardless so.
15
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mark Halla: Unless you go to executive session.
Councilman Senn: Well as I'm understanding, even if we go to executive session tonight we can't make the
decision, correct?
Roger Knutson: It's been your practice to bring it back to a regular meeting.
Councilman Senn: And we can't because it's not on the agenda, right?
Roger Knutson: You can amend the agenda, if you want to do that in an executive session.
Councilman Senn: For tonight. But could you bring the action back and formalize it?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Oh you could?
Roger Knutson: You could adjourn. It's not simple but you could recess the meeting for an executive session after
your regular meeting.
Councilman Senn: Well I hate to say it but the reality appears to be if we don't. Let's say we do the executive
session on the 27th and we approve it, it appears there's no problem. If we disapprove it, it appears to me either
way we're going to be in a lawsuit because if I'm hearing this correctly, this is the last you know shot. So if it's the
last shot and we're in a lawsuit, it's not going to make any difference whether they've started construction on the
greenhouse or not, correct? I mean I'm speaking practically. Because they would anyway in relationship to the
lawsuit. Because under the lawsuit it contends that effectively they have the right to do it without a permit anyway.
So why wouldn't they exercise that right if we're going ahead with the lawsuit. I hate to be so pragmatic but. It
appears to me either way the 27th it gets resolved and either way the construction of your greenhouse is going
ahead, whether we approve it or disapprove it.
Mayor Mancino: So on the 27th let us convene at a quarter, 6:30 and we will review the legal documents on the
Halla litigation. And we will make a formal decision on the 27th. During City Council meeting. Thank you.
Anyone else wishing to address the City Council during visitor presentation? Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF A PORTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-
WAY ADJACENT TO OUTLOT A, OAKWOOD ESTATES, GENE QUINN.
Charles Folch: Thank you. When Oakwood Estates was platted back in the early 90's the applicant was required
to dedicate right-of-way for the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. As a part of that dedication process, the
applicant requested that once the road was improved, if there was found to be excess right-of-way associated with
that, that it be vacated back to the property. Lyman Boulevard has now been reconstructed and improved during
1996 and reviewing the current property situation, it appears that there is approximately a 7 foot wide strip of
right-of-way along the southern property line of Outlot A that can be considered to be no longer needed and thus
can be vacated. Therefore staff would recommend the vacation of the property as legally described and mapped in
your packets.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for the staff at this time? Is Mr. Quinn here tonight?
Charles Folch: I don't believe he is. He actually resides out of state now.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to open the public hearing.
16
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone who would like to address the City Council at this time on this issue? Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions or comments from Council members on this vacation? Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: No ma'am.
Mayor Mancino: Not a question?
Councilman Berquist: Not a question.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: None.
Councilman Mason: Not a thing.
Councilman Senn: Unless you do, I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97-05: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt a resolution to vacate
the unused portion of Lyman Boulevard legally described on the attached Exhibit A. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED WATER RATE INCREASE.
Don Ashworth: This item previously appeared before the City Council. It's an item that has been continued to be
recommended by the City Auditor's, Deloitte and Touche in their management recommendations. They carried
out an analysis basically to look at the City's sewer and water rates in comparison to other communities around us.
They're also concerned with the overall solvency of the sewer and water fund, and again have continuously
recommended that we look at those. As the sewer component is closer, probably higher than some of our
neighboring communities, the modification that's being proposed is technically against the water side of it. But
the effect is, the property owner will look at their total utility bill and accordingly an average per quarter would go
from $74.40 to $78.00. An approximate 4.8% increase in the overall bill. Again this item had previously
appeared before the City Council. The Council acted to table the item to allow for publication of the item, which
we did. We put this notice into the Villager. I think that Pam included a copy of that. Maybe she didn't. But it
was in the Villager. Oh I see, it's on the second page. The approval is recommended.
Mayor Mancino: Are there any questions from the Council members at this time? Of Don? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Don you know, I understand what you've given us here but what I asked for last time when we
talked about this was some type of a demonstration or accounting effectively that these are our costs and we need to
raise this amount to meet our costs. I mean that's effectively what the auditor's were recommending is that we
keep pace with the cost. Now I see the percentage increases and that sort of thing presented here but nowhere do I
see what are our costs and how just what we're asking the budget to, as far as the revenue goes, meet those costs,
exceed those costs, or lessen those costs. Do we know that?
Don Ashworth: The question, and I think Pam spent a long time trying to take and determine exactly what it was
that you were looking for. The major cost element associated with the sewer system, or the payments over to Waste
Control Commission and so Pam attempted to go back and show what those have been over the last three years.
17
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
The second one was within the water system and in that area you're looking to primarily costs associated with the
pumping system and chlorine. All other components to actually treat the water. Pump it to the distribute system
and then get it back into a property owner's home. So she simply used cost of living on that side as a means by
which to try to measure what have been our increase in cost. Stand ready to take and do some other form of
analysis but I just don't know what that would be.
Councilman Senn: Let's stick with Pam's example and maybe try to keep it simple. In Pam's example starting in
1993 she's showing our cost per million gallons. Okay. Part of what I'm trying to get a handle on, if that's what
we're paying the Met Council.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Nowhere do I see effectively an analysis that shows me what was our revenue in 1993 to
match that cost. What was our revenue in 1994 to match the cost? '95, '96 effectively. More or less are our
revenues meeting our costs or are our revenues coming in under our costs or they're equally our costs. Because
again I'm going to go back to what the auditors are saying. We should keep pace with our costs.
Mayor Mancino: And you would like to see that itemized for both sewer and water rates?
Councilman Senn: Correct. And then we can make, in my mind, a conscientious decision on are we keeping pace
with our costs and what rates do we need to set to keep pace with our costs. I can't, you know acting on this
tonight on this basis, I couldn't tell you whether we were doing that or not.
Mayor Mancino: And since we have not increased them since 1993 I assume that we are not keeping.
Councilman Senn: It's an assumption but we ought to be able to demonstrate that I think.
Don Ashworth: I don't have a problem with that.
Mayor Mancino: But is that clear that we'd like to? Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: I just had one for Charles but I see he's vamoosed. I mean we originally began talking with
him about this, and perhaps he could shed some light as to whether or not we're covering our costs that we're
incurring.
Don Ashworth: I think it's primarily an auditor type of question. Actually the information was provided as part of
the audit and I apologize for not pulling that out of the audit report because they go through the analysis per year
revenue in comparison to what's spent.
Mayor Mancino: No, I understand the request but before we go ahead and take a vote on this, may I please have a
motion to open this for a public hearing and a second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to open the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone else, anyone wishing to address the City
Council on the rate increase? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close.
Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Comments from Council members. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: No. I'm in agreement with Councilman Senn that it would be nice to know whether we're
making money, losing money, or breaking even on them. Now that Charles is here. Charles, the rate, the sewer
18
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
and water rate increase. Quick question. We briefly, as I recall, started with you doing the presentation on this.
Maybe I'm miss remembering. Never mind.
Charles Folch: Probably the trunk hook-up charges maybe.
Councilman Berquist: No sir. No sir.
Councilman Senn: It was Charles in another life evidently.
Councilman Mason: It's Councilman Berquist in another life.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist let me ask you one question, just so that we can let staffknow. Would you
want to go back to 1993 for these figures and establish, does that give you enough background?
Councilman Berquist: I would be, depending upon the difficulty to get back there, yeah. I'd like to see as much
current history within the last 3 or 4 years as possible. However, if '94 and '95 and '96 is all that's easily, to be
amassed, I'd certainly be satisfied with that.
Councilman Senn: Since 1993 was our last increase though I think...kind of look at that as the base.
Mayor Mancino: It makes sense to have that be the. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: No. They've covered it all.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: It's fine.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Nothing additional.
Mayor Mancino: I don't have anything additional either. May I have a motion.
Councilman Berquist: I move to close the public hearing.
Councilman Mason: It's closed.
Mayor Mancino: I think we've done that.
Councilman Senn: I move to table then...
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the proposed water rate increase for further
information. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A GREENHOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION ONTO LOTUS
LAWN & GARDEN; LOCATED ON 2.3 ACRES NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5; 78 WEST 78T}I STREET,
JAY KRONICK.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant is requesting a site plan review for a 400 square foot greenhouse
expansion as well as expansion to the existing office and retail facility. Currently, there are two smaller
greenhouses kind of temporary in nature and the existing office facility. What the applicant is proposing to do is
19
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
expand. Making a larger greenhouse of more permanent, more substantial material, which is going to take with
upgrading, fire sprinkling to bring it up to code. And then in addition, add onto the retail portion. This property is
zoned business highway. It is a permitted use in the district. One of the issues that we did raise was compatibility
of the existing structure as far as the expansion and pitched roof element. We believe the applicant has met that
criteria. The existing facility is wood in nature so it has incorporated that, as far as the cedar siding and it's
stained to match the existing building and we believe that it's going to allow for enhancement of the facility as it is
today. This did go to the Planning Commission on December 4th. The Planning Commission did recommend
approval of the nursery retail with the conditions in the staff report. Six. And with that we are recommending
approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Mancino: Questions for staff at this point? Is Mr. Kronick here, and do you wish to address the City
Council?
Jay Kronick: I am here and I would like to briefly address you. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. Thank you very
much. I think back over the last time I was here in front of you many years ago. I was just getting started and a lot
more uncertain about the future but I need to publicly express my gratitude and appreciation to the wide
Chanhassen community for helping us get to where we are this evening. It's a pleasure to be a part of it. In terms
of the proposal for the changes we're looking at here, I have no problem with the conditions that staff is
recommending with one exception and that is item 1 concerning the sprinklering. This issue has been discussed
between myself and the City Building Inspector. My understanding from initial discussions was that the
greenhouse would be considered part and parcel of the structure and therefore need to be sprinklered. What we are
talking about, to clarify for you is an aluminum or steel frame construction with rigid plastic panels enclosing it.
The greenhouse potentially would have a heating system in it. I have a tough time imaging why I need to incur the
expense of several thousand dollars based on an estimate I received to put fire sprinkler protection in that
greenhouse. And as I was sitting here listening to an earlier discussion this evening about the agricultural nature
of greenhouse buildings, I wonder about the rigidness of the classification of my particular greenhouse structure as
a building. And if that condition remains as part of this motion, as it becomes approved, I will abide but it but I
would certainly be seeking to find an alternative means of assuring public safety and welfare, which is ultimately
the intent of the fire code without needing to incur that additional expense. That's really all I have to say. I'll
answer any questions or sit down if you'd like me to.
