CC Minutes 1997 02 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson,
Todd Hoffman, Anita Benson, and Mark Littfin
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda with the following changes and additions: Councilman Senn wanted to discuss Highway 212 under
Council Presentations; Mayor Mancino wanted an HRA report, and discussion of a Planning Commission
vacancy. Item 4, The Highlands, was deleted. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution/t97-11: Accept Utility and Street Improvements in Oaks of Minnewashta, Project No.
94-14.
b. Resolution/t97-12: Accept Utility and Street Improvements in Brendon Pond, Project No. 94-17.
d. 1)
Approve Design Services Contract with Barton-Aschman to include City Utility Infrastructure in
the Trunk Highway 5 (Powers Boulevard west to Trunk Highway 41), Improvement Project No.
97-6.
Resolution/t97-13: Approve Resolution Clarifying that the Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector
Respond to Fires.
Approve Agreement of the Metropolitan Council Transit Capital Financial Assistance for Villages on
the Pond.
Approve Settlement Agreement with Andrew & Linda Freseth; Lyman Blvd./Lake Riley Utilities,
Project No. 93-32B.
Approve Settlement Agreement with George & Margaret Shorba; Lake Riley Utilities/Lyman
Boulevard, Project 93-32B.
1. Approval of Bills.
City Council Minutes dated February 10, 1997
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 1997
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
K. APPROVAL OF 1997 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
Don Ashworth: Before you are liquor license fees. City Council at a work session considered comments
made by Mr. Pauly in regards to his new establishment and some comparisons that he drew between that
operation and the Dinner Theater. Staff sees two options. One would basically leave the issue back to
Mr. Pauly to work out with Mr. Dan Dahlin who has the bowling center portion of the property. Or
literally to create an additional category, and if you did that, staff would assume that you would kind of
split the difference between the price associated with less than 6,000 square feet. New category, over
6,000 to, it doesn't really matter, 15 or 20, and then over 20. Staff sees this as kind of a policy decision
and that's the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is Mr. Pauly here tonight and would you like to tell us a little bit about your
feelings on the staff report please?
Russ Pauly: My name is Russ Pauly and I'm President of Pauly's American Grill, which we hope will be
built in the Chan Bowl/Filly's building. In regards to oh some of the things that we discussed at our round
table discussion, just briefly. I believe State Statute gives the City the power to set the fees and they're
supposed to be a reasonable fee. And they basically cite the cost of administration and that type of thing. I
guess why then is the City of Chanhassen so much higher than communities that are of the same population
base. You know same areas, Eden Prairie as an example. Minnetonka as an example. Basically for the
same businesses in those two communities, for instance the Eden Prairie Brunswick Bowl and Brew Pub
Operation is roughly a 30,000 square foot operation and they pay $7,500.00 for their liquor license.
Another example of a similar operation to what Pauly's will be is Doolittle's Air Caf6 in Eden Prairie and
they again pay $7,500.00 for their fees. Some comparable ones in Minnetonka would be Champs at
Ridgedale, $7,500.00 for their fee. We're looking at a roughly $13,104.00 fee for the same operation. I
guess I would like to know why Chanhassen's is so much higher. Originally I asked that we look at the
formula and how we arrive at these costs. You know maybe I'm asking now that we dig a little deeper.
One of the things that's been brought to my attention is that the City uses the example of costs of public
safety and additional costs for police protection and these things. Well as a business, you know we're
entitled to the services that we pay for through taxes such as police protection, fire protection, street
maintenance and snow removal and what have you and I just don't believe that as a liquor license holder,
we should have to pay additional for any of those items .... thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address Council on this issue? Okay.
Councilman Senn. Any remarks? Questions?
Councilman Senn: I don't know, as far as the options 1 and 2, I really don't see a need to establish another
tier in the system. I think our system's already complicated enough. I don't know, my opinion would be
leave it where it is. As far as the issue over the fees. In past years we've debated those fees at length and I
believe the fees really are tied to effectively costs generated by them and I'm going to say costs over and
above the norm that are generated by them. And I don't know, citing this specific example I guess is a little
hard to do because it's a cross between a new operation and an old operation but you know, judging on the
basis of the old operation, the reason the half of the old operation is going to remain I would say are public
safety calls would far exceed any of the other examples that were given from other communities. I would
guess. And so I don't know, I really haven't seen anything that would lead me to think that we should
reduce it. I'd much rather see the parties of the two different operations kind of get together and work out
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
how they're going to split it because I really think that should be the primary issue here. Not really the
base fee.
Mayor Mancino: And we do charge homeowners, I know residential homeowners when, when my personal
alarm goes off, after the third call I get charged. What is it, $50.00 every time the fire department or
something. Do you?
Russ Pauly: So do businesses.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: I basically agree with what Councilman Senn is saying. We always look to compare
to neighbors. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. I agree with Mark. I certainly don't want to add
another tier. Things are confusing enough. I haven't really seen any compelling reasons as of yet, as of
now to change the fee structure the way it stands.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Mark.
Councilman Engel: Pretty much fare what Mark and Mike said. I would remove another layer before I'd
add another one. I think Russ makes a good point. The costs are higher. I don't have enough information
to tell me why that is but I couldn't give any good reason for reducing them right now other than if I had a
business I'd want to reduce them too. But I don't have enough information to say why they should be
reduced. If we had a comparative charge per call that we could rationalize that with, I'd be willing to take
a look at it but I don't have any of that information so I wouldn't, couldn't comment to that affect now.
But I'm not for adding another tier, that's for sure.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: As with anything else, the older I get the grayer things become. In more ways than
one. Russ did you, when Pauly's was open at the old location, were you charged on a police call.
Russ Pauly: Not on a police call basis but on a fire call basis. You get 2 or 3 freebies and then after.
Actually I take that back. It's basically with the burglar alarm. False alarms.
Councilman Berquist: But enforcement from a public disturbance point of view, the establishment was not
charged as a rule.
Russ Pauly: I don't think I've ever had 3 police calls for disturbances at Pauly's.
Councilman Berquist: Is it a normal operation though for a police organization to charge a business in the
event that there's a public disturbance at the site?
Russ Pauly: No. Only for false alarms I believe.
Councilman Berquist: Alright. You know I look at this and I could actually probably make really decent
arguments both ways. I would certainly argue that the cost from a public safety point of view at the
existing nightclub is far in excess of what every other liquor serving establishment is in the city of
Chanhassen. I don't doubt for a moment however that when that closes and your operation opens, that the
number of police calls will fall dramatically and I certainly look forward to that. In listening to your
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
statement that other municipalities are significantly less. Minnetonka for instance has a liquor license rate
of $7,500.00 as you said and they have roughly the 300% higher population base than the city of
Chanhassen. Eden Prairie, the exact same liquor fee, $7,500.00 regardless of square footage. And their
population base is roughly 250% of what Chanhassen is. Shakopee is really the only one, and Shakopee
currently has roughly 70% of what Chanhassen for population and Shakopee is the only one that has a
tiered structure that's truly based on a square footage of operating space number. You talk about the
inequity versus say Minnetonka or Eden Prairie. You may be right. On the other hand, it may be logical to
argue that the other communities haven't accurately plugged in their true costs to the community of serving
an establishment similar to Filly's or Pauly's or the Riv or Doolittles or any of the others that were
mentioned. So I could probably argue it both ways fairly convincingly. When we were in our earlier work
session I asked the City Manager how your liquor license is going to work when you came in roughly June
or July and looked at becoming operational and it is a pro-rated license as you no doubt know but I didn't.
Looking at it right now, I'm not of a mind to change it. If I were of a mind to change it, what I probably
would propose would be some type of a gradient which even best case would be a difference of roughly
$400.00 between the $13,104.00 figure and the new figure that I come up with and that's predicated
strictly on square footage. I'm not sure that that's the type of relief that you're looking for. And that's not
the type of relief that we're looking for. I mean if the, in my opinion, if the decline in public services
warrant a decline in rates next year.
Russ Pauly: ...I'm being made to pay for the sins of the past.
Councilman Berquist: That's true you are perhaps to a great degree. On the other hand you have the
future to look forward to. If you were looking at a business liquor license for halfa year, I would say that
your complaint would be, I mean I could understand the complaint process. I don't know that I could agree
with you but the fact that you're going to be in here in 1998 making the same application and hopefully
1999 and 2000, I think we'll.
Mayor Mancino: Well it gives you a chance to come back and for us to see those service calls because
Russ I also did check in to see, with Public Safety, how many service calls were for the Chan Bowl and
there were, pardon?
Russ Pauly: How about for Pauly's? Did you check... ?
Mayor Mancino: No, I didn't see that because I know that you are going to do, be a combination but
you're going to have both.
Russ Pauly: ... difference in how one person runs an operation.
Mayor Mancino: Exactly and you will have time to come back and show us that and it will be quantifiable.
We'll be able to see the difference because last year in Chan Bowl there were 41 police calls the last two
years and they had to do with theft, property damage, assaults, under age consumption, etc. and I expect to
see those to go down and I think that we will be very glad as a Council to look at this in a year and to see
that change. Otherwise may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the liquor license fees as outlined with one little caveat and that is
that I would like to see our ordinance language cleaned up a little bit so as to be a little more specific on the
definitions on the square footage so we know that we're dealing with net numbers rather than gross
numbers, which isn't apparent now. And I mean that can be done as housekeeping after the fact but I'd
like that to be part of the motion.
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a second please?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Resolution #97-14: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the 1997
Liquor License Fees with the caveat that the language regarding square footage be clarified as it is
related to gross numbers and net numbers. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: 1997 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PLANNING ALLOCATION OF $50~729 FOR HOUSING/HOME
OWNERSHIP.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated this year's 1997-98 allocation is over $50,000.00. As you
recall Hennepin County changed their formula that said if we were under $50,000.00 we'd be in that
consolidated pool which meant that anybody within that pool that had a request that met the high priority,
that they would have the ability to use somebody else's dollars. Because we're on that cusp of the
$50,000.00, we can make our own application as long as it meets the high priority. As I indicated in the
past, they're looking for housing programs. The one I'm recommending is first time home buyer
assistance. What this does, the Block Grant, it acts like an interest free loan and the loan appears on that
Title of the property as a lien and as that property is sold, the money would then be returned and used for
another first time home buyer. The reason why I selected this program is, if you look at the housing
activities that are available, over the number of years the City has tried to look at rehab loans. Carver
County HRA has just completed a study as a part of their Housing Assistance Plan, the whole housing
study and included Chanhassen in that. And it kind of reinforces what we found out when we tried to do
housing rehab loans. There really is a limited amount of blighted area. Where we have some that need fix-
up, the demand in the market is such that those are bought and immediately kind of replaced for a higher
and better home. There just isn't a significant amount. Also there's an opportunity for acquisition of
property but because our dollar amount is so low, we'd have to accumulate a number of years and we don't
really have a project on line right now. And also with the acquisition And also with the acquisition you're
also, because you're using the Federal dollars, tying in a few other strings. The other process we could use
is to do some rental but because we're at that $50,000.00. If we went with the rental, it gets a little bit
stickier if we're not in next year. How do we... made a decision to get into a property and we can't
continue the rents. So I guess I would recommend against that as far as someone making a life decision on
whether or not they can stay in on that fixed payment. I believe that this recommendation meets the city's
goals for affordable housing. We have the local control. We run the program. There are programs that we
could have this administered through Hennepin County. I think it would be nice. It would take low staffing
and we could work with a local bank to provide this loan agreement with the community banks here in
Chanhassen. Do the advertising ourselves so we could work with some of the local banks. So I think this
is probably the most cost effective and again getting somebody, by maybe meeting the gap that they have to
get into the home and providing that measure to help them and again that's city wide so we're not picking
out any particular project. We're just trying to get something under, right now what I put in there is
$95,000.00. We're only looking at 2 to 5 homes that we can possibly do based on that amount but again
we're providing somebody that's under that margin that couldn't get into that home, that opportunity. So
with that, that would be my recommendation and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Senn.
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Kate, what's the targeted timing on this or is there a timing deadline that we need to
worry about meeting?
Kate Aanenson: The money becomes available, if we approved, July 1. It has to go through the hearing
process. Again Hennepin County's going to weight all these based on high priority. This is a higher
priority program so if we meet their hearing deadlines, then the money would be available July 1st.
Mayor Mancino: And what are their hearing deadlines?
Councilman Senn: More or less what's our application drop dead date?
Mayor Mancino: I have to have this in to Hennepin County by March 7th.
Councilman Senn: March 7th. We get the information at the end of January, whether we're in or out. And
then by law I have to notice, there's certain requirements for Block Grant notification are a little bit longer
and certain spacing requirements so it really, we only have one or two meetings before the deadline in order
to make those windows.
Kate Aanenson: I was notified of this January 21st. Whether we were in or out of the consolidated pool.
Mayor Mancino: How do they decide if we're in or out?
Kate Aanenson: What they do is they take, actually they take 19, they're weighted numbers from 1994.
Population figures and they look at the total population and then incomes above and below the poverty line.
Mayor Mancino: So what we should be doing every year is anticipating we're going to be in and have
some discussion about what we would do if we were, if we got in.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah last year, just the year before we were just under so, we're right on the cusp
as far as whether we're.
Mayor Mancino: In or out. But again every year we should just assume that we're going to be in and.
Kate Aanenson: Some direction, that would be great.
Mayor Mancino: Give some direction. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Just as a suggestion I guess. This program, as suggested, may very well be good and
may in fact be the best. I'm just not really comfortable on this short of term saying, just kind of deciding
that that is the case without some Council discussion. I don't know as a suggestion, could we maybe
continue this item for the 3rd work session and act on it as a continued item?
Mayor Mancino: On the 10th?
Councilman Senn: Well no. That's after her deadline. She needs it by the 7th so if we continue it to the 3rd,
we can actually act on it on the 3rd as a continued item. Except that that would give us a chance to get a
little more information together and discuss it.
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Act on it on a work session, okay.
Roger Knutson: Excuse me, not on a work session. You'd have to list it as a regular meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Continuation of a public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Continuation of a public hearing during the work session. Okay.
Roger Knutson: For example you could if you wanted to continue this matter to a special meeting and just
state the date and that's all you'd have to do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Roger Knutson: But Mayor, I'd point out this is a public hearing so if there's anyone from the public.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for staff at this point, prior to opening it up?
Councilman Berquist: The mechanics of how this works. Somewhere.
Kate Aanenson: You would advertise that there's availability of funding. We'd first meet with the local
banks... We've had requests from other banks before in town that they'd be willing to work on these types
of programs and then we'd just put in an ad and then tell them that they would need to meet with the banks
and they would screen. Again, what we're looking at, hopefully there's an opportunity here that
somebody's renting. That we can provide that opportunity locally for someone to get into a home.
Councilman Berquist: Apparently the money just continues to roll.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's the objective. After they, if they were to sell the home, that money would
go back into the bank and then we would apply for another loan, correct.
Councilman Berquist: With no sunset? No date?
Kate Aanenson: No. You can structure them how you want but that's generally how they're done, yes.
An interest free loan, correct.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Thank you. Do we have any feeling for the demand for this type of thing? Have we
done this before?
Kate Aanenson: Well, the only other one we've done is the housing district out in North Bay what we're
setting up with first time home buyers and I believe that Rottlund's received pretty much interest. That
those are gone. I believe we wouldn't have any problem.
Councilman Engel: Getting your 2 to 5 families?
Mayor Mancino: We anticipate it being used.
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. This is a public hearing. Or may I have a motion to open this for a public hearing
and a second please?
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to open the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Council on this issue?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Berquist. Comments.
Councilman Berquist: I just made them. No, I have no more. I'll be anxious to hear some other ideas on
the 3rd.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Same. Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: At the pre-Council session we chatted a little bit about how much we want, about
prior discussion to something like this and we essentially had none. With what I've heard just now I see the
need for this. I guess I'll ask you this. I also don't see any harm in continuing this until the 3rd of March. I
mean in terms of you getting applications in and done and this, that and the other thing. Does that make,
what kind of a bind will that put you in?
Kate Aanenson: That's fine.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council members?
Councilman Senn: Nothing additional at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well I think this is a great idea. A good request. Being new on the Council I
would also like to look at different options for the CDBG funding and talk about those at a work session.
But I think this targeted for first time home buyers is very important for Chanhassen to be doing right now.
So with that may I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I move to continue this until our March 3rd Council meeting.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the 1997 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program planning allocation until March 3, 1997. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135' TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, 80
WEST 78TM STREET.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jaymes Littlejohn
Peter Coyle
Mike O'Rourke
John Barstow
Steve Monson
4700 IDS Center, Minneapolis
7900 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington
1701 79th Street, Bloomington
1701 79th Street, Bloomington
8850 Audubon Road
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Your last meeting on February l0th this item was tabled. As you recall it's
located on Highway 5, behind the Chanhassen Professional Building. The reason why the Council tabled
this item is they wanted additional information regarding possible alternative locations. I'll let the applicant
address that tonight but they're here to present their rationale behind this site preference so I'll turn it over
to them.
Mayor Mancino: Otherwise, excuse me Kate, there is nothing new in the staff report? It is exactly the
same as the one we saw before. There's nothing new in landscaping?
Kate Aanenson: I believe that the conditions that you imposed last time, the concerns that you had have
been addressed and they were addressed at the last meeting so those have been carried forward. The
landscaping and the barb wire and everything else like that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council?
Peter Coyle: Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Peter Coyle. I'm an
attorney with the Larkin-Hoffman firm. Here tonight on behalf of American Portable Telecom, the
applicant for a CUP. We have a very brief presentation. We mostly want to respond directly to questions
that were raised at your last meeting where this matter was tabled. Those questions pertain specifically to
the suitability of the location as proposed, both by APT, endorsed by your staff and also recommended for
approval by your Planning Commission after a careful deliberation of the facts supporting the application.
APT has supplemented the record to provide the information that your ordinance requires. Specifically we
provided a letter to staff that documents the evaluation of alternative locations that pre-existed quite frankly
the submittal of the application to the city. With me this evening are two representatives of APT who can
respond to more specific questions about the location that's proposed. Mike O'Rourke is present as well as
John Barstow. I'm going to turn it over to them in just a minute and let them respond to specifics relating
to this site. The final comment though that I would make regarding the application is your ordinance
contains a requirement for co-location and aside from this tower being proposed, the applicant is willing to
commit to the requirement that it be designed for co-location in hopes that it would provide a spot for a
second provider. I'm understanding there is in fact a second application pending before your City and that
there is a reasonably good probability that if this application is approved, that that vendor would be willing
to entertain putting it's antenna facilities on this tower so it would allow the City to reduce from two sites
to one site the number of towers that would be approved in this general vicinity. With that what I'd like to
do is turn it over to John Barstow from APT and let him present site detail as well as a photo montage
that's been prepared to help you get a better sense of the aesthetic impact of this tower given the location
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
that's proposed. Thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer any questions of course at this point but
Mr. Barstow is able to...
Mayor Mancino: I just have one question, excuse me and that is Kate, there is then a second location that
another company is looking at in the area?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we have this one and we also have one near Lotus Lawn and Garden?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The Planning Commission tabled that at their last meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So the Council can decide which site is better? Can look at both sites?
Kate Aanenson: Well we believe since there's two that they should co-locate. That's our objective. That
one has the ability to provide the space for the other. Certainly the other one as it came in did not provide
for a co-location.
Mayor Mancino: But they could be asked to too.
Kate Aanenson: Certainly.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the Council.
Peter Coyle: Thank you Mayor.
John Barstow: I'm John Barstow. I'm the project manager with American Portable Telecom. I was at the
last meeting when these items were discussed. We had, Councilmembers had asked about some specific
alternatives. We went back and looked at those to make sure that we really had covered the bases. The
first question was concerning the Eden Prairie water tower. We went back and looked at our records. Had
seen that we had tried to negotiate on that water tower almost a year ago. Had made no progress with the
City of Eden Prairie. We re-contacted them to look at their interest at this point in time. They have no
interest at this point in time in letting anyone on their facilities or any of their other facilities at this point in
time. Whether that will change in the future we really have no way to know. The second site discussed
was the church site. I talked with Mr. Bangasser who is I believe the architect and who is constructing this
site. He has a potential for us to locate at around 150 feet versus the 130 feet that we're looking at. This
site would be in the, part of the, they're doing a tower that has a, an illuminated tower that has a cross on
the top of it. We would not be able to go to the full height of their cross. It is not mechanically designed
for that kind of an application. We would be able to go at a lower level within the site but still it's at a 50
foot level on a piece of ground that's lower than the piece of ground that we're looking at. It will not give
us any coverage at this point in time. It will not cover our need. We looked at some of the properties just
east of our projected site as requested on the contingent that they would be higher in elevation. Yes, they
may be higher in elevation but only about 10 or 15 feet. I do not know that that will provide any help in
this situation. Also the properties in that area we had looked at last April or May had talked to a number of
those properties and they were not willing to negotiate with us at that point in time.
Mayor Mancino: So a year ago was the last time you contacted them?
10
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
John Barstow: No, last May or, I think last May. We feel that we still need this site to provide coverage to
the area concerned. We already have sites located at the intersection of 494 and Highway 5, in that area.
There's a Wilson Learning Center. We also have a site located on the Chaska water tower just down the
road. We are looking at, we have a site in Shakopee and we're working to try to locate an additional site
up in Minnetonka. Based on trying to balance our system we need to fill in between the area between the
Chaska water tower and the 494/5 interchange. This has been the ideal location we've looked at from an
area wise and from a coverage pattern. If we were to move any farther west from where we're located at
this point in time, we would run into the Chaska water tower site. They would be virtually on top of each
other from the signal standpoint and we'd leave a large gap between Chanhassen and the 494 corridor so
we are really trying to cover that area that has no coverage at this point in time. It's really not very well
covered by cellular at this point in time. We would have preferred to have go on the Eden Prairie water
tower but again it is not open to us so we're looking for other alternatives. Do you have any questions for
me at this time?
Mayor Mancino: No we don't, thank you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I do. Let's see here. Mr. Barstow is it?
John Barstow: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Is there, there's a number of high towers already in the area which are effectively I
assume NSP's or whatever. Those towers are not usable or compatible to putting this stuff on top, since
there is nothing on top of those towers?
John Barstow: Are we talking about the power poles that run along Highway 5?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
John Bartstow: Those are approximately 90 foot structures. They do not have the strength, physical
strength for us to locate our antenna configuration. Our antenna configuration is up to 9 antennas. It's
quite a wind load and those tower are just not built to take that kind of load. Also we would have to find a
place to put our equipment and having dealt with NSP over the last year, we're not finding that their rights-
of-way, from a legal standpoint, will allow us to locate, the way that their right-of-way system is done in
Minnesota does not really afford us the ability to do that.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That's it for now.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Can you, I'd like to, I'm trying to understand the difference between the City of
Chaska's acquiesce to having a facility on their water tower and the City of Eden Prairie's reluctance to
even talk with you.
John Barstow: I do not know. We have approached them several times. We know that they actually have
someone else's facilities on their water tower. We have been talking with them over the last few months,
not only on, not specifically on this water tower but we had been looking at another water tower over the
past few months and have met with resistance from whoever the planning of their water department chief is.
I don't personally know the person. I've not talked with him. I've had my staff looking at it. We're quite
dumb founded by it in that most of the cities around the metropolitan area are more than happy to deal with
11
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
this and locate so that they're on existing towers and since they take our money to use for public works. So
we don't understand it but we're left with it.