Mayor Mancino: And we'll try to answer that for you as we discuss this.
Jay Kronick: Okay, great.
Mayor Mancino: Roger...and my question is, is that a State building requirement? That there must be a
sprinkling system in the greenhouse?
Roger Knutson: Yes. Under the Uniform Building Code. The plan that's in there, you cannot deviate. In other
words you're stuck with whatever they are. I have not looked at this individual situation but Mr. Kirchman is very
knowledgeable so, and he obviously has.
Mayor Mancino: So if it is in here, it is required by the State and the State Code. There's nothing that we can do.
Any questions on that? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: If you look at page 3, I mean it addresses that at the bottom of the page. It says fire sprinkling.
The proposed addition to the building will bring the square footage of the building to 5,244 and the key here is
that the State Building Code requires areas over, sales areas over 2,000 or more square feet be sprinkled. Now I
believe that, I mean that's what I read and that's been triggered but I think I heard you say something different. I
mean the impression I got from you is they're requiring you to sprinkle your, you know just sprinkle your
greenhouse. I mean what they're requiring you to sprinkle is the whole building.
Jay Kronick: They're requiring me to sprinkle the whole building and I have no problem sprinklering the existing
building nor the proposed office/sales addition. The greenhouse structure is a stand alone structure, from my
20
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
standpoint and if you look at the site plan it is not connected to the building. It is considered close enough,
according to the Steve Kirchman that it is part and parcel of that building but it's in fact a separate structure.
Councilman Senn: How close is it?
Jay Kronick: 10 feet away would be my guess. I don't recall exactly. It's probably pretty difficult to tell on that
plan but.
Mayor Mancino: And Jay, isn't there some sales in your greenhouse? Can't customers go in.
Jay Kronick: Yes, it's public space.
Mayor Mancino: Public space.
Jay Kronick: And it is sales space.
Mayor Mancino: And it is sales space too. So the greenhouse is just not a greenhouse for the housing, storage of
plants. It is for customers to go in and for sales.
Councilman Senn: And if buildings, or at least my understanding of the code, if buildings are within 10 feet of
each other they have to have fire wall separation or be sprinkled. So it sounds like there's no way around it.
Jay Kronick: That's my impression. I was just grasping for some help here, that's all.
Mayor Mancino: And I think what we're trying to say is we can't give it to you.
Jay Kronick: I appreciate that.
Councilman Berquist: I've got, Mayor excuse me. Jay? What was the quoted price to do the 1,600 square foot?
Jay Kronick: It's a verbal estimate without any review of you know plans or anything. The greenhouse space itself
was $4,000.00 and the total thing was $13,000.00 as I recall.
Councilman Berquist: $4,000.00.
Jay Kronick: Plus 9.
Councilman Berquist: Is there going to be an ingress and egress door?
Jay Kronick: To the greenhouse? Several. It would be pretty easy to get out of one quickly. It would be very easy
to get out of there quickly.
Councilman Berquist: And not into the sales area but outside?
Jay Kronick: There will be no direct door out of the greenhouse into the sales building. If you refer to that
diagram, they're kitty corner to each other. One would have to walk out of the greenhouse, presumably under a
covered structure into a door of one of the buildings.
Councilman Engel: You've got to exit one to get to the other?
Jay Kronick: Yes. And quite frankly I think it's referred to in your documents, Steve Kirchman and I did talk
about further separating the greenhouse from the building and creating a property line. An abstract property line
so that, then the greenhouse would be small enough that it didn't need to be sprinklered. It destroyed some of my
intentions as far as traffic flow and patterns on the site so that's not an acceptable alternative.
21
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Is this a ruling that's come from the Building Official or from the Fire Marshal?
Jay Kronick: The only conversation I've had is with the Building Inspector.
Kate Aanenson: Same issue was brought up at the Planning commission. I know Steve has investigated it.
Mayor Mancino: And asked for a review.
Councilman Berquist: You asked for a review by?
Mayor Mancino: Well we asked for a review with Mr. Kronick with Steve Kirchman to see if there was any
creative way to solve it there.
Jay Kronick: He and I have not talked since the Planning Commission met. The holidays are there in-between.
Councilman Berquist: Well I think Mark Littfin as the Fire Marshal has final say.
Jay Kronick: If I could suggest something here this evening, I'd like to see that first condition maybe opened up a
little more to allow for further dialogue with those individuals, rather than limiting it to the sprinkler it or move it.
And find perhaps an alternative means.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, do you know if it has been reviewed again? I know that obviously Jay hasn't talked to
them.
Kate Aanenson: I'd be happy to put something in that says the building must be...building code, Fire Marshal
conditions. Whatever that may be, that's fine. And if there's a way to resolve or find some middle ground, that's
fine. I think we don't have to put sprinkle but whatever that condition is to meet code.
Mayor Mancino: State Code. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Why is your cost coming in? I mean if you have to bring sprinklering in for the rest of the
building, why is your cost so high for the square footage in the greenhouse? Do you have to do a dry system?
Jay Kronick: Dry, yeah. That was just the term he used on the phone and this is all new to me so.
Councilman Senn: Well it basically doesn't allow...
Jay Kronick: There's no water in there. It's air and the valve opens up when the air gets too hot, right.
Councilman Senn: All right. Okay, that's the reason. Okay. So you're not going to heat it year round effectively?
Jay Kronick: No. The heating system, if there ever were on in there, would be temporary for spring and so forth.
Councilman Senn: Then I see what's causing the problem, okay.
Jay Kronick: And that was just one estimate on the phone. I will seek some competitive bids and hopefully get
it...
Councilman Senn: I would suggest you do that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for Jay at this point? Is there anyone else wishing to address the City
Council on this issue tonight?
22
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mark Halla: Yes, I'mMarkHalla and we've just recently been involved with checking a lot of these building
issues. If you consider it an agricultural building, it does not need to be sprinkled according to the Fire Code. How
that relates to his business, Highway District or not I don't know but if you consider it an ag building, it doesn't
need to be sprinkled.
Mayor Mancino: And Ms. Planning Director, this is not an ag building? It's in the BH district.
Kate Aanenson: That I'm not sure. I think if we just modify the conditions that say compliance with the Building
Official and Fire Marshal's conditions then we've got it covered and we'll make sure that we get clarification on
that and get the correct classification and all that.
Roger Knutson: I don't know the details but if... a greenhouse where you just grow things and your customers
don't come in and you don't have a cash register and you just grow things. Once you go beyond that, having
customers in there and you're actually selling out of it and the sales office, or sales room, whatever you want to call
it.
Mayor Mancino: Comments Mr. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: No real comments aside from the exploration of the need for sprinklering. No.
Mayor Mancino: So you would be in favor of opening up that, the first condition and, per Kate's request or
suggestion?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. I'd like to see the total exploration as to the, what the building code would allow and
interpretation thereof. The building, I know the Fire Code has a tendency to be a little bit more confined. The
State Building Code on the other hand allows interpretation and oft times reading the book alone in any given
situation doesn't give you the entire flavor and if I look at this and I see the greenhouse away from the main sales
building, contiguous to it for just a very short ways, it would appear to me that there may be mitigating factors
involved that hopefully could allow some relief.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: No. Mark Halla answered my curiosity that there's no special variances with regard to Code
so that's all I was concerned about...
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Nothing to add other than I was here the first time around and I'm glad things are going well
enough in the City of Chanhassen that you can do that.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: No, nothing additional.
Mayor Mancino: I have nothing additional either. I did review this at the Planning Commission. May I have a
motion please?
Councilman Mason: I will move approval of Site Plan Review. Well wait, I'd better get to the right page here.
Approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #88-13 for a site plan review for a 2,480 square foot expansion
to sales area and 400 square foot expansion to the greenhouse area subject to conditions in staff report with the
addition to condition number 1 that, help me. I lost it. What'd you say Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Just compliance with Building Official and Fire Marshal.
23
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Mason: Yeah, with compliance.., what they said.
Mayor Mancino asked for a vote on the motion.
Councilman Senn: I'll say aye but I'll second it too.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit
#88-13 for a site plan review for a 2,480 square foot expansion to the sales area and a 400 square foot
expansion to the greenhouse area subject to the following conditions:
1. The building must be in compliance with the Building Official and Fire Marshal in regards to installing a
sprinkling system.
2. The water service must be located so as not to pass under any buildings.
3. The additions and accessible routes must meet building code requirements.
4. The applicant shall provide the City with a $2,000 cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee boulevard
restoration prior to commencing construction of the drive aisle and/or apron curb cut on West 78th Street.
5. The proposed drive shall be paved with bituminous and concrete curb and gutter pursuant to City Code.
6. The applicant shall incorporate foundation plantings south of the proposed sales and office building.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER RENAMING CHANHASSEN POND PARK TO KERBER POND PARK.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Mancino, members of the City Council. I'm not surprised to say that our
Centennial year has come and gone. We're now into 1997. One thing the Centennial year did do is rekindle a lot
of interest in our local history. As you know we have an active senior organization which meets in this building
and the Seniors Men Club would like to preserve a piece of our past history by renaming, as they see fit,
Chanhassen Pond Park to Kerber Pond Park. They made the request in a formal letter which you have in your
packet, and they also asked that I present that to the City's Park and Recreation Commission. In doing that I
presented it verbally in a visitor presentation. They scheduled it for a future agenda and asked that I do some
research. Interestingly enough all of the farms around Chanhassen Pond Park were originally, or at least for some
past centuries, decades, Kerber farms. When Western Hills was platted they named the eastern half of the park
Western Hills Park. And then in the late 70's the western half of the park was dedicated and they renamed it at
that time, the City Council to Chanhassen Pond Park, but throughout all those deliberations, whenever anybody
asked where it was, they always said it's the Kerber Pond area. So the Park Commission saw a lot of merit in this
request but they wanted some public input so they put up a sign on Kerber Boulevard to advertise this request.
They also asked that it be printed in the Villager. There was a story on it, and then they officially reviewed it at
the December meeting and receiving no opposition, they recommended that the City Council officially rename
Chanhassen Pond Park to Kerber Pond Park. Simple as that. I'll take any questions and then await the City
Council's action.
Mayor Mancino: Questions for Todd at this point?
Councilman Berquist: So the Senior Men's Club came up with this?
Todd Hoffman: Yes they did.