Councilman Berquist: Is there a time element involved?
John Barstow: For us to become on line? Yes. We're trying to get in business, as with our other PCS
competitor Sprint. Sprint just acquired a tower in your area I believe two weeks ago. We're trying to build
a system out of the same time they are. We're both trying to go on line with brand new systems here in the
next couple of months. We've been pursuing this site since before, with the City, since before you redid
your ordinances and waited through the ordinance process and went on with the application. We're at a
point where we need to see some results if we're going to get into business competitively at this point in
time during the next couple of months. So we're reluctant to try to do something different at this point in
time because we have so much time invested in this and any change would make at this point in time, would
cost us another 6 or 8 months. Would cause us to have no coverage in this area.
Councilman Berquist: Nothing further.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Engel?
Councilman Engel: Yes, really it's for Don Ashworth. Can you contact the Mayor of Eden Prairie and
find out what the hold-up is on this tower or what's their position on that? It seems to be in a prime
location just north of Highway 5 to be used for this sort of thing. Maybe you can get a little farther with
them than they seem to be getting.
Don Ashworth: I think the obstacle appears to be their street, what is Gene Deitz' title?
Charles Folch: Public Works Director.
Don Ashworth: Public Works Director. And a feeling that if they need to repair that tank in the future,
repaint it or do anything, that they just don't want to deal with the liability of them being on that tower.
That's their position. At least the Public Works Director's position. Kate's shaking her head.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Todd spoke to them today to verify that.
Todd Gerhardt: ...they're still in the process of adopting their antenna ordinance. It's on a future Council
work session. Right now they've been operating without an ordinance and have allowed a couple to go in
but the point.
Mayor Mancino: They're going to need to talk about where and if they want it on their public land that
they own.
Councilman Engel: It would seem like an odd position given the way I see other communities responding to
these towers but I don't want to hold his business hostage to them.
Mayor Mancino: Well no, most communities have taken a moratorium and are developing their own
ordinances. Have been going through this for the last year. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address
the City Council on this issue?
12
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Jay Littlejohn: Yes, good evening. My name is Jay Littlejohn and I've been here before dealing with your
ordinances. I represent Airtouch Cellular and I'm here because we have another site next door, and first I
want to make it clear that we endorse this and we'd like to see that some site be proposed here. I don't
know where to begin with this. I guess I'm a little bit confused and I expressed this in the Planning
Commission meeting before our item was tabled as to why the staff and apparently the Planning
Commission believed that this particular site is better suited. That it's aerial APT site is better suited than
the site at Lotus Lake Garden Center. Some of the reasons why I'm confused about that is the Lotus Lake
site that we proposed is right on the edge of where the lOP district is instead of being farther west closer to
residences like this is. Ours is on slightly higher ground. It's only, it looks like 5 feet. I haven't had the
ground surveyed but it looks like about 5 feet and we are proposing a much shorter tower. Kate has
pointed out, Ms. Aanenson has pointed out on a couple of occasions though, most notably the Planning
Commission that that aerial needs to go at some elevation. They can't go at the 76 feet that my client can
go at. One of the conditions that you had suggested to aerial is that it accommodate for co-location. I was
just looking through my file here because I saw Mike O'Rourke in the audience and I knew that I had sent
him a letter and I found a letter dated January 22nd where we gave Mr. O'Rourke our antenna requirements.
The height we needed to be at. The size and dimensions of our antennas and the size of the equipment
shelter that we needed and asked that a lease be put forth and we haven't got a lease yet. What I would like
to see done is, since we know that someone needs to have a tower approved, is that either our tower be
approved with the condition that we enter into a lease with APT, because they definitely need a site in the
area. Or that APT be approved with the condition that they enter into a lease with us. There's no magic
about this. We're willing to pay half the cost of the site. Pay the equal share of cost if there's a third
person that can go on. Pay an equal share of the cost of the building and the lease to the underlying tenant
and yet we still don't have a lease and that's my concern is that our site is being tabled based upon the hope
that this other site be built and will accommodate what I see in the future as Mr. Knutson's firm perhaps
being retained to enforce the conditional use permit because we don't have a lease, even the condition for
co-location with someone is put forth. There was a question about location. There may be some other
answers for APT to go in other places. Those answers aren't available to my client though. Our next
adjacent site is at Eden Prairie at about, well do you know where Water Pro is on Highway 5 and West
78th. There's a U.S. West Communications building there. I wish I could remember the name of the cross
street but it's between here and 494. That's our next closest site to the west. This site is designed to split
that area further west with the site that I think we have in your city on a water tower to the east. Isn't that
right? Or do we have a tower? I'm sorry, to the west. Is it on a water tower?
Mayor Mancino: Is it Chaska?
Councilman Engel: Chaska water tower.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh, okay. So that's why we need to be in this particular location. I don't know if APT has
any options to move. I know that we don't and so it looks to me like there will be a pole there of some
kind. They're 90 foot poles that go right along the road and I have done photo simulations of what our site
would look like but they're not going to be much guide to you in this particular application because we
don't have the pole that's pictured on here is not a 135, 130 foot monopole. It's a 76 foot monopole.
Mayor Mancino: So Mr. Littlejohn, if you were to co-locate on your pole it would go from 76 feet to
what?
Jay Littlejohn: Whatever height they needed.
Mayor Mancino: And what would you surmise that to be?
13
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Jay Littlejohn: The height that they need?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Jay Littlejohn: What are you at right now? So if they gain 5 feet in elevation, it'd be 125 feet.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it wouldn't be any different if we were to go on Lotus Lawn and Garden.
Jay Littlejohn: Not remarkably different, no. But you would be right next to the IOP district and further
away from the residences.
Mayor Mancino: Have you looked, have you checked with any of the businesses further east in the lOP
District? Whether it's Lyman. Whether it's Redmond, etc.
Jay Littlejohn: Yes, in fact we had an application, maybe I should put this up. We had an application we
even filed with your City with the fee and everything. Can that zoom in at all or not? Here is the pole that
we proposed to add, but it would be taller than that. This is 76 feet so if you could imagine it.
Mayor Mancino: 135, yeah.
Jay Littlejohn: Another 60% taller I guess. The problem.
Mayor Mancino: Are we about a mile away from that?
Jay Littlejohn: Where we're standing now? No, we're actually standing just about right at the Welcome to
Chanhassen site. Lyman Lumber, we went to Lyman Lumber. They were not interested in leasing to us.
We also went, we had a site picked out and everything at Redmond. We thought we had approval from the
people that had to approve it but Mr. And Mrs. Redmond at the last minute decided that they would not,
didn't want to lease. Apparently there's some problem with clearing snow around the building or
something like that and so they were not interested in... I think that actually Bob or John Rask or
somebody even gave me back the application check because we had to withdraw the application since the
landowner decided at the last minute not to do it. Even before it got to the Planning Commission. This is
the proposed landscape plan. Now this is really the most interesting part about this plan is, this is... This
is the last high tension transmission standard in the row. After that they cross the street. Across the street
and I actually have a shot from across the street.., this would make it more of a major structure or
prominent feature on this property. We disagree with that just because... 90 foot electrical transmission
standards. I'm not here though to try to defeat the application pending. I just want to make sure that my
client can go somewhere and that's the only reason that I'm here today. And whether it be this one and
they share our costs or the other one and we share their costs, we don't care.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from Council members for Mr. Littlejohn?
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Littlejohn, did I hear you correctly? Any further east than Automated Building
Components puts you in an overlapping signal area? In other words, the water tower, which we're going to
continue to come back to. The water tower is not an acceptable location for your?
Jay Littlejohn: The water tower, yeah it's not even close. I mean it's just about right on top of an existing
tower that's at that Water Pro location.
14
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Are you sure we're talking about the same tower?
Jay Littlejohn: Maybe not.
Councilman Engel: Are you talking about right up by Dell Road?
Jay Littlejohn: Yeah. Right by Dell, in fact that's the name of the cross street I think is Dell Road.
Councilman Engel: Dell Road. It's just up Dell Road.
Councilman Senn: But it's not Water Pro. If you're talking about Water Pro, Water Pro's way down past
County Road 4 in Eden Prairie.
Jay Littlejohn: I need to see a map, you know. I have a few of these files open in my office and I don't
remember the address.
Councilman Senn: I think the tower you're talking about that you're on is the one that's south. I'm sorry,
north of TH 5 and east of TH 4.
Jay Littlejohn: That could be.
Councilman Engel: By ballfields up there and the school?
Jay Littlejohn: Right. That's where our present site is.
Councilman Engel: Well that's several miles east of here.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh okay. That's where the next tower is. Is there another tower that's between there and
here?
Councilman Engel: Just on the east edge of town here.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh yeah.
Councilman Senn: Just a few blocks from here.
Jay Littlejohn: Yeah, a few blocks would not work because of the signal configuration. I know that what
we did is, we actually started looking at Lyman Lumber as being just about as far east as we could go and
then we went west because we couldn't any further east and have the site still work. I think I might even
have a map in my file that shows it.
Councilman Berquist: How far west could you go?
Jay Littlejohn: We stopped as soon as we found a, we stopped at Redmonds because that was in an lOP
district. Was near a railroad. There were lots of buildings around it. There were the high line poles there.
We stopped there and then they wouldn't let us go there. They changed their minds so then we went to the
next site to the west and then we stopped again. We recognize that the further west we go we get into
residences and we wanted to avoid that.
15
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Mike O'Rourke: Good evening. I'm Mike O'Rourke. I'm the Director of Engineering and Operations for
APT. I just want to address some of the co-location issues so you understand how those are normally done
in the business. We are, we certainly have approached this that we do want to do a co-location. We have
actually the documents that Mr. Littlejohn was talking about were sent this morning. The actual lease so
there's really no issue in terms of getting a deal done. How these are commonly done, rather than
spreading costs in half because accountants have a real hard time figuring out who owns what when you
split costs of the tower and a site in half. How these are commonly done is a trade scenario. We allow
them on this site and then they allow us on one of their towers in another community and therefore
mitigating the need for another tower in that community, which is what we all ultimately want. I think it
would just cut down the number of towers that we possibly could do so that is all in the works. There's no
real issue. We have the community that we are planning on trading on is up in Long Lake and they've got
a site there and we are going to go, we're planning on going on that and we're going to make this one
available to Airtouch as well. We do co-locate on lots of water towers, and we have located on those all
over town. I just want to back up to another issue is that we've gone on approximately 80 of them in the
metro area here so that's, we try to use them whenever possible and if we could have gotten the deal done
with Eden Prairie, we certainly would have done that. That was our preferred location as well too. Is there
any other questions I might answer for you?
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: If you guys don't mind I'd just like a little bit of education here. APT needs a 135,
130 foot of elevation. Airtouch is looking at 75 feet of elevation. Can you just explain to me the signal
differences? Why the, why the wide variation in elevations?
Mike O'Rourke: Yes, most of that has to do with the number of sites that you ultimately need to construct
is that because Airtouch has been in the business for about 13 years or so and building a network
throughout the cities here, they have quite a few sites in the neighboring vicinity. They don't need a lot of
coverage. Mostly what they're doing, when he talks about a split cell, it's primarily to enhance the number
of calls that can be handled in a specific area rather than an overall coverage objective. And so there will
come a day when we'll probably be back here looking for 75 foot sites halfway in-between here and
Victoria and halfway between here and the Wilson Learning Center building. Things like that. That's how
the networks will grow and they'll eventually, the sites will eventually grow down. 75 feet is probably
about a minimum because of the tree heights in the areas. If you get down below the tree heights, you're
just shooting in the trees and it doesn't do any good.
Councilman Berquist: At that point would you think that the larger towers would be reduced in size?
Mike O'Rourke: Actually that's always a possibility. Oftentimes what happens is we're able to, we might
move our antennas down them and lease the top to somebody else that needs the height. That's kind of the
way it's done. I know that we've, in case we are leasing from one of the other competitors, AT&T that did
move their antennas down on a site. Made the top available to us. We're leasing on that now so it really
has worked good to fully utilize the site as much as possible but there will come a day when they can
actually remove some of the sections on the tower. I'm not sure exactly when that might be in this scenario
but that's a possibility.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
16
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Jay Littlejohn: May I... ?
Mayor Mancino: Yes you may. Come up.
Jay Littlejohn: Well, I'm working on my tenth year of doing this and I've never, ever seen a trade on a site.
When we do leasing we lease, based upon what it costs. We're not in the business of making money from
selling sites. We're not in the business of trading sites. While it's true that we like to see minimum
numbers of towers built, what we have here is a situation with two people that have potential users in this
city and we are going to be denied or made to be denied a permit based on co-location and all we want to do
is lease a site from them. Make that co-location possible. That's why we're asking that you either table
the matter or condition the matter based upon them entering into a lease with us. There are all sorts of
issues that have already been resolved and can be resolved here as to ground space for the location of our
tower. The structural capacity of the tower. All this is in the concept stage. Just bringing in another site is
not something that we endorse. We have not agreed that we would trade this. Trade any sites out. We
haven't even seen a lease that proposes such a trade. It might have been sent out but it wasn't faxed out.
I've been in the office all day. I'm just a bit concerned that this is a situation where we'll allow you to co-
locate eventually. Well meantime our site gets denied and then nobody, there's no co-location here and I'll
be back in front of you saying we still don't have a co-location agreement. So that's my concern. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay Council members. Kate, a couple questions that I have. We're
looking tonight at American Portable Telecom. The other request that was tabled by the Planning
Commission, was that because American Portable Telecom came in first? Was it because Planning staff
thought it was a better site for co-location? Could you review that with us please?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. The Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended this as a superior
site. Obviously our first objective is to have one tower with co-location. That's the objective. As Mr.
Littlejohn indicated, what was represented was the 78 feet height but obviously if you require the co-
location on that one, his also would be taller. Both homes, both sites have residential behind them whether
it's Eden Prairie or Chanhassen residents. They both have residential. I preferenced the professional
office, the Chan Professional Office Building was that it was behind the building.., and the screening and
the consistency with the Highway 5. Our real objective is just to have the co-location requirement but
that's our preferred site.
Mayor Mancino: And was it the Planning Commission's recommendation that there be a condition giving a
co-location contract with?
Kate Aanenson: They tabled it to see if this one was approved tonight, then the other application would be
withdrawn. That was what they were waiting to see if this would be approved tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And did that pass the Planning Commission unanimously?
Kate Aanenson: I believe it did. It is scheduled for the next regular Planning Commission meeting. That's
why it's back on the agenda. We're following the 60 day time limit so we're processing it. We're just
trying to see what the action was tonight.
17
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And has city staff at all, have you looked in that area or just east of that area, of
the two sites and have you contacted any businesses to see if they would be willing to rent space?
Kate Aanenson: As Mr. Littlejohn indicated they were, the reason this ordinance came into place, we
didn't proactively say let's bring cellular towers into the city. They came in with an application and we
didn't have the tools to accommodate it so we went through a process to amend the ordinance and we felt
like we had given due consideration to have a good ordinance that protects the city. They did have the
Redmond site and we believed that was the one going forward. As he indicated, that one certainly didn't
work. Then we have this application tonight. It is adjacent to residential... All of this is Eden Prairie
residential behind, even as you go farther east on that site. So I guess what we were looking at then, we
came back to the visibility of Highway 5. Yes there is high tension power lines that change but because we
felt like depending on your line of sight, depending on which way you're coming, you're going to lose them
anyway. You can stand in a certain perspective but the height is such, you're still going to see either one.
We liked it because it was behind the building and you would see less of the front of that. That was the
staff's proposal and the Planning Commission seemed to concur with that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Comments from Councilmembers. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I went out again this week and looked at this. I looked at it from four
different angles. The thing that keeps bothering me about this entire thing is all I keep hearing and all I
keep seeing pictures of is a view somewhere associated with Highway 5. To me there are two residential
areas that are impacted by either of these locations and that is the neighborhood to the northwest of TH 101
and TH 5 as well as the neighborhood directly north. Go stand there and look. I like, I mean if I had to
pick one of these two sites, I'd definitely pick the one at the nursery simply because you're extending a line
of poles, which you will do with this site. You're going to extend the line of poles. Plus it's further away
from the residential. Now the problem is go look and see what that buys you. Not a whole lot because it's
still very visible in this location and as I, when I got the report on this I kind of read back through it and it
kept bothering me and kept bothering me. I mean to find findings of fact that say that there is, the proposed
tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area. I mean yeah, if you like looking at a bunch of towers
there now and you operate on the premise that one more tower isn't going to make any difference. But I'm
afraid if I lived in one of those residential areas I certainly wouldn't look at it that way. You know and to
say that the towers wouldn't create conditions detrimental to the persons or property, you know again from
the aesthetics standpoint I just, I don't buy that. I think this particular area, excuse me is junked enough.
And maybe that happened over a long period of time and there's not a whole lot we can do about it but I
just have a real hard time adding another tower to it. If push comes to shove and we had to add one, I
would definitely go for the location to the east simply because it's further away from what at least I would
be protecting, which is the residential area, and likewise would not extend this line of poles further to the
west which would happen at the other site.
Mayor Mancino: So when you say area to the east, be a little more specific.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean we have two choices here and one is the tower cohabitated behind the
office building and the other one is a office cohabitated behind the nursery, where the nursery, I would far
select the nursery you know simply because it's further away from the residential areas and also because it
does not extend visually this line of poles further to the west because I believe one gentleman did say, from
that point there now, those towers end and it crosses the highway and goes kind of southwest. So I mean
it's kind of, how would you say, fades out at that point and what you're saying now is... I have a problem
with that so that's my comments.
18
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Well, other people have said this and it's sometimes true. Councilman Senn and I
don't very often agree on things. We happen to agree on this one 100%, which is a scary thought. I don't
know whether that's good for him or bad for me or what, or vice versa.
Mayor Mancino: We'll have to separate you two soon.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know, maybe not. I don't like the towers at all and I know they're doing
their thing and we have to do our thing. Visual, I think visual pollution is something we as a society don't
deal with anywhere near enough. I don't like them. Having said that.
Mayor Mancino: So what would you like to see? Would you like to see this tabled and see?
Councilman Mason: Well if we table it, we're just going to come back with the same stuff.
Mayor Mancino: Well what I mean is, and please sit down until we're done. See the other location come
in front of us.
Councilman Mason: Well I certainly agree with Mark's comments about if we had to choose between the
two. I agree with him 100% on that. I would even raise the issue whether we need towers but I know for a
fact their lawyers are going to come and throw all kinds of things at us if we say we don't and I don't know
if that's, so that's fine. So I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, did you want to answer that?
Councilman Senn: I just had a follow-up question. Roger, I mean effectively given our ordinance and our
standards and stuff, effectively I mean are we stuck with putting the tower in one of these locations, or in
this area? Is that a better question?
Roger Knutson: Based upon our ordinance it would be advisable to try to find an area that would work
that can give them coverage, yes.
Councilman Senn: But an area within this area that we're talking about tonight? Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'm with these guys. I don't like the look in that area. It's blighted, as Mark's already
indicated. But as a businessman I don't like to stand in your way of running your business effectively but
my first duty, having said that, is to the citizens of Chanhassen and it's not a good area aesthetically for
anybody. It just isn't. When you drive by there, I know it's not great right now. This just is keeping more
junk in the yard I guess, for lack of a better word and I'm not convinced that the City of Eden Prairie can't
be worked with a little better here. Now with that said, if you come back and we've got no other choice
and the City of Eden Prairie has said forget it, we're not going to do anything about this, I'd probably go
for it then but I'm not convinced we have worked with Eden Prairie enough. I'd like to have a little time for
us to work with them ourselves. I think we can make a little headway there. That's what I've got to say.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
19
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm going to ask Mr. O'Rourke a question regarding, and maybe you're not
the best one but since you were purported as the technical wizard I'll ask you. From an operational point
of view, I'm sorry you're with Airtouch?
Mike O'Rourke: No, I'm with APT.
Councilman Berquist: Knowing Airtouch's existing coverage and knowing what your coverage needs are,
and knowing perhaps some of the exploration of sites that's been done. There's a site, and someone
already said further to the west is not a good idea but there is a site further to the west, part of which is
owned by the City of Chanhassen. Part of which is another, I just thought of this. The old Brown's, the
Hanus building. That site.
Mike O'Rourke: By Amoco?
Councilman Berquist: Well up on top of the hill. Behind the cemetery. I mean yeah, there's a
neighborhood behind it. I don't know if it would be more, but it has a lot of elevation. The size of the
tower may be less. I offer that as an idea.
Mike O'Rourke: It's hard to say because I'm not familiar with that particular spot of course but we did
look at our propagation analysis and for every quarter mile that we move west, we do open up a gap on
Highway 5 between here and I'm not sure if you're familiar with where the Wilson Learning Center is. It's
a building that's up on, where 212 and 494. It opens a gap in-between those two and that causes a real
problem for us. We really don't want to go farther west because it actually starts doing overlap coverage
with Victoria.
Councilman Berquist: Even if, I mean we're talking perhaps 400 yards.
Mike O'Rourke: Oh, okay.
Councilman Berquist: 500 yards perhaps.
Mike O'Rourke: That's you know certainly a possibility. Technically that's, that kind of distance. I
thought we were talking a mile or something like that. That's a possibility.
Councilman Berquist: And one other question regarding elevation, you're from APT again, right?
Mike O'Rourke: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: You're looking for 130 feet, is that elevation from what you consider, I mean are
you looking at your service area as being the roadway there? Is that sort of...
Mike O'Rourke: The roadway and the city. We actually look to.
Councilman Berquist: Is that 130 feet tower height, that's the elevation that you're looking at the current
site. That's the elevation that you're looking at keeping it above the highway. So if in fact you were able
to achieve that 130 feet but do it with 20 foot or 30 foot more of ground elevation, the tower height would
decrease, is that right?
20
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mike O'Rourke: That's right. That's right. It would and the visual impact generally is the same but our
tower height would be less which is fine with us. It's less cost.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Well, to my way of looking at it the perfect solution of this, in all honesty,
would be for APT to locate on the Eden Prairie water, you can sit down. I don't have any more questions
for you. For the APT to locate on the Eden Prairie water tower if and when Eden Prairie ever allows it to
happen. And then the 75 foot tower at Lotus, that would be one solution. A second solution would be at a
different site. Whether or not it's worth exploring the Hanus building site or the HRA property site,
remains to be seen. Obviously if that site becomes, or is not available or not compatible, a 75 foot tower is
certainly going to be less intrusive on the Lotus Lawn and Garden site. And if there's going to be a 75 foot
tower, then I could probably make an argument, why not a 130 foot tower. And I could probably make an
argument as to why not too.
Mike O'Rourke: Could I clarify that too? Either location would be 135 feet.
Councilman Berquist: If you were to both locate on it, I understand that. Right. But if you were to locate
on the Eden Prairie water tower, there'd be no need for you to go to 130 feet. You could come in at 75
feet. Your location, from what I'm understanding, your location along that TH 5 corridor needs to remain
constant. I mean that's set in stone so to speak.
Mike O'Rourke: Basically.
Councilman Berquist: Within you know, certain parameters.
Mike O'Rourke: Right.
Councilman Berquist: Theirs on the other hand, given the height, it can be a little bit more maybe set back
from the road and therefore the water tower, anyway.