Councilman Berquist: Great idea. No questions.
24
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone from the Men's Club here tonight? Thank you Todd. Comments. Councilman
Senn.
Councilman Senn: Given the lack of a city's policy, I don't have a problem with this request but I would strongly
suggest that we create a city policy dealing with these issues. It seems to me we ought to have one. It's kind of
like we have Kerber Boulevard. Now we have Kerber Pond. We've got Kerber Lake. We could have Kerber
Subdivision. I mean we could have ten Kerber's and somehow somebody else could feel slighted as a result of that.
Plus you only have so many names to give out. Maybe a policy might help clarify that or at least set some standard
that we could review these by as they come in rather than in a fairly haphazard manner which it appears we are
now doing that. That's not to say that they're bad. It's just to say that we probably should have a policy.
Mayor Mancino: So you can only use one name so many times?
Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. Again, I'm not pre-judging the policy. I'm just saying we should create
one. I mean how many Mancino whatevers do you want?
Mayor Mancino: A street, a drive, a lane... Okay, that makes sense to me. Why don't you do some thought on a
policy and get something written up and present it to us.
Councilman Senn: Can I get paid a salary...
Mayor Mancino: We'll be waiting for it. You tell us when you're...
Councilman Senn: Would you send me that in a memo so I can put it on my work items.
Mayor Mancino: Tell us when you're ready and we'll review it. Councilman Mason:
Councilman Mason: I would make the motion.
Councilman Senn: Good, I've got a second author.
Mayor Mancino: Are there any other comments?
Councilman Engel: I don't want to volunteer anything.
Councilman Mason: Barring further discussion I will make the motion to rename Chanhassen Pond Park to
Kerber Pond Park.
Councilman Berquist: I'll be happy to second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to rename Chanhassen Pond Park to Kerber
Pond Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT; TRANSFERRING OF CITY PROPERTY (TH 101/MARKET
BOULEVARD); PROJECT 96-13.
Charles Folch: Thank you. This is basically a property title housekeeping item. Due to previous City acquisitions
along Trunk Highway 101 the City and the Ward's would have joint ownership over portions of Outlots F, I and J
of the Villages on the Ponds plat. With the recording of the plat the City no longer needs to be an owner of these
properties so long as an appropriate road, utility and trail easements are granted. The future upgrade of TH 101
will allow for these areas to be vacated in the future. However, in order for the Ward's to mortgage their interest in
the property at this time the joint ownership needs to be eliminated. Therefore it's recommended that City Council
adopt the attached resolution conditioned upon the Ward's dedicating the permanent easements for the public
roadways, utility and trails over the said outlots shown in Exhibit A.
25
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Charles Folch: Basically there was some areas we acquired fee title to in the past along TH 101.
Mayor Mancino: We acquired. Does that mean we paid for them? What does that mean?
Charles Folch: Acquired, paid for, yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we paid for this land?
Charles Folch: Yes. As a part of this plat, the Ward's have agreed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the
future TH tat corridor. Some of the corridor of the future alignment overlaps the existing but nevertheless they've
agreed to dedicate with the plat the right-of-way for the future alignment.
Mayor Mancino: Of TH tat?
Charles Folch: TH tat.
Mayor Mancino: Which every parcel that comes in has to do?
Charles Folch: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Charles Folch: In the meantime, the current TH tat alignment needs to remain in existence, okay so.
Mayor Mancino: Until the new one comes in.
Charles Folch: Right. And because in the past when we have acquired utility and some trail easements and
additional road right-of-way along that corridor, we did back in 1990 the improvement to Market Boulevard south
of TH 5, those properties we actually bought and acquired fee title to. It was kind of a policy back then. With this
plat, in exchange for the Ward's dedicating the new right-of-way, the City basically, once those improvements are
made will no longer have a need to maintain ownership of the previously acquired property. So long as we have
easements over the utilities and the trails at this time and then easements over the road so we can maintain it's
existing alignment at this time. So basically what it is is, with the plat the City and the Ward's would own a
portion. If you look at the diagram, the portions of Outlot J, I and F would be joint ownership over. In order to
eliminate that joint ownership, the City is, while staff is proposing or recommending to propose that the City
relinquish it's interest in ownership.
Mayor Mancino: Do you get paid for that?
Charles Folch: There's not been any discussion of compensation considering the fact that we're getting dedication
of the new alignment with the plat.
Mayor Mancino: But we would anyway.
Charles Folch: Yes and no.
Councilman Senn: On every other project you bring in.
Charles Folch: Typically local roads, things like that but as, and Roger may want to speak to this too. In terms of
more arterial type, trunk highway type roads, that isn't necessarily the case. Typically local roads, street access
and things like that are, because they serve, they provide a benefit also to the property developing, they're typically
26
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
an item or typically dedicated as part of the plat. But higher classification roads, such as trunk highways, there can
be the argument that what benefit does it provide to the development and actually the long and the short of it is.
Mayor Mancino: But that's where everybody wants to build. It's got to be a tremendous benefit.
Charles Folch: The long and the short of it is, this plat was proposed to do a right-of-way swap, if you will. Old
for new.
Mayor Mancino: Roger, do you want to add to that at all?
Roger Knutson: There's a series of Supreme Court... Court of Appeals. Supreme Court in that case held, the City
can require dedication of... for that roadway.
Mayor Mancino: Isn't it always dependent upon surrounding.
Roger Knutson: It depends on the classification of roadway. For example, the interstate highway system. The
need for the interstate highway system is not generated...
Mayor Mancino: Are there any other questions?
Councilman Senn: Yeah Nancy, I just wanted to follow up on yours so we don't lose this train of thought. I
thought though in the past when we've had these come in, they still dedicated the property and what we did is we
contributed a percentage or a share of the cost of improvements to compensate effectively for that interest you're
describing beyond you know the immediate area in the road. I thought that's how we've handled it in the past, or
am I wrong?
Charles Folch: Well, I think each case that comes before us, I mean there's a lot of things to look at and I don't
know whether there's one set, cookie cutter policy that's applied to all of these in the past. I think there's been a
lot of negotiations and a lot of aspects that are looked at in terms of determining what is being horse traded, if you
will in these types of situations.
Kate Aanenson: If I could add to that. What Charles is saying is true. I think every subdivision is looked at
differently. Sometimes they've given us above and beyond maybe the 80 foot right-of-way but we've said okay you
only have to give us so much actual pavement width. That would be, as Charles would say, a horse trade.
Councilman Senn: Then we pay for the difference in the pavement width usually.
Kate Aanenson: Or we just give them, we get the right-of-way now. That's what we need now but with
...requirement up front, what would they have to pay? That's what some of their up front costs would be for the
pavement surface. Each one, as Charles said, is individual. We looked at them on an individual basis and on this
one we looked at it and we said, they're giving us additional right-of-way which we felt would benefit and we had
acquired some before so that was the trade back.
Councilman Senn: Charles, does this have to, I mean what time line are we on here? Does this have to happen
tonight?
Mayor Mancino: And let's let Vernelle speak to that when Charles is done. Thank you Vernelle, just one second.
Go ahead.
Charles Folch: I can't speak to the time line. Maybe Vernelle can. I can't answer that question. How critical it is
right now.
Mayor Mancino: Before we go to Vernelle. Do you have any other questions Councilman Senn?
27
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Senn: No, I can wait on the rest.
Mayor Mancino: Vernelle.
Vernelle Clayton: I'll address the last issue first and yes, we're very hopeful at least that it's important to us.
We're hoping to close with Americinn very shortly and at the same time, or the next day, close on the overall
construction loan and that timing is very important to us. That's not to say we won't run into reasons that
Americinn will bring to the table that they haven't yet brought, that they want a few more days or something like
that, but in the next several weeks we want to accomplish that. It was scheduled for Friday as a matter of fact.
And the lender, Charles is right. The lender does not like the idea of two people owning one piece of property and
nobody writing the title insurance does either. As to the concept, I think frankly what we're trying to do, as he
began his presentation, is sort of a housekeeping, clean-up act here that we're undertaking tonight rather than
setting a policy. I think the policy was set when the site plan was approved, which at that time it was clear in the
staff report that we were trading the old for the new so to speak. We...you the future right to build over what they
currently owned and when that occurs, the City had agreed that they would then turn back, and as you recall.., to
the buildings as were tentatively sketched on our site plan are within what is currently TH 101. So that is a part of
the overall package. As it turned out however, the way the document is drafted in transferring property and the
portion that, portions of property that were included in the resolution that was passed later that same evening, did
not include some miscellaneous pieces of property, one of which is, one in F and one in J, and therefore the one in
F you don't need and the one in J you are retaining an easement. So you're not giving up. Sometimes you, the
question was asked, don't we sometimes have to pay...yes you did but you sometimes pay the same amount to own
it as you do for an easement and you will be retaining the easement. Does that help?
Mayor Mancino: That's very hopeful. Vernelle, what two buildings lie in this area?
Vernelle Clayton: It would be the two southern most buildings on the east side, what we've been calling the two
condo buildings. I'm sorry, west.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, on the west side. On Lake Susan.
Vernelle Clayton: Yeah. They currently would infringe on the existing TH 101. That's why your site plan
approval said we could only build on those if we could meet setback requirements.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and this allows that to happen?
Vernelle Clayton: Well, we still have to meet the setback requirements if we build it before the new TH 101 is
built.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks. Any other questions for Vernelle from any of the Council members? Anyone else
wishing to address the Council on this matter? Comments and questions from Council members. Councilman
Senn.
Councilman Senn: I guess I was going to kind of touch on it earlier when we got into the TIF discussion, but I
held offbecause I thought probably this would be a more appropriate place. When we did the preliminary plat and
stuff on this, the staff report didn't tell us that we had acquired that property. I know it suggested the shift but it
did not tell us we acquired it. I think that's kind of critical information. I'm starting to feel king of piece mealed
on this project in the sense that we come in and we have a big emergency we have to deal with on the church and
now all of a sudden I hear that we're being asked to buy 2.2 acres of open space. We're swapping land here on a
road that I don't know whether it's a net cost or net plus to the City. I don't have a problem approving this at this
point but I would like that analysis done and I would like a dollar amount put on it in a kind of a net benefit
analysis. But I'd like the same analysis done on this whole project at this point. If everything isn't know, I guess
I'd like to see between staff and the developer, develop that at least to a point that we have a model to follow so we
can get some handle or idea on what the total level of commitment this project's going to be requesting from the
City. Because I mean now, you know now we know we're going to be asked for TIF for affordable housing, you
28
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
know etc., etc. I'm just saying I don't know where this ends and it seems like every step we take on this project
there's a new city cost to it and I don't know. Again, that's real hard to judge because the information isn't there
to judge it so I'd very much like to see that put together and brought in so we can look at it and discuss it before
any additional actions...this one now are taken on this project.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Kate.