Mike O'Rourke: Right. But the situation there is that Eden Prairie does not allow to do that.
Councilman Berquist: At the present time they're not willing to talk.
Mike O'Rourke: Right.
Councilman Berquist: We don't know if they're unwilling to do it.
Councilman Engel: We've got to get them to talk about it first.
Jay Littlejohn: ... Eden Prairie on their water towers so they do it.
Councilman Engel: That's what I'm saying. That's what's frustrating me about this. I'm out of turn here.
Councilman Berquist: I'd like, somehow or another I'd like to be able to facilitate a conversation between
the gentleman, or person that makes the decisions at Eden Prairie and you folks. I don't know if we began
that process today or not.
Mayor Mancino: And that may be a motion.
21
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Pardon me?
Mayor Mancino: And that may be a motion that you have.
Councilman Berquist: And that may be a motion that I have. That's the extent of my comments for now.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Coyle you had something that you wanted to say. You want to let that
pass, okay. Kate, did you have Councilman Berquist's suggestion of locating that on the Hanus building,
do you have any reaction to that as far as that site?
Kate Aanenson: Highway 5 corridor study, that was an area we certainly looked at enhancing and kind of
making a park facility. I mean there's other properties that the city owns next to Lotus Park there where
there is a city well site. We looked at that again and the close proximity, there's homes right there. I mean
you're actually even closer to homes, as far as the city leasing that. And so aesthetically you're pushing it
closer to Highway 5 with nothing else screening it there so we felt keeping it in the lOP district in this
circumstance was better. We did consider that and we considered putting it on the bridge .... options right
there with the visibility but we thought aesthetically that wouldn't be the best choice .... because we believe
that the bridge really and the landscaping on the other side is your entrance statement to the city and I guess
we felt like putting the tower right there.., best statement.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well let me give a few of my comments and that would be, my suggestion for
this, hearing Council, different Council members, would be to table this and have Airtouch come in and
make a presentation to their site plan to the Council and at the same time the City Manager and I would
make a call to Eden Prairie and talk to their officials there and see if we can get somewhere with their water
tower. Placing it there. And we may not be able to. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Are we okay on a time line tabling this?
Kate Aanenson: Yes we are. What we'd do is on March 3rd it'd be before the Planning Commission so
we'd bring the other one back so you'd have both before you on the l0th.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I think that sounds like a good idea but I think at the same time the discussion with
Eden Prairie should really be pushed. I mean I don't like the situation that's being created, especially when
there's a water tower there that can service the needs without more towers in the area. And if Eden
Prairie's attitude is they'd rather have it in Chanhassen, then I'll tell you what, I think we should put it on
the south of the industrial that is on the south side of Highway 5 there which will make it visual to all the
Eden Prairie neighborhoods rather than the Chanhassen neighborhoods and it will probably give them just
as good a location.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Excuse me. Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: I just want to make it clear that that was not Eden Prairie's comments. That they were
pushing this onto Chanhassen. I'd hate to see this get in the paper and start a feud over this.
Councilman Engel: Oh, don't print that. Don't print that.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please?
22
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: I move to table.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to table the request from American
Portable Telecom for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a 135
foot telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
UPDATE ON U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CARRIER ANNEX (VERBAL).
Mayor Mancino: Roger, a verbal update please.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the Council. As I believe everyone on the Council knows, you
received the noise assessment study prepared by David Braslau Associates for the post office. We received
that last week. I believe at least you have a copy of it. We are now in the process of arranging a meeting
with the Post Office. Hopefully for Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of next week in the evening. We've
been attempting to get a hold of or contact the Post Office. He just was not available today. As soon as we
have that date, which hopefully we'll have it tomorrow, we will get you and the neighbors informed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. A couple things I'd like to add to that. Number one, the date that the
neighborhood would like it to be on March 4th, and that is a Tuesday night. So Council members may look,
put that or pencil it on your calendar. March 4th. A meeting of the neighborhood and the U.S. Postal
service. It would be in the Council chambers?
Roger Knutson: I would assume so unless the Council chambers is already booked.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it would be a presentation of the U.S. Postal Service of the acoustics.
Councilman Senn: What time?
Kate Aanenson: It hasn't been finalized.
Mayor Mancino: It hasn't been finalized, so I'm just letting you know next week, 4th, 5th or 6th and it would
be on the report that has been submitted and the U.S. Postal Service would be presenting and then there
will be an opportunity for neighbors or Council members to ask questions about the report. And then it
will come in front of the City Council on March l0th. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to
address the City Council on this? Would you state your name and address please.
Bob Beduhn: Hello. My name is Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North in Chanhassen,
Minnesota. I'm a resident adjacent to the Postal Carrier Annex. I would like to reiterate that the neighbors
are interested in the March 4th date. One of the impacted homes is, the family would not be in town the
other dates and they're very interested in attending and so they would much prefer the March 4th date if
possible. I also have put together, I've reviewed the report and have some comments I'd like to provide to
the Council and if I could briefly just go through those.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, that'd be fine.
23
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Bob Beduhn: I just enumerated about 6 points. I went through the report and there's several items I guess
I'd like that the attorney could provide to the Postal Service in anticipation of the meeting. The first one is
that the Figure 3.1 of the report shows the layout of the proposed berm and wall. It shows a rather limited
berm and wall. That only covers a portion of the site and I guess in looking at it that the alignment of that
wall and the berm, that the assumption is, that was done just on the purposes of the noise and it does not
constitute the actual landscaping plan of the report because they only show a piece of the wall being in
place and previous landscaping design showed a wall that encompassed the entire site and the berm that
encompassed the entire site. If you look at the figure, it only covers a portion of the site. Also there's been
some concern that some of the lots south of, or west of Lot 10 were not included in the noise analysis and
those homes are also adjacent to the Postal Service property and it's our belief that some of those homes
may actually be more impacted than some of the other homes because they're very close to the final turn
that the truck will take as it leaves the back area of the postal service annex and those homes are not
indicated on Figure 10, nor is there any noise impact analysis. In Section 3.4 of the report the consultant
did not provide any noise equations or assumptions. In reviewing textbooks on noise analysis, there's a
specific equation that they use to project from this point to our homes, how much noise, what decibel level
that we will experience at our homes and then you take assumptions and you have so much decibel
reduction because of a berm and so much of a decibel reduction because of a wall and the distance and
trees and those things. And the equation that he used was not specified nor the decibel reductions. And
just looking at the equation you can play around with it, you know a 5% change in an assumption could
result in them being above or below State standards for noise and so if the consultant could provide those
equations, that would be something we'd like to see. In Section 4.1 they assume that the noise receptive
was the second story windows. While this is appropriate for general, this is where we spend a lot of our
waking hours, in regards to being woken up, they discussed the probability of us being woken up and it
ranges from 5% to 8% probability that we'll be woken up by the activities at the Postal Service.
Mayor Mancino: With the windows open.
Bob Beduhn: With the windows open. We'd like to know, I'd like to know whether or not that increases in
the third story or not because we're more of a direct line of sight to the trucks when you're looking over the
top of the wall.
Councilman Berquist: A quick question. Are you sure Bob that the reference to second story windows
isn't the, I mean are they calling the walkouts or the lower.
Bob Beduhn: That I don't know. I guess maybe that needs to be clarified. That's why I'm calling it out.
Because I know in previous discussions we talked about the main story, second story, do the line of sight to
the family rooms as the line of sight so I guess it wasn't really clear which one he was referring to. Again
I discuss the need to show the actual noise calculations. In Section 6.2, under the garbage hauling and
snow removal, the noise consultant indicates that, makes some kind of general recommendations that
garbage hauling and snow removal has to do with city ordinance and I guess I wasn't really clear. I
haven't seen a city ordinance. Whether or not the city actually has a noise ordinance. I know some cities
do.
Mayor Mancino: We do.
Bob Beduhn: Okay. But also those are services that the Postal Service contracts and that it's within their
full contracting ability to tell the contractor when to come in and remove snow and when to come in and
take garbage as well I would believe, subject to the City so I think that needs to be considered a little bit
more. And then just in general, most of these recommendations I'd call them non-structural other than
24
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
extending the berm but in general about loud radios, horns, slamming doors, leaving doors open. Those are
all kind of best management practices that they're going to ask the employees of the Postal Service to do
and I guess if that goes I'd like, we're kind of looking for a good signage plan as employees drive in telling
them to turn off their radios, not to loiter in the parking lot, not to slam doors, those sorts of things. Those
are just my initial reactions and again there's a number of things to go into more detail like he indicated.
He said once every 12 days some of the higher impacted homes have a probability of being awaken with
their windows open.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's a half year too. It's not like it's year round.
Bob Beduhn: But I mean there's things that I don't think all, everybody's had a chance to fully digest in
the report and be fully distributed but I wanted to give you these are some ideas up front to provide them
so they're prepared to discuss them.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Kate, can you get to Bob in the next couple of days the noise ordinance. A
copy of our noise ordinance. Or also the hours of operation. If we have anything and to tell you the truth,
I'm not quite sure of hours for snowplowing, etc. But again that could be something brought up just as
good neighbors when they contract out to have it done. Do you understand that? Any comments from
Council members at this time to Bob? And Roger, can you pass this on to the.
Roger Knutson: We'll fax it tomorrow morning.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Bob Beduhn: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming tonight. The next item on the agenda is new business. There is
none. Yes, I'm sorry.
Councilman Senn: I don't know if we could look at maybe suspending the rules or do whatever but I don't
think we need to do the Council presentation stuff next since I assume we have, is it the sidewalk clearing
ordinance that people are waiting for?
Audience: What I'm waiting for agenda, number (h) and (I).
Mayor Mancino: We're already passed that. That went under the Consent Agenda and that has already
been.
Audience: ... receive one in the mail?
Mayor Mancino: Yes it is. We're very sorry about that.
Audience: So those were approved?
Mayor Mancino: Those were approved as in the staff report and what we got. Thank you.
Councilman Senn: I take back what I said I guess...
25
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well, we can go ahead to Administrative Presentations. Does anyone mind
flopping that so that we can go ahead with the sidewalk clearing ordinance and sump pump inspection
program because we do have someone who's here for that.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. SIDEWALK CLEARING ORDINANCE, CLARIFICATION OF INTENT, PARK &
RECREATION DIRECTOR.
Todd Hoffman: Mayor Mancino, members of City Council, thank you. What I think is due this evening is
a simple clarification of what the City Council would like to see enforced as a part of the City of
Chanhassen nuisance ordinance, Chapter 13. As you can see from the cover memo, there is some
misunderstanding, or at least confusion on the part of city staff as to whether or not the current ordinances
can be enforced or not. And it's simply an example, I like to get things down to real person terms and
Barb here has been having a problem getting her sidewalk cleared in front of her house. She is at a point of
a bus stop collection where children walk down either the sidewalk or the street to gather in her driveway to
be picked up by the school bus. After snowfalls, especially as occurred in December and January, some of
the neighbors did not clear the sidewalks, thus forcing the kids into the street to get to the bus stop and Ms.
Johnson thought with the safer alternative of the sidewalk being available but simply the fact that it was not
cleared, prohibited that use, that that could be easy to correct. This is not a new issue. It's been around
and I classified in one of those seasonal issues which gain some momentum and then just before it's solved,
you know winter goes away and it's gone for another year. I would just as soon, since it gets passed to me
as you can see on a variety of occasions over the years, I would just as soon we settle it at a Council level.
Does the City Council wish to see sidewalks cleared by residents. And if they are not cleared by residents,
would you like to enforce that policy or that nuisance ordinance or do you want this to be dealt with in
some other manner. My recommendation is that we ask if you do want to enforce it, we ask that Roger
clarify the ordinance. Put some more teeth into it, as we refer to it as. Talk about the fines and penalties,
which this does. You know the current ordinance does talk about fines and penalties. It talks about that
it's a nuisance to public health and safety and in his opinion it is enforceable as it stands. Then again it
would be my recommendation that we direct the appropriate Public Safety officials to contact the offenders
in this particular case and at least start communications with them on this particular issue.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Todd.
Councilman Berquist: How is it enforceable when it fails to state who, where the responsibility lies?
Roger? Roger?
Mayor Mancino: He'll be back in a minute.
Councilman Berquist: Can you answer that?
Todd Hoffman: Roger was clear in that he said this is enforceable. These are enacted for the benefit of the
community and if you read the general, you know in this article nuisance means the unlawful interference
with the use or obstruct, intent to obstruct or render dangerous for passage to lakes, streams, sidewalk, etc.
and then the following are nuisances affecting public peace and safety. All snow not removed and I think
his statement's going to be, who's responsible, responsibility should it be but the adjacent property owner.
26
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well the reason I ask, excuse me. The reason I ask is because the sidewalk that
runs from City Hall all the way down to Frontier Trail, along Laredo is plowed by the City. The city
sidewalk...
Councilman Senn: Well, why isn't my neighborhood.
Councilman Berquist: So how do you explain that?
Todd Hoffman: Why and it's a route to the school and it's been done for many, many years. Why.
Mayor Mancino: That's the way it is. You know where I grew up, the mail person walked the sidewalks
so I mean you got a heavy fine if your sidewalk in front of your home, on your property, you haven't
cleared it yourself. One, you won't get your mail. And number two, you have to keep it open no ifs,
anode's or BUTS's. In those communities.
Don Ashworth: The City does downtown, all routes to and from schools. So both Laredo and Kerber are
plowed by the City. Trails, so let's say around Lake Susan. Those are done by the City. Actually the two
areas that we don't do is this one here... And the other one was.
Todd Hoffman: There's a variety.
Mayor Mancino: Stone Creek.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, Stone Creek. The Longacres.
Councilman Senn: Are you the snow removal czar now?
Councilman Mason: You're just a little bit of everything aren't you?
Mayor Mancino: Are we differentiating Todd between a trail and a sidewalk?
Todd Hoffman: Yes we are.
Mayor Mancino: We are definitely differentiating between the two. Longacres, do they have their
sidewalks?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, because I've been on the trails there but I haven't actually been on the sidewalk.
Councilman Senn: Well if Berquist's sidewalk gets done, I think my driveway should get done.
Councilman Berquist: I don't have sidewalks. The sidewalk that runs parallel to Laredo though was done.
Roger, the question that I had real quickly was, the wordage of the ordinance to me does not state who's
responsibility it is. It simply says the snow and ice must be removed within 12 hours after it has been
ceased to be deposited thereon.
Mayor Mancino: So it would be Roger's direction from us, if we wanted to, to say exactly who's
responsibility it is.
27
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well he says it's enforceable now. I mean Todd kind of gave the recap of.
Roger Knutson: In theory it is enforceable now. I would interpret that with the ordinance to say that the
abutting property owner has to clear the snow. But having said that, could I elaborate a little bit? What
we have now is a situation where if you don't, if we were to enforce it, it would be a misdemeanor citation.
Which is the same penalty theoretically for drunken driving. To bring that in front of a District Court
Judge and say.
Councilman Berquist: Throw the book at him.
Roger Knutson: Throw this person in jail or recommend a heavy duty fine, I would not get a warm and
fuzzy reception either by the residents or by the judiciary for doing that. It's theoretically possible but I
don't think it's really the result that anyone would want. And the Judge may be so annoyed that the result
would not be anything satisfactory to the City. What is more realistic if you want to do this, is a separate
sidewalk ordinance, snow removal ordinance that would essentially make it perhaps a petty misdemeanor
and then have the work done by contracted crews if it isn't done within a certain time and assess the cost to
the property owner. That's what communities that are serious about this do. You really don't want to
bring someone into Court on a criminal misdemeanor for something like this. I wouldn't recommend it.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments and questions? Councilman Senn. Which, what direction would
you like to see this?
Councilman Senn: I guess I can't really say what direction I'd like to see it. I'd like a lot more information
first. I mean how much of the city is covered by the sidewalk? I don't know, maybe my problem is I live
in an area with no sidewalks. I was raised in an area with no sidewalks. I've never had sidewalks, other
than maybe brief stints of living in other places but I guess, I hate to just rush into this and say yes, we
need to start enforcing this and doing this and effectively only dealing with a relatively minor problem and
making a mountain out of a mole hill. And I don't know. I don't see enough effectively right now to make
me comfortable with that. So I guess I'd rather see that first.
Mayor Mancino: Todd, how many calls do you get, because obviously you're here in front of us because
you keep getting calls.
Todd Hoffman: It's half a dozen a year.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? Minneapolis probably has the most experience with this. They have an
ordinance along the lines I described to you. But I will also say being a resident of Minneapolis, as far as I
know, if they enforce it must be on a complaint basis.., because a lot of folks in my block don't shovel their
snow. And certainly not within 24 hours. I mean you have to look at sometimes on a practical basis.
Sometimes you get that ice that comes down, as we all know. I have a sidewalk in front of me and
sometimes I don't know how you'd get it out without a jack hammer or a blow torch or something. It just
won't come off.
Councilman Senn: I don't think, I mean I don't think we want to create an unsafe condition so my intention
is not to make light of it. But I think what we need to do is understand, I mean if it is a half a dozen calls a
year, I guess I'd like to know what the half dozen calls per year are which areas? They're coming from
consistently, more or less where do we really have the problem?
28
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Well right now Todd, what happens? I mean do you call the people in that neighborhood
and ask them to clear the sidewalk and do they do it? I mean how are you met and.
Todd Hoffman: Get the run around.
Mayor Mancino: You just get the run around?
Councilman Senn: Why do you think Todd's the one presenting this? Come on, I mean. What does Todd
have to do with snow removal, excuse me but.
Councilman Engel: I think I can elaborate a little on this.
Mayor Mancino: Let me go to Councilman Mason first.
Councilman Mason: Well I just, I don't know. I keep wanting to hum city sidewalks but, and it does kind
of sound like we're making light of this and it obviously is a problem in some areas. I guess I hear what
Mark's saying, I don't know if we want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I wonder if there isn't a
way we can deal with this on a little more individual basis than creating another city wide ordinance or
putting some teeth into the ordinance we have. If it is enforceable the way it states, maybe what we need to
do is, if there are problem areas, we need to do a little education or get a flyer out or something like that
and see if that works. And if that doesn't, then maybe we need to revisit it. Maybe the issue here is
education as opposed to revamping ordinances. That's my thought I guess.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Well I live in that neighborhood so I've got a little perspective on this. I drive by it
every day and you've got three things working this particular winter causing this I believe. Number one,
there's been a lot of snow. Number two, we tend to push it all up with the plows on the side to the point
where they buried mailboxes a while ago and we had to dig those out. And the third thing is, if you look
down that street, there's only a sidewalk on one side of the street. Almost everybody, well I'll say a large
majority have snowblowers and we contribute to our own problem. That stuff gets blown right into your
side yard and onto your sidewalk, and you've got a practical limitation as to what these snowblowers can
then take out of the sidewalk. They've got a snow pile so large they're not going to get it out of there on
the sidewalk in that little alley they've got cut out. That's why it's happened. If you just walk through
there and you see it when the snow's falling, that's why it's happened. So I think if we, you know and like
Roger said, and I used to have a comer lot in Minneapolis. That time we had the Halloween blizzard.
There's practical limitations to what you can do in a certain amount of time. So if we're going to do
something with an ordinance, something along the lines of 3 calls to the neighbor and then send a city crew
in there to plow it and assess them for it. That's what we had to do in Minneapolis I remember. If you got
called 3 times, and I remember after that Halloween blizzard there was a call. It just took some time to do
that and I don't want to overact because it's been a bad winter and I think can get by this thing. Just wait
it out a little bit and then probably use that 3 calls to a neighbor. If they don't do it, then assess them that
for someone else plowing it but I don't want to see any of this bring them to Court and fine them. Just
clear it and charge them but let's wait. Let's make that the absolute last resort.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well so far I've heard three people talk about removing the snow. I think we should
outlaw snow altogether... Well what Mark, what Councilman Engel says makes perfectly good sense and
29
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
couple that with the fact that a couple of days after the snow falls and the plows go by, then they come by
again and top grade and drop it... back further. I don't really want to see us worry about changing the
ordinance necessarily because then we still have to enforce it and maybe we'll get to a point where it's
something that needs to be done. I mean if you had some type of, or whoever gets these calls, had some
type of a letter that they could copy and send out on a complaint. That they got a complaint. A nice letter
that was written on city letterhead that said, you know it's come to our attention that the sidewalk in front
of your home hasn't been shoveled and we understand but there are children that need to use that sidewalk
to catch buses and for safety sake we'd really like to see you shovel the sidewalk. We understand it's a
problem and it's a pain in the tail in some such language but please do it. Would we get any kind of
positive response from that? I mean I'd write the letter so we can start there.
Mayor Mancino: If you wrote the letter we'd get a negative response.
Councilman Berquist: ... I think that we should outlaw winter but being as we can't do that, this is the next
best choice.
Mayor Mancino: I'd like to add onto it. Are you done? I'm sorry. To what Councilman Berquist said. I
think that prior to, let's be proactive and in the Fall, in those areas where they have sidewalks, where there
are sidewalks on one side, etc. that the kids use, let's write a letter from the City to every homeowner in
that area and ask them if they would, for the reasons of children trying to get school buses and needing to
use the sidewalks, if they could make sure that their sidewalks are cleared and if there are any complaints,
to call and who to call. And then re-examine it next winter and see if that's helped. And Councilman
Berquist could write the letter and.
Councilman Senn: And take the phone calls, right?
Mayor Mancino: And take the phone calls, and we'll proof read it and edit his letter though.
Councilman Berquist: That does sound like a reasonable place to start.
Todd Hoffman: I think it does. I think staff, Scott Harr... it's really Public Safety and give that direction
to Manager Ashworth... Scott's just been, he doesn't want to hand out misdemeanors for not plowing
sidewalks so he wondered what we'd like to do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Don, what do you think?
Don Ashworth: I think that's an excellent idea. I think we may have, in winters like this I don't think that
most neighborhoods are going to be able to contend with the amount of snow that's basically covering some
of those sidewalks right now which gets back maybe to Mark's point that we may end up having to come
back and move it all back far enough so they can literally manage their own but.
Councilman Engel: Well then you're going to have to deal with those destroyed trees and gardens and you
don't want to do that.
Mayor Mancino: But let's put that on the agenda to make sure that that goes out in September of next year
or October. Who will take that responsibility to make sure that we put it on the agenda to have a letter
going out to the homeowners that do have sidewalks in their subdivision?
Don Ashworth: I'll make sure that Scott is aware of it.
30
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Great.
SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM UPDATE~ CITY ENGINEER.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have our project manager from
Buchen Environmental Services, Mr. Craig Anderson who's been before you before and just kind of
wanted to give you an update as to how the program's going and what things we're finding so far with the
program that's been in place now for little over a month so with that I'll mm it over to Craig.
Craig Anderson: Thank you Charles. Mayor, members of the Council. I have an update I'd like to hand
out at this time. This update is through noon Saturday so it's pretty current. As Charles said we've been
at it for about a month now and what we've found, we've completed 924 inspections total. Of those 924,
784 are in compliance with the ordinance. 140 not in compliance with the ordinance, or 85%, 15% and
that's about where we estimated we would be at this time. We started in the northern section of the
community, which is an older area and the area that we felt might have the most significant problems.