Kate Aanenson: I can appreciate Councilman Senn's concern. You have to realize this is a very complex project.
This PUD was put together. Yes, it was fast tracked. As we went to clear the title, there was a couple pieces that
were missing. That was it. I think we tried to make it clear that there would be some swap but these pieces, when
they went to closing, there was some pieces that were missing and we realized that we still had interest in the
property and again we're trying to prudent to protect the City's interest by making sure we still have easements
over them. But to say that there's not going to be any changes, the complexity of this project is such that I think
we have to accept that there's going to be issues that come up. We tried to address, through the PUD structure, not
only the design framework but just the uses but as the thing goes along, I think we're going to see some places
where we hadn't thought far enough ahead that there's going to be something coming back. Now the TIF district,
that's something that we certainly said that's going to be a problem that you'll have a time to address but I just
think that, we can list those but I don't think it's going to be any way comprehensive because as each project comes
in.
Mayor Mancino: No, but we can start and have a report that is added to as these new requests come in and some of
the, look ahead and see some that we think are going to come in and certainly Bob Generous could do that as he
sees the money that the City has, is, by the way the City is supporting Villages on the Pond and what we have done
and do the cost analysis on it.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, so are you talking about money? Are you talking about architectural flexibility? I've
heard a couple different things.
Mayor Mancino: I think it honestly has to do with cost.
Councilman Senn: Money. Cost. Economic. I mean that's the one thing we've never had put together. I don't
think.
Mayor Mancino: And it's, as Councilman Senn said, I don't think it's negative just to know where we're at. Not
so much.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I think updates. It's got to be, and it's extremely complex but.
Councilman Berquist: Keep a running total.
Councilman Senn: It's kind of like once we create the model, then if we take actions that vary from it, I mean it's
like I look at it in my business every month. I mean here's the budget. Here's what was spent. If it's varying, at
least I know it then and I have something to plan for it. Right now with every one of these actions, I haven't the
foggiest idea where we sit because we've never been given or created an economic model on this project. From the
City's perspective. You know I'd like to believe that but after what I've read the last two weeks, I don't. What are
you going to charge for that 2.2 acres? $1.00 was it? Is that why it's so low?
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: No, I certainly am in favor of authorizing this transfer of property. I would appreciate seeing
updates as time goes on. I do understand that something like this is extremely fluid and sometimes it's so fluid,
it's difficult for those not directly involved with it to see where it's going. So some sort of update would be nice,
but I'm not, that's as far as I need to go with it.
29
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Vernelle Clayton made a comment from the audience.
Councilman Mason: No, no, but I think obviously I think you people that are so closely involved in it, I wouldn't
expect you to predict the future but I suspect your expertise gives you at least an inkling of where it's headed. Well
right, and yeah.
Councilman Senn: You'd better at this point.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I think a running total's a good idea to help you maintain spending discipline. I don't see that
as a problem here at all. But the main thing is to make the swap. Be sure we get the easements on the roadways,
utilities and trails and it looks like that's covered. I don't see any problems with it.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Nothing really further. I understand that the project is complex. I fully expect there to be
incidental changes as we go along. Unlike Councilman, well. The TIF aspects of it are self created from a City
and a metropolitan perspective. And really, in the number of costs that the City has incurred so far, it's extremely
minor in the scope and complexity of the project. That's true. It has been high in staff hours, as any worth while
projects are.
Mayor Mancino: ...very good job. I have nothing further to add on this. May I have a motion please?
Councilman Berquist: I would move approval of the Findings of Fact transferring the City property and adoption
of the resolution authorizing the change of fee title of real property as outlined within the memo prepared by the
attorney and is within the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #97-06: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the Findings of
Fact transferring of City Property (Market Boulevard) and adopt the resolution conditioned upon the
Ward's dedicating permanent easements for public roadways, utilities, and trails over the same outlots as
shown on Exhibit A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE PROHIBITING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF ALGAE IN
WETLANDS~ FIRST READING.
Jill Sinclair: Thank you Mayor Mancino, City Council. As Mayor Mancino pointed out, you should all have the
revised ordinance amendment with the highlights in bold are the changes that the Planning Commission approved.
Also another change that was made between the Planning Commission and now is where the ordinance
amendment will be placed within Section 20. Originally when it went to the Planning Commission it was placed
in the wetland amendment. Wetland Alteration section. As it comes before you it's now been placed in the
standards section. Wetland part of the Section 20. But there is an alternative to place it with it's own section,
since it doesn't necessarily fit with any of the preceding sections. None of them deal with regulations of what you
can and can't do to wetlands. And if you do there's specifics and you can't fill. You can't have any net loss so
there is some question as to where it should go within the Section 20. Staff felt it necessary to request this
ordinance amendment in order to curb any future chemical treatment of wetlands throughout the City. From the
Surface Water Management standpoint, it's bad policy to allow the destruction of algae in a wetland since they are
there to act as water purifiers, which is the basic purpose of a wetlands. So the City feels that there's other ways to
deal with this problem and that we shouldn't allow chemical treatments of wetlands and this ordinance is kind of
trying to nip that practice in the bud and give some teeth as to future practices that will affect it like that. In the
30
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
event that the ordinance amendment is passed, the Environmental Commission is working with myself and the
Water Resources Coordinator to come up with a brochure. An educational brochure that would explain why algae
is necessary in wetlands and give alternatives to chemical treatments to help the public come to grips with this
amendment. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point?
CouncilmanBerquist: Two quick ones. I'm assuming by definition this does not affect the treatment of milfoil in
lakes?
Jill Sinclair: No, not at all. It's not, milfoil's not algae.
Councilman Berquist: The other question was, there's nothing in here about penalties. I mean not that I necessary
want any but is it a misdemeanor?
Jill Sinclair: The penalty would be, if you violate an ordinance you can be issued a citation. So that's the penalty
of filing, adding your ordinance in the City Code. And citations carry a maximum of $500.00 fine. $700.00 fine?
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: No. No, not really. No, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone wishing to address, oh. Did you have a question Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Now that we've, with the new Section I think okay basically we're understanding what this is
effectively dealing with is ponds, okay.
Jill Sinclair: Yes. It's dealing with wetlands, of which ponds are a type of wetland. It deals with any delineated
wetland, as well as any constructed man made. Natural or man made wetland. Like storm water ponds are
technically wetlands as well.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but in our wetland ordinance, our wetland ordinance applies to wetlands which are
designated and identified by survey. Now are you saying then that this only applies to ones that we've identified
and surveyed?
Jill Sinclair: Yeah, for existing wetlands, yeah.
Councilman Senn: I mean these are marked on that map. I whipped out the map today and looked and...
Jill Sinclair: Right, because these are mostly, I think the ones you're thinking about are constructed storm water
ponds as part of developments.
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Jill Sinclair: Yeah, so to cover those, because there is a section of the Code that deals with man made constructed.
I can't remember exactly what the.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but so what I'm saying is, you want to take these storm water ponds, okay that exist all
around the city and you now want them classified them the same way as wetlands.
Jill Sinclair: They already are classified the same way.
Councilman Senn: No they aren't because our ordinance does not identify.
31
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Kate Aanenson: It's a separate classification. What we're trying to do with this ordinance is say, even though it's
a storm water pond, which does have different setbacks. We're not changing the classification but they still drain
into a wetland so if you treat the storm water pond, it's still going to go into the wetland because the storm water
pond is pre-treating that wetland so we're saying it has a ripple effect. So in the past, before we had the new
wetland law, we used to take wetlands and allow those to be altered and we actually made those stormwater ponds.
Now we have to make a pond to treat before it goes into the wetland so some neighborhoods, the older
neighborhoods actually had wetlands that were ponds. Now you know we're not changing the classification as far
as setbacks or any of that sort of thing. All we're talking about with this ordinance is how you can treat a pond or
wetland. So the classification affects setbacks or anything like that.
Jill Sinclair: Stormwater ponds can also be classified as utilized wetlands. And that's where it all comes under the
umbrella of wetlands.
Councilman Senn: Well but if you do that, then you're talking about affecting these stormwater ponds in a lot of
ways other than the treatment of algae I guess is the point I'm trying to get to.
Mayor Mancino: But that's not the intent of this.
Kate Aanenson: That's not the intent. You're just talking about what you can treat it. What chemicals you can
put into it. That's the only thing we're talking about.
Councilman Senn: Okay. All right, so that's it only?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And if the stormwater pond does not drain into a wetland or lake, then it's not covered.
Jill Sinclair: Yes, if it's considered a utilized wetland, it's covered.
Mayor Mancino: Because the stormwater pond is still acting as a wetland to filter out, to filter the water.
Regardless of whether it goes directly into a wetland or not. Correct?
Kate Aanenson: You've got it.
Councilman Senn: Okay. We allow people to treat algae in lakes, but what you're saying is you don't want to
allow people to treat algae.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, yes they can but they just have to do it environmentally, organically so, not with herbicides.
They can still treat it according to 7. Non chemical treatment of wetlands. So they can, and here are the different
options that they can use to treat it.
Kate Aanenson: And that's the follow-up component. The Environmental Commission and the Water Resource
Coordinator and the Environmental are working on this. The education process. What are the alternatives? Give
informational things like Jill's done in the past. We've had training and invite people to come in and show them
the alternatives. That's professionals there. Because what's happened in the past is there's been a lot of different
applications. Some covenants say you can and some you can't and we're looking at uniformity.
Jill Sinclair: Right, there's been several homeowner groups that do have a regular herbicide treatment applied to
their stormwater ponds.
Mayor Mancino: Well they don't like that green algae. It gets smelly. It gets.., so there are ways that they can
treat it.
32
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Senn: No, and I think our intent is good here, and I have no problems with the intent and what we're
trying to do now that I understand it. But at the same time though I really don't want this to come off as another
enforcement attempt by the City. I want it to really be handled in a PR manner because I know this is a delicate
issue out in a lot of neighborhoods because I tell you what, I've had a lot of phone calls from people who've called
and said why isn't the City cleaning up that mess across from my house, which is quote unquote, the stormwater
ponds. Which at some points gets pretty unbearable.