At the present time we have four inspectors working in Chanhassen. Two doing appointments, two doing
the canvassing. We've completed the northeast section and will begin in the northwest section of the
community. With very few exceptions, the residents and property owners of this city have been excellent to
deal with. Lots of good questions. We had 40, approximately 40 people at the first information meeting.
There were a lot of questions. I think the meeting went on for 2 ½-3 hours answering questions and most
specifically the questions were on specific pieces of property. Specific problems that individual property
owners had with pumping outside. The first informational meeting was a little over a month ago. We will
have another one next week on Tuesday night for the next area that we will be canvassing. That's basically
what's happened out there. If you have any questions or comments or concerns, I'll try and answer them at
this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Council have questions for Mr. Anderson. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Just for the record, I don't have a sump pump. You've inspected. I have a certificate.
Tell them to quit coming. He's come back twice since I did that.
Mayor Mancino: Oh okay. He didn't believe you I guess.
Councilman Engel: There's 140 properties not in compliance with city ordinance. It says not in
compliance. There's a double negative right there.
Craig Anderson: Yeah, sorry about that. I changed it and didn't think, non compliance. There's 140 of
them in non-compliance. We've had quite a number, based on what the inspectors have found that have
come into compliance before the inspections occurred. A number of people have told the inspectors that
they changed theirs before the inspection occurred at their property. So the program is working. People
that didn't know it wasn't supposed to be going into the sanitary sewer found out through the informational
packet, informational meeting and hopefully the video. I hope everybody got a chance to see the video. So
people are taking it out on their own without having the inspector.
Mayor Mancino: Good, Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: How many inspections are to be done Mr. Anderson?
31
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Craig Anderson: There should be approximately 5,000 total inspections so we're about 20% on the way
there right now.
Councilman Berquist: I had a phone call like, did you call and, I had a phone call and made an appointment
for 10:00 Wednesday on a date that I don't remember right now. I got there at about 2 or 3, maybe 5
minutes after 10:00. Never saw anyone so I mean I was a little bit late. It's very possible that the person
that was there, figured I wasn't going to show up and left. But the appointment, we made a specific
appointment.
Craig Anderson: There should have been someone there. Normally what they do, if they do leave and the
person hasn't shown up, they would put another orange door hanger.
Councilman Berquist: It wasn't on there.
Craig Anderson: Alright, I will check that out for you.
Councilman Senn: You can have one of my orange door hangers.
Craig Anderson; I will check that out. That was on your property sir?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. Well I was a little bit late.., but I was a little bit disconcerted when no one
showed.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Anderson. On these 140 that aren't in compliance. What's the price tag? What's
the average price tag for these 140 households to come into compliance?
Craig Anderson: I really couldn't tell you on that. We know that some of these only need ridged piping.
Some of them need to be piped outside. We are working, Anita and I and Charles are working with some
of the property owners who are going to have problems putting it outside. They're going to cause some
problems, some public safety problems if we put it outside. We found a number of neighborhoods now
where in fact the pumps are running continuously. That means winter and summer. The pumps on these
properties are running continuously and it could cause a problem. What we have told those property
owners, leave it in the sanitary sewer temporarily and we will work with them on a group basis or an
individual basis.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But when you do, when they're not in compliance, you do tell them I'm assuming.
I really can't remember. What they do need to do and do you give them an estimate of the work? Then
what do they do next? Do they call?
Craig Anderson: They can call a licensed plumber. If they do call a licensed plumber, the plumber then
can submit that property's name to the City to issue a Certificate of Compliance so we don't have to
disturb them again. If they do it on their own, then we will go back and certify that it's in compliance.
What the inspector can do is tell them what's wrong and what needs to be done to fix it but not how to fix
it. We step over that line then.
Mayor Mancino: But you've never come back in the cities that you've done this for and figured out how
much an average homeowner pays to be in compliance.
Craig Anderson: No. Because it's so different.
32
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: That would be interesting information though. Out of the 140 that are not in compliance,
what it takes and how much it costs. I'd like to know that figure if we can. Charles?
Charles Folch: If you'd like, we could, once the program is completed and we have a list generated of the
properties that were initially not in non-compliance. Send out a survey if you will and ask them to respond
to what it actually costs. What was involved in their retrofit and what it cost them. We could do
something like that if you wish.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wonder then how valuable that information is to us after the fact.
Councilman Berquist: Are we distributing a list of licensed plumbers that are, we are?
Craig Anderson: Yes sir.
Councilman Berquist: And these plumbers are aware that these calls may be coming in?
Craig Anderson: We sent out an invitation to all of the plumbing firms on the list to come to an
informational and training session that I held here at City Hall, and a number of them did show up for that.
They did receive an informational packet didn't they, the plumbers. So they know about the program and a
number of them did show up for the training session that I held here at City Hall.
Councilman Berquist: Have you followed up to see what their response has been from the people who are
not in compliance and further, what response they're providing to the people that are calling? I'm speaking
from my own perspective. I'm a mechanical contractor but I'm not smart enough to be a plumber. We get
a lot of phone calls from people that ask us to recommend a plumbing firm and to be honest with you, in
the city of Chanhassen, to be honest in the city of Chanhassen there are not an abundance of plumbing
firms that are willing to do work such as this on a timely basis. So I'd be curious as to whether or not
they're being stonewalled or whether or not they're being adequately served. I guess that goes along with
Mayor Mancino's question.
Craig Anderson: Okay. I think we could put together some type of questionnaire to send out to these
particular property owners to ask them how they're being serviced by the local plumbers.
Mayor Mancino: Actually it'd be good to do that now instead of waiting until after we've done everyone.
Because maybe we need to shorten that list or make the list different if we're giving them plumbers names
that aren't servicing them well, and we don't want to stand behind that. Okay, thank you. Any other
questions at this point? Thank you very much.
Craig Anderson: Thank you for your time.
Mayor Mancino: The next item on the agenda is Council Presentations. Councilman Mason.
Councilman Senn: Were you going to finish the Admin items first or were you going to come back.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, let's let Mark go home.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, that's a good idea. Thank you Councilman Senn. Let's go back to lc.
33
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
lC. APPROVE QUOTES FOR PURCHASE OF 1997 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT, FILE NO.
PWOleee.
Mayor Mancino: I think that Councilman Berquist has had some questions on this and I think, is Mark still
here? Okay. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Yes. My question Charles was the selection of the vehicle. Vehicle number 4. The
Fire Marshal's vehicle. Up until now, from what I remember, I've seen Mark driving around in a S 10
Blazer I believe. It's been outfitted for the Fire Marshal's duties. I see now that we're going after a Ford
Expedition which, it's a new model. It's significantly larger than the S 10 and therefore I would suspect
significantly more money. And I'm wondering as to the need for the larger vehicle and the justification as
to that series. I mean I think of a Ford Expedition and a Chevrolet Yukon, GMC Yukon as sort of in the
same. I haven't seen many Expeditions but they've been touted as being similar class vehicles. And I think
that's a lot more vehicle than what you've been driving and I'm wondering what the rationale behind it is.
Mark Littfin: I can explain it because I was working with Harold at the shop putting this together.
Originally when we put, or last summer when we were working on the '97 budget, we were putting in
prices for a Suburban of that size vehicle because the vehicle I've got right now, the back end is full and
I've got the back seat full of stuff now where I can't even take passengers and so the idea was to expand it
to a Suburban size where we put the budget prices in and everything. And this year the Hennepin County
bids went to Ford. They didn't go to GMC or Chevrolet, which would have probably been the Tahoe size
vehicle, which would have been ideal. So the Expedition is a down sized Suburban and yeah, then it's got
some status in the name to it but that's, I'm looking for the room of the vehicle right now. There's a lot of
stuff I've got in the back seat of mine which should be secured down so if I ever had an accident I'm not
going to get a shovel in the back of my head and this type of thing but. We went up to Superior Ford and
drove a couple of them and that seemed a lot better than even a Suburban as far as turning radius and size
that I would need to carry all the equipment in.
Councilman Berquist: And you've got to carry all that stuff'?
Mark Littfin: Well I carry my turnout equipment, First Aid, oxygen, pre-plans, fire investigation
equipment. If we have a fire scene and we're interviewing somebody, I've got to get them in the vehicle so
I can talk to them instead of being scrunched in the front seat, I've got the radios, the lights, all the control
heads so it's tight in there for carrying even one passenger right now. Hopefully the Expedition will give
me the room to at least expand. We're expanding in the haz mat calls. As we expand, it's picking up more
equipment a lot of the time so. It's used as a command vehicle a lot of times.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for coming in on short notice.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Mark for coming in. Any other questions for Mark?
Councilman Engel: Do you have a cage between the back and the back seat in the rear?
Mark Littfin: ...because most of the equipment is secured in the back but as I said, ifI ever got hit one
way or another, the stuffs going to start flying and I don't want something in the back of my head...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion then to approve?
34
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: I will move approval of the 1997 vehicles and equipment purchase as contained
within the staff report.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn: Clarification?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: I think, aren't we acting on four vehicles?
Charles Folch: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well that's not what Steve just said.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist's only question had to do with the fourth vehicle of all the vehicles.
Councilman Senn: No, but Steve just said let's approve the whole 1997 vehicle purchase thing and I guess
what I'd like in the clarification is if you're talking about approving the awards on these four vehicles. The
entire 1997.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the Director of Public Works' quotes for purchase of 1997
vehicles and equipment No. PW016EEE.
Councilman Senn: That's better.
Mayor Mancino: And a second please.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution/t97-15: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
Director of Public Works' quotes for Purchase of 1997 Vehicles and Equipment - PW016EEE. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
D2. APPROVE PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR ARBORETUM
BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM LAKE ANN PARK TO CSAH 17
(POWERS BLVD.)~ PROJECT 95-21.
Mayor Mancino: I think Councilman Senn, you had some questions on Barton-Aschman's use of
subcontractors and if those subcontractors, if they're getting bids from subcontractors. Correct?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Charles, the thing I was wondering was, you know we decided some time ago to
stick with Barton Aschman because of their history just on the overall project and all that sort of thing,
okay. But basically now they're going out for sub bids on work which is outside of the context of that
effectively. You know, I mean basically we're paying for this so I think, have we made sure that they've
bid it? Have they gotten bids on the sub stuff, you know so we're getting the best price?
Charles Folch: Actually the selection was based on my input. In terms of the subconsultants that are being
used, Braun Intertec was the soils engineer with the West 78th Street improvement project back in '94 who
35
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
basically did the soil boring work and a large share of that embankment area out there so has the
documentation history so it made sense to continue on using them in expectation that there should be some
cost savings rather than having to bring somebody in new and fresh as a soils consultant. Mark Holden
from Holden Associates was the electrical designer for the project so it makes sense to continue with them
through the contract process. Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson (HTPO) provides us an inspector that we use
on a handful of projects, private development projects each year that are constructing some public
improvements and so they provide us with an inspector and we felt, based on the project we have assigned
to them this year, that we would have enough availability to be out here and also do this project so basically
we're not bringing somebody new out here just for this particular project in Chanhassen. We're making
use of an inspector that's going to be out here already for some other projects. Along with that HTPO does
provide their own surveying services and that actually goes pretty hand in hand with providing an inspector
and the surveying coming from the same consulting firm, from a coordination standpoint so basically the
long and the short of it is, this selection process was based on city staff input on who we felt would make
the logical choice and provide us some cost savings. Overall looking at the total fee for providing the
contract administration, it roughly is about 8% of the construction contract. Right basically in the lower
third of what we would expect. Typically it's around 7% to 10% that we see for construction
administration, surveying and contract administration on a project so, and they're at about 8% so they're
right at the bottom third so.
Councilman Senn: Alright.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. One other that I just noticed. On this Attachment B Charles. You've got an
overhead calculation of 160%. Now those two numbers are added together? $5,000.00 hourly rate plus
$8,800.00 worth of overhead?