Mayor Mancino: Well and I think that part and parcel to this, from what Jill said earlier and certainly did to the
Planning Commission, is that the Environmental Commission and which she mandated and their intent is to
educate and to go out with this afterwards and to educate so that they can be cleaned up.
Councilman Senn: No, and I agree. I'm just saying, let's maybe really take care in the way effectively that we do
that rather than kind of go out with the long arm with a new ordinance and say, you know you shall do this.
Mayor Mancino: Could this also be included in the City Newsletter?
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely.
Mayor Mancino: The quarterly newsletter. We could also, maybe the Chanhassen Villager would like to do an
article on this.
Jill Sinclair: Yeah, we expect to take advantage of all avenues. And I do have an example of the rough draft of the
brochure that we've created, if you want to look at it and then give us any suggestions.
Mayor Mancino: Aren't you doing some presentations, the Environmental Commission to homeowners
associations?
Jill Sinclair: That's one of the things we will be doing. We don't have any scheduled at the present.
Mayor Mancino: But this could certainly be on the agenda for the homeowners associations too. Okay, may I have
a motion please?
Councilman Senn: Sure, move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anyone here wishing to address the City Council on this?
Vernelle Clayton: I don't think you really have to recognize me. It isn't a public hearing I don't think but thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: You're just making me look worse.
Vernelle Clayton: And not only am I being bad mannered by asking to speak, I'm also going to be politically
incorrect. It's very difficult to be in favor of chemicals but we're currently doing Villages on the Ponds. They're
all wetlands and we don't want them yucked up and so I really, and neither do all the folks that live on these nice
ponds, or what could be nice ponds. I think in their zeal to include some chemicals in their treatment, it has been
enhancing the quality of life for Chanhassen. Now one may say it doesn't enhance the quality of life downstream
for the fish and the birds and those that live on those lakes. But there are a lot of wetlands in Chanhassen that
really don't go very far. There's some holding ponds that don't go anywhere except stagnate. A lot of the ponds
that we have, and what we will have on Villages on the Ponds, frankly are not the kind of wetlands that we all
think we should be protecting and that aren't the kind of wetlands that are doing for the environment what
wetlands are supposed to do, which is filter the water as it goes on down to the ocean. They are the kind of
wetlands that are holding the runoff from all the stuff, all the sand and all the other things that we put on all winter
long, and they're not the best environmentally balanced deals. Add to that all of the surface runoff from all of the
fertilizer that we put on our lawns so as to make the edges of these nice ponds look nice, and we don't have a stable
33
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
wetland. We have one that does get really yucky and nobody wants all that yuck. Now I'm not sure the answer is
to say no chemicals because every year we make more and more progress on more and more chemicals. We
sometimes find environmentally safe alternatives that we can use but I think the idea is that we don't kill things
downstream. That we just deal with it where we are. If we pass something like this this year, then maybe next
year there will be something that will only last for you know, 6 hours and kill the algae where we want it killed.
Obviously there's an imbalance in algae. It's not like a good cholesterol, bad cholesterol situation, and I don't
understand that either, but there is a good amount of algae and there is too much algae and where there's too much
we like to do something about it. I really hope that we'll be able to do something about it in Villages on the Ponds
and everybody driving by is going to see green stagnate water, and that's not what we're trying to develop. Now I
don't know if the answer is chemical treatment but I think there might be some ponds where it might be designated
where it might be permissible. I think perhaps one might look into whether there is chemical treatment that will
only last for 5 or 6 hours. Do the job there but not downstream. I'm not sure that we aren't rushing to be
environmentally correct and not necessarily looking far enough into the future. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Vernelle, let me ask you a question. I mean don't you think, to get you on the environmentally
correct side, that you could, with the big pond south on TH 5 with Villages on the Pond, you're going to need to
use aerators or whatever there anyway and can't you effectively treat it without chemically? I mean do you know
that you absolutely can't... ?
Vernelle Clayton: I don't know that. I don't know that. I'm just afraid that we're going to have severe problems
because of all the stuff that's running into that. And I understand aerators will work but then somebody said they
can't promise so.
Mayor Mancino: Jill is our expert person here. Are the alternatives for non-chemical, well do they work as well?
Do they work as fast?
Jill Sinclair: Yeah, you know Market Pond just north of the wetland that she's talking about. That's owned by the
City, just south of Festival Foods there. That has had algae problems in the past and through a number of trial and
error testings throughout the summers, the City has come up with a non-chemical way to treat algae in there. We
do use an aerator. We do use bacteria.., algae, which are non-chemical.
Mayor Mancino: Is it cost effective?
Councilman Engel: In comparison to herbicides.
Jill Sinclair: In comparison to herbicides it's probably about equal.
Councilman Engel: Does that count the aerator or just the bacteria?
Jill Sinclair: Bacteria. If the aerator was installed, I don't know how many.
Kate Aanenson: I think they need the aerator anyway. They would need that both ways.
Councilman Berquist: The difference is that you have to proactive in treating it as opposed to waiting until it turns
green and then dumping a bunch of stuff in there.
Jill Sinclair: Yeah, and the reason why it turns so green is that there's a huge amount of phosphorous going into
the wetland in the first place. Phosphorous is the controlling factor for algae. So if you have a lot of algae, that
means you're not using the best practices up on land. You're aiding to the algae. You're creating your own
problem basically.
Councilman Senn: Part of that is...we need to be careful the way we go out and talk to people. I mean I can
picture a lot of ponds where, I mean you've got manicured grass right up to the edge of these ponds and
neighborhoods, I mean they don't even remotely look like a wetland. And if we go out and tell people they're kind
34
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
of novelty wetlands and be governed by wetland rules and a whole bunch of things, we're going to have a lot of
very, very upset people.
Councilman Engel: I agree with that. I don't want to be appearing to be over burdensome with regulation. I think
people have had it with that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah but again, I don't want force people to turn those situations effectively into something
else because now we're classifying it as a wetland or something. I just want to be really careful how we handle
that.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council adopts the amendment to
Chapter 20 pertaining to chemical treatment of wetlands as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 19-21(A) AND SECTION 19-46(A) REGARDING HOOKUP
CHARGES.
Charles Folch: Thank you. The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to modify the procedures for which the
trunk utility hook-up and lateral utility connection charges are adjusted each year based on construction cost
increases. The last time this was brought before the Council earlier in 1996, the City Council recommended the
staff to amend the ordinance to allow for an automatic adjustment of these charges based on a construction cost
increases for the previous year, directly related to the Minnesota and Minneapolis region. This ordinance,
proposed ordinance amendment attempts to meet that directive and thereby allowing for the automatic adjustment
accordingly rather than the past practice which has been to bring it back to the Council each year for adoption.
Staff would continue to bring the information as an update administratively to the City Council each year as to
what the previous year's construction cost increase for the Minneapolis area was, just for information purposes.
But the adjustment would be automatic January 1st of each year.
Nancy Mancino: Okay. And the other changes I see is from the old ordinance, is that you do say, or I think it was
Councilman Berquist's request local Minneapolis region.
Charles Folch: Right. Councilman Berquist was very astute that there are some local factors with labor and such
that tend to make our increases higher than the national average and that was again the case for 1997. In fact
when this is brought back for a second reading I'll provide you with the information as to the national compared to
the Minneapolis region so.
Councilman Berquist: Did you just call me a stup?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Berquist: What did CCI, Minnesota CCI go up?
Charles Folch: 6.6. The national average was about 3.7 so it was quite a bit higher for the Minneapolis region.
Mayor Mancino: So you're sure you want it tied to the Minneapolis region, yes. Is there anyone wishing to
address the City Council on this issue? Okay. Any comments from Council members at this time? Everyone has
seen it before. Councilman Berquist?
35
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well the only, passing this now gives us the ability to put it in place immediately.
Charles Folch: It goes into effect January 1st of each year.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please?
Councilman Berquist: Is this a public hearing?
Charles Folch: First reading.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, first reading. I will move to accept the first reading of the ordinance amending the
chapter of the code concerning sewer and water hook-up charges.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes there is.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of the ordinance
amendment to Chapter 19, Sections 19-20, 19-21, 19-45, and 19-46 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning
trunk sewer and water hook-up and lateral connection charges. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
PROPOSED BILL PROVIDING FOR A PROPERTY TAX FREEZE FOR HOMEOWNERS AGED 65 OR
OLDER, COUNCILMAN BERQUIST.
Councilman Berquist: Well this isn't going to be news to Senn and Mason or myself, or Ashworth or what's his
name over here. The piece that was included in the Council packet was something that came out of the Reviser's
office at the State of Minnesota.
Mayor Mancino: I tried to read it.
Councilman Berquist: Well what you really needed to read was page 10 and 11. The rest of it... something to be
desired insofar as that what I just passed out was what my real, our real intent was.
Mayor Mancino: Would you read it to us, what you really want to say?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. What I really want to address is, well I've written a sample resolution and I
editorialize a little on the bottom. I would like us to be able to resolve something similar to this. We, the City
Council of City of Chanhassen hereby resolve that the State of Minnesota Property Tax Code, as it relates to those
individuals on fixed incomes with escalating property values is unjust. The City of Chanhassen recognizes this
injustice and seeks to mitigate any property tax increase received by the City of Chanhassen due to increased
property valuation as it relates to Chanhassen residents on fixed incomes. That a base line be established of 1995
valuation, with any subsequent property tax increase as a result of increased valuation only, being refunded to the
property owner less only the preceding year's increase in cost of services provided by the City. This increase, if
any, would be based upon the Minnesota Consumer Price Index. Insofar as the City of Chanhassen represents,
percentage represents 17% of the property tax load, and using $2,000.00 as a base line example, the City would
garner $340.00 from that property. If the next year that property received a tax valuation of $2,200.00 and there
had been no improvements whatsoever to the property, that would result in $374.00 to the City. Now under my
proposed resolution, any homeowner on a fixed income would apply to the City of Chanhassen for, lack of a better
word, fixed income refund. If we as a City determine that the CPI for 1996 was 3 ½%, the City portion of that
property tax would be increased by $11.90. And how I arrive at that is simply taking the $340.00 tax from '96 and
multiplying it times 1.35. 1.035. So it would end up as a net result, the net result would be a refund to the
36
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
property owner of $22.10. Now I understand completely that this is not a significant amount of money but the
important thing is that it sends messages. First of all that we recognize the dilemma of those living on fixed
incomes in valuation increasing areas. We respect their wishes to continue to live in their homes rather than being
forced to move. We recognize the injustice in the system as it is, and we are attempting to implement change on
our end, puny as it may be. So having done that, then what I did is I faxed.
Mayor Mancino: It also keeps our homes affordable.
Councilman Berquist: It also keeps our homes affordable from a tax perspective.
Councilman Senn: From a tax perspective.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's important.
Councilman Senn: Not from a sales perspective.
Councilman Berquist: I've got to re-emphasize that this is simply, you know our purview is very small. Our
purview is limited to the City of Chanhassen and our represent amount of taxes. So insofar as we only get 17%
roughly of the total property tax load, the dollars that we're talking about of any individual property owner are not
significant. But how many people, well you haven't gone through it yet but Truth in Taxation hearings, we
continue to hear from those folks on fixed incomes who are experiencing 8, 9, 12 percent increases in their taxes
simply because of valuation increases. No improvements to the property whatsoever. Just pure and simple
valuation increases. And if they're on Social Security or annuity or something, some combination thereof, those
valuation increases can be very significant to their way of life and I don't happen to think it's fair so this is
something little that we, as a City can explore doing.
Mayor Mancino made a statement that was not heard on the tape.
Councilman Berquist: Within the context of whatever we resolve to do, I would tie some, probably some income
limits and some form of some burden of proof.
Mayor Mancino: Comments from the Council members. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well Steve and I have talked a lot about this I guess already but yeah, I think the income limits
and a tax filing proof so to speak, you know or something that are going to be essential to this because the intent
does not support you know effectively people who don't need to be supportive in doing it. And stuff. And I think
the other part is, we need to, you know it kind of comes back to the question you asked. I mean we need to be very
careful the way we do this. I mean I don't want to give people the impression that since the City is doing this, it's
going to have a big impact. It's not going to make your homes affordable. It's going to be a very small affect.
Now if the County and the School District would adopt the same thing, then I think the answer to your question is
yes. It could have an impact on affordability as it relates to their housing. And that's where I think this is great
because we take the first step and hopefully it will you know bring some other steps to recognizing the problem and
I think that's great.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: My hat is off to Councilman Berquist. Good for you. I think this is a fine idea and I just like
what Mark said about now if the County and School Districts will do this, maybe this will tweak their interest a
little bit and it will carry on through. And yeah, it may be insignificant but it is a statement.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I concur with all three of them. It's too bad we can't take action for everybody. Better not
get my going on this or we'll have breakfast here so I concur.
37
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: I'll stop you then. I concur conceptually too. Has there been any analysis on the...
Councilman Berquist: No, nothing formal. I've done some preliminary numbers and just guessing at some
demographics. I came up with an impact somewhere between 10 to 12 grand...
Don Ashworth: No I don't. I can see if I can get one.
Councilman Senn: I assume we're going to throw this out at this point though? And just give them this and ask
them to somehow put that into English?
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist, what would you like us to do at this point? Would you like to refine this
further? Would you like us, because you have so many good brains here, would you like us to get together in a
work session and talk through some of these? What would you like?
Councilman Berquist: What I guess I'd like to see happen at this point. When I initially brought this thing up
Roger pointed out that he thought if this thing were to be, come to the floor in a Court of law... The other
statement that he made at virtually the next breath was, but who's going to sue you. So what I would like Roger to
do is to explore the legal ramifications without spending a ton of City money and come up with a manner that we
can implement it. Figure some guidelines as far as, you know I don't think we have to decide on burden of proof at
this point. I don't think we have to decide necessarily.., on how best this can be implemented legitimately.
Mayor Mancino: Comments from other Council members?
Councilman Mason: Sounds good.
Councilman Berquist: I mean is there a better way to start it?
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Very, very much. Do you want to put timing on it, Councilman Berquist, as to when
you would like Roger to have something back, and maybe Don to do an analysis, fiscal analysis?
Councilman Berquist: Don could you spend an hour or so and guesstimate as to what we'd be looking at to the
impact to the City, although that's really not, I think even if I missed my guess by 50%, that would still mean our
total impact would be...
Mayor Mancino: Well let's find out the legal ramifications first. If we could do the legal ramifications first and
then secondly the fiscal.
Councilman Berquist: Could we potentially have this implemented by May 15th? Or the first part of April so that
it can enacted by May 15th.
Roger Knutson: What I have to do wouldn't take long at all.
Mayor Mancino: So you could have something back to us by next Council meeting?
Roger Knutson: The following one at the latest.
Mayor Mancino: Good. The next item was my item on the postal service. Roger could you please, before we go
into this, here is, here are, I've got some of this. Copies of the additional letter that will accompany what we
received from the U.S. Postal Service. I want to make sure everybody can see this.
Councilman Senn: Oh, is this a new one?
38
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Is that the original one? This letter will accompany the original one that we received from the
U.S. Postal Service. Marcia and Bill, do you want to come up and get this please. This is the original one that we
got and here is...I'11 take a few more. So you can kind of follow along with us. Before we go over these letters,
Roger could you just give us an update as far as what's happened since last week.
Roger Knutson: The first thing that happened is we got this letter. There were lots of phone calls...this letter
dated January 6th in which they outlined what they intend to do. Since then we can now update that we have been
informed that they have entered into a contract with Mr. Rezloff, so that has been accomplished. Their next step is
to do a, well they have commissioned to do the noise study. That will be done by the 24th of January. Then they
will incorporate that into a design and the letter goes on and gives some more detail.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and as we can see from their letter of January 6th, they're asking for the Mayor to sign
their letter in agreement. Can you hear me okay?
Audience: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: At the residents meeting. Roger and I went through it and wanted to add some more components
to it and that being, if you'd like to review those Roger with the Council.
Roger Knutson: Right, what we're suggesting is, not even signing this letter but attaching this letter to this
essentially and sending it back, because we don't want to get into word smithing and an argument about all the
wording necessarily of their letter. But as additions to what they've suggested, first they want a copy of Mr.
Rezloff's contract so we can see exactly what he was commissioned to do so we can better understand whether the
scope of the services were appropriate. Then when his report is done, we want a copy of that non-edited report so
we can analyze that and satisfy ourselves as to whether that's satisfactory and... And then we're suggesting,
before they do any of the actual design work, that there be a meeting after the neighborhood to discuss the
alternatives to the design. And then once they've incorporated, done that design work, finished it, we'll take a
look at it and if we think a meeting is appropriate or needed at that point because we're not satisfied or whatever,
then we will call them and say we want to have a meeting. And we want all the work done by...
Mayor Mancino: Are there any questions or comments? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I can't help but chuckle. Roger, where does this get us? I mean you know they sent us this
letter and they want us to sign it. Well we're of course not going to sign that so now we're sending them back a
letter which we're signing. We're not asking them to sign. I mean it seems to me we're never, not getting any
closer to getting the two parties together.
Roger Knutson: We are actually making progress. They have signed the contract with Mr. Rezloff.
Councilman Senn: Agreed.
Mayor Mancino: And they're showing on their timing.
Roger Knutson: And their time schedule I think is, you can quibble about a day or two but that's a pretty tight
time schedule actually. He's going to finish that report in two weeks. I don't now what Mr. Rezloff's schedule is
but that's.
Councilman Senn: Well but, okay. But I mean again, when we send this back now and not sending this back
signed, I mean they don't really need to stick to their time line anyway, right?
Roger Knutson: ...they will.
Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. So what you're saying is, you've talked to them and this isn't going to be another,
this is not going to be another posturing move which is going to counter posture and all that sort of thing.
39
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Roger Knutson: I don't think they're going to jump off the wall or... I think these are reasonable things and if
they have a problem with them, they'll let us know.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason? Councilman Mason, any questions? Councilman Engel?
Councilman Engel: No. The next test is just the 24th. We get a copy of the report and go from there. That's
things one at a time. It is moving ahead. I know it's painful for you to hear that. That it's taking this long but
they finally got something together and they've actually hired the guy. Farther ahead than we were. See what
happens on the 24th.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist?
Councilman Berquist: I believe we're making progress, as evidenced by the gentleman in Kansas City's sign off at
the end of the fax. It's confirming the hiring of the subcontractor. The sound consultant. He signs it, persona non
gratta at the KCFSO lately, which I'm assuming means Kansas City Field Service Office. So it's evident that he's
catching some grief for the manner in which this whole thing has occurred. I think we're making progress.
Mayor Mancino: Would anyone like to speak to this? Bill or Marcia at this point. And you don't have to.
Bill Kemble: ...long winded to say at all whatsoever. I think we do just continue to make sure that they follow up
on the dates that they've laid out for us. It's encouraging that they've hired a sound consultant...on top of them
and if they stumble, we need to find out why. If it's a legitimate reason, that's fine. If not, step back and see
whether they are just further delaying. I think when they get to the point where they're ready to present some sort
of a landscape plan to us, as we mentioned when we met here last week, we've already laid our, the neighbors have
already laid our cards on the table in terms of what we're expecting. So they ought to know when they make a
presentation of a proposed landscape plan whether they're meeting our expectations or not. There really isn't
anything from my perspective that we need to do between now and when we were presented with the plan unless
they fall behind schedule, and then we need to just stay on top of them and make sure that they do what they said
they were going to do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Engel: What's the state of the construction there now?
Bill Kemble: They've got over half of the outside walls up. They're going pretty slowly. I don't know when they
really expected to be completed. Looking out the window it looks like it's going pretty slowly.
Marcia Strand: The only thing that I would like to bring up is something that we talked about briefly at our
neighborhood meeting. Is to have the topic of the postal service remain an old business item so that action can be
taken at a Council meeting without having to call another meeting. When action is necessary. I'd like to hear
that discussed and decided upon.
Mayor Mancino: That was my next comment. Let's make sure that it's on the agenda for the next City Council
meeting under, would it be under old business? So that we can get an update because the Council meeting will be
on the 27th. By that time, looking at the schedule, we will have the noise study completed. So let's make sure we
do that. And I have consensus from the Council to go ahead with that additional page back to the U.S. Postal
Service, and Roger if you could just make, or if I can get an original copy to sign.
Councilman Berquist: Are you going to Fed Ex that to them?
Mayor Mancino: Just fax it. I didn't want to spend the money. Next on the agenda is Administrative
Presentations.