Charles Folch: Nancy and I spoke about this earlier today. Different firms factor their, how they break out
their costs sometimes a little bit differently. Sometimes some of the cost associated in an overhead such as
this one might actually be included in another firm's schedule in their hourly schedule, or hourly rates per
employee. And the long and the short of it is, they generally all come out in the end about the same, give or
take. And actually this is probably right in the ballpark as we talked about, if you look back on the l(d)(1),
the fee schedule attachment, that was an overhead percentage of 1.55.
Mayor Mancino: 55.7, yeah.
Charles Folch: Pardon me?
Mayor Mancino: 155.7.
Charles Folch: Right, and that's an overhead rate that Barton-Aschman had back in '95 and that was also
one that MnDot had accepted for their design contract with their auditing process so again, it depends on
how the firm does it. Some have higher hourly rates but a lower overhead number that shows up. Their
multiplying factor might be lower but in the end they generally come out about the general ballpark for
overall costs. Like I said, we typically expect somewhere around 7% to 10% for a contractor
administration on a project. General municipal type road and utility project.
Councilman Berquist: Wow.
36
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I was surprised at the difference in overhead. One was 155.7 and one was 160,
the same firm, etc. so that's why I asked. One was negotiated in '95 and one in '97.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'll be honest with you, when I looked at this, when I flipped through this thing
on Thursday night for the first time and I saw the 160%, I thought okay 160%, 8813, okay. So 8813, I
thought that was the raw number we were working with. It didn't dawn on me that we added $5,600.00
and $8,800.00 and then worked up from there.
Mayor Mancino: And you could have done 160% of each hourly rate too.
Charles Folch: Actually I do have firms out there that again, would show a standard hourly rate which is
less per person but their multiplier could be 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, we talked about that link before. And Barton-Aschman, we've paid as much as
30% for contract administration on other deals.
Mayor Mancino: Well I'm glad to see it down to 8. May I have a motion please then for l(d)(2).
Councilman Senn: l(d)(2), move it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the construction services contract
with Barton-Aschman and the attached subconsultants (HTPO, Braun Intertec, and Holden &
Associates) dated February 19, 1997 to provide the construction services for Arboretum Boulevard
Improvement Project No. 95-21. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: We're finally getting to Council Presentations. HRA, Michael. Could you?
Councilman Mason: I sure could. Under old business HRA considered approving the purchase agreement
on that 2.2 acre parcel of the Ward's. It was discussed at length. Both Councilman Senn and Berquist
were there with their erudite opinions and they were. HRA tabled it. They wanted direction and input from
Council on whether it was even appropriate for HRA to be purchasing their land for that reason.
Mayor Mancino: So we would like to see it on the next City Council meeting agenda.
Councilman Mason: I believe that was the direction that was given to the Assistant Executive Director of
HRA, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: You're welcome. We did modify the TIF Reimbursement Agreement with School
District 112. That's been in the hopper for quite some time.
Mayor Mancino: And how did you modify it?
37
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Mason: Due to the calculations I believe produced by the Executive Director of liRA. It was
considered money that should be coming to them and there was essentially no disagreement with that.
Mayor Mancino: So it went back to the years '88-89 when that referendum passed.
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: So it was the bigger amount versus the '92?
Councilman Mason: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: That's correct. Under new business there was some discussion on the remaining land
that HRA owns on West 79th Street and what it should be marketed at. HRA directed staff to start
negotiations with people that should call at a price between $10.00 and $12.00 a square foot, knowing that
in fact that price would probably be negotiated down if anything became serious. On that lot next to
Applebee's.
Mayor Mancino: And including soil corrections?
Councilman Mason: That would probably be part of the negotiations, that's correct. We also considered
modifying the Gary Kirt purchase agreement. He was looking for an assignment to a potential buyer,
unlimited. Knowing that the potential buyer has a connection to the city of Chanhassen, HRA agreed to
that assignment with a 3 month end. I'm not, I didn't phrase that right. HRA agreed to modifying the
purchase agreement with the caveat that it would have to be assigned within 3 months to the date of closing
and that would be all.
Mayor Mancino: And the reason for the date?
Councilman Mason: The reason for the date is, it appears as though the person that is looking to purchase
the land from Gary Kirt may in fact be in some sort of legal action with him and if that is the person, it
would be in the City's best interest for that to be taken care of in that fashion. And if it ends up not being
that way, then we'd want to take a look at whether we would allow Mr. Kirt to reassign the mortgage.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn, is there a question?
Councilman Senn: But you pre-approved the assignment then at this point?
Councilman Mason: With the agreement that if he does assign it, the lease is cut in half. The.
Councilman Senn: Mortgage term?
Councilman Mason: The mortgage term would go from 15 years to 7 years.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thanks for the update. Any other questions for Councilman Mason?
Councilman Berquist: Might I add something?
38
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: I talked to Todd Gerhardt today Mike and I told him that as I walked away from the
HRA meeting on Thursday night I was a little bit, I thought we had done the right thing until I thought
about it a little bit more. There's nobody here but us girls so.
Mayor Mancino: Let's go on to 212. Councilman Senn. Did you want to bring up 2127
Councilman Senn: Yes. I would like to have 212 put on our agenda for our next meeting.
Mayor Mancino: A work session or a meeting?
Councilman Senn: No, on a regular meeting for two reasons. One is to address effectively a city response
regarding 212 and a tollway proposal as it references existing legislation that's going through the
legislature right now on the tollway, which I think the City should comment on you know prior to the
legislature taking action on it. And secondly, I think the City should look at, since it took no position
before, taking a position as it relates to the 212 tollway. You know prior to the legislature again acting on
it because I think the legislature is acting on it based on, I don't know I'm going to say unknown
assumptions at this point. But there has been a fairly extensive bill introduced that changes that entire
procedure as it relates to the toll road and 212 and the approval process of it.
Mayor Mancino:
legislative update.
bill is.
Can we get, number one can we, excuse me for me, I would like to know, be given a
I mean if what we're going to do really does have any affect on it and know what the
Councilman Senn: Okay. I mean I just got a copy of the bill the other day. Two days ago. It's House File
392 and basically what it says is, it deals specifically with tollways and basically changing the entire
process on how they will be dealt with effectively taking any local control out of it.
Councilman Engel: They've absconded all that to the State level now?
Councilman Senn: No. No. What they've done is they have basically, at least under this bill, have taken it
and said that it goes to the City but if the City won't approve it, it goes to the Met Council. And if the Met
Council won't approve it, it goes to the Commissioner and he can decide anyway.
Councilman Engel: What Commissioner?
Councilman Senn: Of Transportation.
Mayor Mancino: So you would like us to give some response to the bill and whether we favor it and how it
works.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'd like to see us brought up to speed effectively on the bill. I think we should
comment on the bill and I would like to see us consider basically taking an action on 212.
Mayor Mancino: Who's authoring the bill?
Councilman Senn: I'm not even sure it has an author on it. Oh yeah, author. Lieder, Molnau.
39
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: From where?
Councilman Berquist: Chaska.
Councilman Senn: And Juhnke are the three authors on it. I don't know. I mean again, and secondly I
mean again I think that's kind of step one and step two is I think, we should consider at least taking the
position on the whole 212 tollway proposal anyway since we didn't the first time.
Mayor Mancino: Those are two different things to me. Number one is taking a position on the tollway.
The way it was presented last summer. Two is taking a position on the bill now and how that's being
presented. Number one, I'd like to have some information or a presentation on the new bill now and what it
means and understand it to some degree and then take a position. I have no problem with that. On the way
it was presented last summer, let me ask your motive. Your intent. I mean it's already been dealt with.
We're not going to see it back that way again so why are we going to take a position on last summer's toll
way?
Councilman Senn: Well effectively, if this bill's adopted you'll see it back exactly the same way. I mean
there's nothing in this bill that says they have to change the proposal. This simply changes the review
process.
Mayor Mancino: So why don't we just vote on the bill because that's what we're going to see?
Councilman Berquist: ... approve or disapprove it. It's non-binding...
Councilman Engel: The unilateral veto power, it doesn't matter what you think.
Councilman Berquist: But if we approve it or don't approve it, they'll do it anyway.
Mayor Mancino: Oh I know and that's what I want to respond to. That's not fair to local governments.
Councilman Senn: Right, and what's being sold at the legislature in terms of this bill is basically that the
process which went through last time, there's no way one city should be able to decide for all the cities
what it should be. But they're silent on the fact that some of the cities did take a position. Okay. And I
think if you're going to make a comment on the issue, you should make it upfront before the legislature
considers action rather than to take it after the fact and quite honestly it will do you no good because once
this bill's in place, the process and the whole thing goes forward. And this Council was one of the
council's who did not take a position and I think.
Mayor Mancino: Well there was only one Council that did.
Councilman Berquist: Eden Prairie.
Mayor Mancino: I mean Chaska didn't take a position either.
Councilman Senn: I don't believe that's true.
Mayor Mancino: Didn't vote. Eden Prairie was the lone city that took a position.
Councilman Senn: Well they took a vote no.
40
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And Chanhassen did not vote and either did Chaska. Once Eden Prairie took the no vote,
Chaska did not.
Councilman Senn: Well we voted. We just couldn't arrive at a position that would pass by a majority.
Didn't Chaska take a vote saying they were favored along it or not?
Councilman Mason: They didn't have to.
Mayor Mancino: They didn't have to so they didn't.
Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I can't speak for what Chaska does one way or the other but I think again
we should be up front and we should do it and should take a position so the legislature knows loud and
clear what it is. Because I think that will have more impact on what happens with the bill than quite
honestly our comments on the bill one way or the other.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well I agree with him. My concern's over the lack of MnDot coming forth and
saying these are the avenues that we looked at and this is how we arrived at the decision. The tollways,
that was never explored. They couldn't explain to us adequately the whole rationale for putting together
the tollway package. The other, some other revenue enhancing projects that they could have done that
would effectively.., state wide as opposed to a lousy 11 mile stretch of roadway. None of those things were
ever addressed. It would certainly be nice to try and get some responsiveness to questions like that.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Sounds good.
Mayor Mancino: Maybe we can use that money that was going to go for the Stillwater Bridge and put in
212. Anyway, $90 million.
Councilman Senn: I believe it's already been tentatively committed to Highway 100.
Mayor Mancino: Oh really? Then let's talk some more about how we're going to do this and how we're
going to get educated on the bill and is that something Councilman Senn you'd like to do? Get a copy of
the bill.
Councilman Senn: I don't care. I mean I can give copies to Don and everybody can read the bill. If Roger
wants to maybe give us some help here in terms of...less confusing. I had to read it about 10 times to try
and get some key points. I'll just give you a copy here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That will be on March 10th. Planning Commission vacancy. Jeff Farmakes has
submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission. We have already gone ahead and appointed
LuAnn Sidney to replace him on April 1st and the Planning Commission would just like to immediately
41
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
request that LuAnn Sidney be appointed now instead of waiting until April 1st. Is there any concerns from
Council members on doing that? No? Okay.
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Do we need a motion? Okay, may I please have a motion?
Councilman Mason: Move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint LuAnn Sidney to the Planning
Commission to replace the vacancy created by Jeff Farmakes to begin as soon as possible. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: One last thing before we adjourn tonight. On the City Council work sessions that you
received in an addendum to our packet. We have gone through most of June and we can review these at
our next March 3rd work session on how these have been scheduled so we have a lot on the agenda. On
March 3rd we will be adding the CDBG grant, block grant to the 3rd.
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, where's this?
Mayor Mancino: It came in an extra folder at your home on Friday. You got this and you got the Court,
the Order and Judgment from the Court case that the City's...
Councilman Senn: I'll have to ask my kids. I haven't seen it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, this meeting is adjourned. There are no other items on the agenda tonight. Thank
you.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
42