40
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM PRESENTATION.
Charles Folch: Thank you. We are currently in the midst of the information, education stage of the sump pump
inspection program. Last week a mass mailing was made to all property owners within the City containing an
information packet which you have included in your packets tonight. A public information or public information
meetings will be scheduled in the next coming weeks here and we've recently completely an information video
which we also will be scheduling for airing on the local cable access channel. Tonight we wanted to give you an
opportunity to meet and we wanted to introduce our project consultant, Mr. Craig Anderson of Buchen
Environmental Services. Give you a chance to meet him and also allow Craig to further update you on some of
the major tasks that we want to accomplish here in the coming weeks with the program so with that we'll turn it
over to Craig Anderson.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Mr. Anderson please.
Craig Anderson: Mayor, members of the Council. Thank you this evening. I won't take a lot of your time. It's
getting late tonight but I wanted to update the Council. We were hired last November by the City of Chanhassen to
begin this sump pump inspection program and as Mr. Folch said, we're in the process of the information part of
the program. Mailings have gone out to all property owners, sewered property owners in the City of Chanhassen.
We have an article being prepared in the Villager, I believe Kathy. We have advertisements or ads going in the
Villager also. We're going to be putting the video on cable access television. Tonight I'd like to premiere that
video if you decide you have time. It's available to you tonight. I want to thank Anita, Jill, Charles and especially
the Mayor for doing the video. I think it's excellent. It's going to be very informative.
Councilman Senn: That means you're in there I take it.
Councilman Mason: I guess we'd better watch it then.
Mayor Mancino: No. No thank you.
Councilman Mason: Oh, we can check it out?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, you can check it ont. I would much rather.
Craig Anderson: I don't want to take a lot of time tonight but she did an excellent job. An excellent job.
Mayor Mancino: I missed my calling, right?
Craig Anderson: Yes.
Councilman Engel: Was this like a Tom Vila where you going around on a bike with a wrench and telling people
how it was supposed to be?
Mayor Mancino: Well, when they told me I did the best, I said I sound like a used car sales person. Excuse me if
there are any used car salesmen here.
Craig Anderson: And it was very well done. It was very well done and I want to congratulate the City on what
they've accomplished. With all of the informational programs that they've done at this point, we're going to have
an informational meeting next Tuesday night for residents of Chanhassen. We have sent out invitations to those
persons who do have questions. We will also be doing training for city staff to answer questions that people may
have. Also plumbers, local plumbers and hardware store owners have been asked to attend those training sessions
next Tuesday so that they have information that they can give out to the public so that we're all on the same sheet
of music singing the same song. But we are inviting everybody that has an interest in this program to the
41
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
informational meeting. We will conduct other ones. I did one for the seniors at the City Hall this morning. They
had a lot of interesting questions. And I appreciate the opportunity to address them. This is basically what we're
going to be doing for the informational program. The actual inspections will begin on Wednesday, January 22nd.
And we will be doing those inspections like selling cookies door to door. We will start in a given area in the
northeast part of the city of Chanhassen and we will go door to door. We will be doing this afternoons. Late
mornings, afternoons and evenings, Tuesday through Friday. All day Saturday. If no one is home, or there is not a
responsible adult we will not enter the property.
Councilman Mason: That lets me offthe hook.
Councilman Senn: I was going to say, I'm safe too.
Mayor Mancino: Do we have to take a test?
Craig Anderson: I might indicate we will also be letting the police department know about our vehicles and that
because we, in any town we do this, somebody is bound to call the police. We're working in North St. Paul right
now and that happened the second night the police showed up and said oh, it's you. Would you like us to escort
you to the door? The inspector said no. These are trained people. We're going to do this professionally and with
courtesy to every resident of this city. We have had many phone calls in the last few days since the informational
packets went out. Maybe some of you have had questions. We've had a number of phone calls. By and large most
of the people are very, very helpful. Very interested in setting up an appointment. They're interested in
participating in the program to assist themselves in saving money on their taxes and I think that's what everybody
is looking at. So the phone calls have been excellent. We've had some people that have been concerned and we
have dealt with that. We appreciate people calling us and asking questions. That's what we're here for so if
anybody does have any, please have them call me. At that point we will start the inspections and I'd like to come
back to the Council and update you as we progress through the program.
Mayor Mancino: How often will you come back?
Craig Anderson: I hope once a month you'd let me come back and report on what we've accomplished. What
we're finding.
Mayor Mancino: That would be excellent. Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: How do you, I don't have one in my house. I know my neighbors on both sides of me do
not. Are you going to come in and look? I mean for instance if my wife says come on in, and you're going to just
look around and not find one and say well you don't have one and have them take off?
Craig Anderson: Yes sir. What we're going to do is try and treat everybody equally. No matter, somebody can
come to the door and say we don't have one. We will ask for permission to verify that. Then we will fill out a
form and a certificate of compliance with the ordinance. The City sewer use ordinance and provide that to that
property owner. If in fact the sump pump is there and it's pumping outside with rigid piping, we will do the same
for that property. If the property is not in compliance with the City's sewer use ordinance, we will inform that
particular property owner what the problem is and what needs to be done to correct that problem. The majority of
questions that we're getting at this time from residents of Chanhassen are people that have a problem already.
They've tried to pump it outside and they're building skating rinks in the winter time. Or it's causing a problem
where they're building a duck slew in their back yard because of the amount of water that they're pumping out of
them. And what we have told all of the residents, whether it's in Chanhassen, North St. Paul, wherever we're
doing this program, the City is going to work with those property owners. We're not going to try and create a
bigger problem in solving the one that we have, and that's the economic problem with paying Met Council for the
treatment of this clear water.
Mayor Mancino: ...will take you to?
42
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Craig Anderson: We're hoping that we should be through in about 4 months. 4 to 5 months and that is based
upon the City's budget and how we proceed through the program. But this is a part, we have 18 months to
complete the project in order for the.., so we have 18 months.
Councilman Berquist: One other quick question.
Craig Anderson: Yes sir.
Councilman Berquist: Logistically. You go into a house and a guy's got a sump basket. No pump. Never runs.
Never been a need to.
Craig Anderson: Yep, that is in compliance with the ordinance. What we will do is fill that out. But the City
needs to know that property that has just a basket with no pump for the future because we intend to work with the
City in putting a maintenance program together for this particular program. What we've seen other communities,
happen in other communities is that after 5, 6, 7 years and people move into the community, people have moved
out, sump pumps get put in. Somebody goes to Menard's because there's water in the basket and it ends up getting
connected to the sanitary sewer, which we're trying to eliminate. So we want to know where those are. We will
also affix a sticker to the cover of that sump explaining the sewer use ordinance so that anybody that's going to put
a sump in there would kind of have to break a seal on that cover so they would know that they need to contact the
City before the install a pump in that basket.
Mayor Mancino: Questions? Thank you.
Craig Anderson: Thank you. Do you want to see it or not?
Mayor Mancino: I don't think so. I don't. But thank you. Okay, next item.
Councilman Senn: A quick question for Charles. If I could. We've put basically, now that they've put the
program together and have all this together, are we plugging that into inspections? So with new houses this is
happening automatically through our staffing versus?
Charles Folch: What we will do is, Buchen Environmental Services will provide the first inspection of all the
properties. Once we have that completed, in fact we were talking about that a little bit further today. About setting
up a program with our own inspectors where that, when they do their final plumbing inspection and things like
that, they will provide the same sort of decaled information on the sump baskets, along with leaving information to
the new property owner that may purchase the property that these are the regulations. So the continue and follow-
up that will be done in-house, from that respect, yeah.
Councilman Senn: Great.
Mayor Mancino: Any other?
ST. HUBERT'S MATERIALS CHANGE ON GYMNASIUM.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant, St. Hubert's has requested a material change on a portion of their
building. This is approximately 15% of the building. I've shown the church site as of north, being to the north
here...
Mayor Mancino: This is on all those red areas on the... ?
Kate Aanenson: No, just the orange portion I'm showing as a gymnasium. What Bob had shown in color, that's
some of the other pitched roof elements. It's the orange portion. They'll go through that more specifically. But
this proposal came to our staff as far as the change from the brick. Our first question, and what was the percentage
would it include and the next question, what would be the substitute material? In looking at the conditions,
43
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
materials that were approved as part of the PUD, we believe that the material that they're proposing, more it's a
stamped concrete panel, is consistent with the ordinance. Our concern was to make sure that you felt comfortable
with the change because it was a condition of site plan approval. We felt that the change, because it met the intent
of the ordinance, was acceptable and we are recommending approval. We just want to make sure that you're also
in concurrence with that and if you aren't, then we would go back through the process. We believe it constitutes a
minor change. With that I'll turn it over to Dave Pokorny, who's representing the church tonight.
Mayor Mancino: I have a question before we do that.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Does it meet our Highway 5 guidelines, architectural guidelines?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and it does go with the PUD. There's actually two sections it talks about architecturally
treated concrete cast in panels that they have to be decorative. And then also that if they're, you can't use a large
unadorned and that they incorporate textured surfaces and exposed aggregate which they have done. So I'll let Mr.
Pokorny go through that materials. But again, we think it's consistent so I'll let him show the materials.
Mayor Mancino: I just wanted to make sure it was complying with our Highway 5. Thank you.
Dave Pokorny: Thank you. I didn't have anything else to do Monday night.
Mayor Mancino: When do you usually meet?
Dave Pokorny: Monday nights. Not tonight though.
Mayor Mancino: Can you give your name and address?
Dave Pokorny: I'm Dave Pokorny. I live at 1403 Valley View Road in Chaska and I'm a member of the St.
Hubert's Building Committee. Of course we are under construction with the project. The reason that we're
bringing the change initially began, andis probably the major reasonis anissue oftiming. This material that
we're talking about is the material that's going around the gymnasium and what we would like to do, or we've
actually made a decision to do is change from a block interior wall around the gymnasium to a tip up interior wall
around the gymnasium. And that allows us just to get it up quicker, particularly given the weather. We do need to
get the school element done to open for school next year. As we were looking at though this issue of timing, the
second issue then came up that if we were putting up the masonry tip up material that we could also look at a cost
saving of putting up a decorative masonry or tip up. I do have a sample of, below me is the sample of what the
material would be. It is kind of a modified, exposed aggregate. It's actually a new material that FabCon has
developed that has the decorative block look to it. So it will have a blocking embedded into the cement. Then I
brought along a sample of the brick. This is the brick that.
Mayor Mancino: That was the original material that was?
Dave Pokorny: That's the brick that is on the school portion and that is the original material.
Mayor Mancino: That was on the gym too.
Dave Pokorny: Yes. The gym, there's three sides of the gymnasium that we're talking about changing. First we
have on the west side, that area will in the future be enclosed because that's where our future fellowship hall would
go and that element would be covered up some day with sheetrock. Then we have the north elevation and that
would be permanent exterior wall. We have designed the building though so that if in the future we did feel that it
was necessary to make that north elevation of brick, that could be done. Then we have the east wall, facing the
residential area. Actually our architect felt that from a residential standpoint, that the tip up would be a better
solution than the brick. That it would be really less visible. We did talk with both of the two neighbors and
44
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
neither of them have any objection. We've reviewed both materials with them and they didn't see any problem
with the change. The rest of the east elevation will remain in the brick. That's really the school element. And
then lastly, I can tell you we have gone through now all of our costs and we are not, we don't have any other
changes. We did discuss changes at the building committee level and really said to the architects and to the
contractor that we wanted to stay away from any of the changes that were being discussed along the main street.
We felt that was really the key element that we were trying to create in the image here. So for example the
retaining walls are still brick. All of the elements along the main street itself are unchanged from what you've
seen.
Mayor Mancino: Dave, could you point to the west elevation rendering that's up there and show us which part will
have this?
Dave Pokorny: It may be best, can you point out where it is on... ?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. This is the future narthex area. It will be expanded right here, so this facia is temporary in
nature. This one right here. Eventually this area will be filled in.
Mayor Mancino: Got it. So it's just, as you said, it's the east and north? Okay. And is there a lot of landscaping
between the eastern elevation and the neighbors?
Dave Pokorny: Yes. There is a set of elevations. Appreciate through the houses, the two houses that are there,
really are above. They are quite a ways above the building and there is, Kate probably has a copy of the landscape
plan along there but there is a landscaping edge up on top of the hill. They will probably be more concerned about
what are the views over the top of the school as opposed to what's the view of the wall of the gymnasium.
Mayor Mancino: And is that exactly the pattern size? It feels a lot courser and bigger texture than obviously the
brick is. But is that the size? The tip ups will be. Will they be square like that?
Kate Aanenson: My understanding, the approximate size of what they're going to be, right.
Dave Pokorny: Yeah. Right, those are the geometric square, yes. And it is the texture that will be, it will be,
and if you look real close you can see there's kind of two different colors on the tip up sample. The intent is to
match as close as possible, once it's up, the brick. And the way that it's done, the material is colored concrete so
there's no maintenance to it but you do need to put a stain or a sealer on it and there are different kind of tones of
the stain so the intent would be to match as closely as possible the actual brick once it's up.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, how are we adorning that whole side of the gym? I mean if that's, the tip ups, is that just
going to be?
Kate Aanenson: No, actually there was another stamped pattern up in this portion right here that does not show on
there but it's actually...probably two-thirds of the way up to give it more relief and we thought...
Mayor Mancino: That will be another texture up there.
Kate Aanenson: Actually it's just a different type of the imprinting when they stamp it. It's just a little bit
different.
Dave Pokorny: I think we provided to Kate the actual drawing from it that would be from FabCon and you're
right. There is a different stamping at the very top to create a different edge.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Dave at this time? Thank you. And Kate, what would you like us to do at this
point?
45
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Kate Aanenson: Well if you're comfortable with it, I'm saying administratively we think it meets what you
approved originally and that the change was minor and if you felt it was a significant enough change then I'd say
take it back through the process. We just want to make sure that you're comfortable with that. That it was
consistent. The Director has the authority to make minor changes and I felt that fell within that but I just wanted
to make sure that you were still comfortable with it. Let me just show you again where those houses were. As Mr.
Pokorny mentioned, they did meet with, again this is the gym. I just want to see how close these homes are.
Here's the.., portion that we're talking about...
Mayor Mancino: The north side is towards the parking lot and...okay. So it doesn't face, as Dave said, the main
street at all and all that will stay with the brick?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And obviously that's their presentation, and again we don't want to treat this as the back
side, and that was our concern when we looked at it. We wanted to see material samples and we think, from a
view stepping back and the scale and the size, actually that size might even work better. So we felt it was
consistent.
Dave Pokorny: There's actually one other party that needs to approve it and that's the Ward's and we've reviewed
it with their architect and they're supportive of it also.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah Lotus did look, or Mika Milo did look at that. We asked them to give their comment. So
there really is no action. I guess I want to make sure that you were okay with it, and if you weren't then I would
like to send it back. But if you're okay with it.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any Council comments on this? Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: No.
Councilman Engel: Looks fine.
Councilman Berquist: Yes. As with most problems, you also have an opportunity, and I frankly have a problem
with huge expanses of face brick, even with architectural variances and color variances. So quite honestly I think
this, the tip up with the pattern probably... I think it will look great. I think it will look better than face brick
frankly.
Mayor Mancino: I couldn't disagree more strongly but I'm fine with it. Only because of where it is.
Councilman Senn: We don't have to vote on it anyway.
Mayor Mancino: No. We don't have to vote on it. Because it is facing the neighbors and there will be the
elevation changes, I just think that the original brick has much more variation, texture. The scale is more
appropriate.
Councilman Berquist: Let's go look at it when it's done.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And I'll show you what it could have looked like. Okay.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM.
Don Ashworth: This is solely informational. I've included a copy of the Conflict of Interest Form as
recommended by the City Auditor's and as has been signed in previous years by Council, department heads,
myself. In the process of looking for that, I did find a more detailed conflict of interest brochure. It almost looks
like it's an ordinance form, which it really wasn't. We started to tackle that at a work session and then it just kept
getting kind of pushed offuntil finally it just faded away. So the City Council's got to tell me, was that the intent
to just have it fade away or did you want to sometime bring it back into the light?
46
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Mayor Mancino: I'll make a comment and that is that I would like to see it come back. Being a, having served on
the Planning Commission and there were questions the Commissioners would have about staying in a meeting or
could they be doing this or that. It was very helpful to have a Code of Ethics to follow and to look to. I don't know
if it should remain in this form or not but I would like us to address it at some point in the next quarter.
Councilman Berquist: I have no problem with addressing it. I think we probably should all be part and parcel and
agree on the Code of Ethics for ourselves.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Concur.
Councilman Mason: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Let's.
Don Ashworth: Put it as a work session item for the future?
Mayor Mancino: And let's make sure that we do it within this quarter.
Don Ashworth: We now have freed up some time on February 3rd. We took Halla and put Halla to the 27th.
Mayor Mancino: Would all Council members agree to February 3rd. TO review the Code of Ethics. Put it on that
agenda for the 3rd. May I have a motion to close the meeting?
Councilman Berquist: We don't need to act on this resolution at this time? We do it after we go through the
Code?
Don Ashworth: Right. You should sign one.
Mayor Mancino: I think we're all signing the Conflict of Interest Form and just giving it to Don. Unless anyone
has a big concern with that. I think everyone has and staff does. So just, if you can sign it tonight and give it to
him.
Don Ashworth: Oh, I'm sorry Councilman Berquist. We really should take and pass this resolution which
basically ensures that we're not putting Councilman Berquist in an awkward situation. Because we do purchase
things. We need to purchase things through Steve. It only makes sense and so by passing this resolution be
ensured that we kind of don't create a problem for him. I'm talking about the resolution on the very back part of
this.
Councilman Senn: And what's the purpose again?
Don Ashworth: Roger.
Roger Knutson: The purpose is when you're going to be purchasing things from a council member, State Statutes
require that you meet certain findings that are contained in that resolution and that the City authorizes it.
Don Ashworth: Just so you're aware.
47
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Senn: These findings effectively are adequate for us to do that then is what you're saying?
Roger Knutson: State Statute says you're supposed to find them, yes.
Don Ashworth: We're talking about generally $1,000.00 or $2,000.00 a year. Never, I don't think ever going over
five. We do have, the original equipment, a lot of that was purchased through Steve so it makes it a whole lot
easier if we need some part to be able to just to go to him.
Mayor Mancino: We do not have to put a cap, a spending cap on this resolution?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Senn: I mean how do we know that 3 is true?
Mayor Mancino: That we're getting bids on everything?
Don Ashworth: How do we know that 3 is true?
Councilman Senn: I mean I'm assuming the same parts are available from other plumbing and heating places so, I
mean when you're going to make this kind of a statement, how do you demonstrate that it's true?
Mayor Mancino: And do we have to put it in?
Councilman Senn: That's right. It's the only one of the statements that seems to me gets kind of awkward.
Don Ashworth: One, I never did ask Steve but I'm assuming that there's authorized, and I don't even know what
we have. Authorized Lennox dealer. You're it for Chanhassen and somebody else is it for Eden Prairie.
Councilman Berquist: Well yeah that's. You know item 3 would be no different than how can you verify that
Merlin's Hardware is the best place that you can buy... Obviously if you were to call.
Councilman Senn: Well but that's immaterial. We don't have to make that statement about Merlin's, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Roger, do we have to put in number 3? Does that have to be in there?
Roger Knutson: What's number 3?
Mayor Mancino: It says the prices the City can receive from Merit are as low or lower than the prices that can be
attained elsewhere.
Roger Knutson: That's right out of the State Statute. That's exactly what you have to find.
Councilman Berquist: Now what constitutes value though? Could you switch value for prices? Because obviously
with the location that we are and what not, there is some value in having the convenience.
Roger Knutson: This is word for word. I think you can take into consideration that if you have to drive to Eden
Prairie, there's a certain cost...
Councilman Engel: Can we just reword it to say at market rate to the surrounding communities? Is that not
allowed for you to do that?
Roger Knutson: You could rephrase it but the wording I used is direct from the Statute. This is exactly what the
Statute requires.
48
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1997
Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble moving approval of this resolution if that's what we're looking for
here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and Steve you feel comfortable that you can meet it?
Councilman Berquist: To be quite honest with you, I very seldom know that the City is, that we're doing anything
for the City. Whether it be once in a while...
Councilman Mason: I'll move the resolution authorizing the City to make purchases from Merit Heating &
Cooling Incorporated.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #97-07: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to adopt the Resolution
Authorizing the City to make purchases from Merit Heating and Cooling, Incorporated. All voted in favor,
except Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
49