CC Minutes 1997 04 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, and Bob Generous
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Senn wanted to discuss the
Dahlin deal. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
me
PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD, JEFF FARMAKES, PLANNING
COMMISSIONER.
Mayor Mancino: First I get the wonderful pleasure of giving a Maple Leaf Award. Jeff Farmakes.
B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 26 AS ARBOR DAY.
Mayor Mancino: Secondly I have a public announcement about the Arbor Day celebration that will be held
on Saturday, April 26th and on that day, so that everyone from the community knows, the community
groups will be cleaning neighborhood parks in the morning and at noon there will be an event at City Hall.
In the afternoon at City Hall the Rapture Center will come out and give some demonstrations from 1:30 to
2:30. And we will also have at noon a ceremonial tree planting and I have a proclamation to read.
Proclaiming Whereas, in 1872 Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a
special day be set aside for the planting of trees, and Whereas, this holiday called Arbor Day, was first
observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and Whereas, Arbor Day is now
observed throughout the nation and the world; and Whereas, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious
topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperate, clean the air, produce
oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife; and Whereas, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood
for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products; and Whereas, trees in our city increase
property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and
Whereas, trees are a source of joy and spiritual renewal; and Whereas, Chanhassen has been recognized as
a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue its tree plantings ways.
Therefore, I, Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim Saturday, April 26,
1997 as Arbor Day in the City of Chanhassen. Any comments from Council members? Thank you. So
everybody be out on April 26th celebrating Arbor Day.
Resolution #97-21: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to proclaim that
Saturday, April 26, 1997 as Arbor Day in the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Mancino: And Councilman Senn on l(b), or B(1) and (2), that we could put at the end of our
agenda tonight.
Councilman Mason: Madam Mayor, somebody is here for that item.
Mayor Mancino: Is someone here for that? Okay. Then let's go ahead. Oh someone is here wanting to
talk about that?
Councilman Mason: Well somebody's here waiting for approval on l(b). I think we should maybe deal
with it sooner than later.
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here for l(b)? From Lundgren Brothers. I'm sorry, I didn't see you.
Oh, okay. Then we will pull that and talk about it at the, well let's try and do that after the Consent
Agenda. After we vote on everything else. Okay? Good. Then may I please have a motion for the consent
agenda?
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda
items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Addendum "A" to Development Contract for North Day 2nd Addition, Project No. 95-20.
c. Final Plat Approval, North Bay 3rd Addition, Rottlund Homes.
Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Villages on the Ponds, Phase II, Project No. 97-
8.
f. Authorize Change in Developer for Plat of "The Frontier", Project 96-16.
g. Resolution #97-22: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Lake Lucy Road, Project 92-12.
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Galpin Boulevard/Trunk Highway 5 Intersection Signal,
Project No. 93-26A1.
Resolution #97-23: Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 75718 with MnDot for Lake
Ann Park Frontage Road, S.P. 1002-66, Project 95-21.
Approval of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Liquor License, Chanhassen Lions Club Softball
Tournament, May 17 & 18, Lake Ann Park.
k. Approval of Bills.
City Council Minutes dated March 24, 1997
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 25, 1997
m. Resolution #97-24: Approve Special Election Resolution for Park Referendum.
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
p. Approve Letter of Support for the Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to table the following Consent Agenda items:
Authorize Execution of 1997 Carver County Community Grant Program Agreement for Solid Waste
Abatement.
o. Approval of Chanhassen Recreation Center Mission Statement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. THE WOODS AT LONGACRES 4TM ADDITION, LUNDGREN BROTHERS:
1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
2) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS,
PROJECT 97-3.
Mayor Mancino: Bob, the reason why we need to talk about this is that we got in our City Council, we got
some updates and we're not sure what the updates mean to this.
Bob Generous: Okay, there were some typo's in the staff report and so we're recommending that those be
corrected on the record. Under the review conditions of approval. Page 14, condition 9 there was, it said
1.9 acres and it's actually 0.19 acres.
Mayor Mancino: That's helpful.
Bob Generous: On page 15, condition number 9 under trails. I believe we had 200 feet originally. It
should have been 100 feet. And on page 18, condition number 20. Correction of the typo that Lot 3, 1 to 3
and it should be Lots 1 through 3. Then the corresponding recommendations were revised also.
Mayor Mancino: And then what? Excuse me.
Bob Generous: And then condition number 18 on page 22 was revised. Is deleted because it's a repeat of
condition number 31. And on page 23, condition number 30 was that the park area, 0.19 acres, not 1.9
acres. With those modifications, staff is recommending approval of the final plat for The Woods at
Longacres 4th Addition.
Mayor Mancino: Can you also tell me about from the original staff report. On page 13, the tree
preservation. The 8(b) which.
Bob Generous: In trying to research and discover if we have a landscaping plan for the project and the
only one we could find was the conceptual plan which corresponded to those, the requirements in there and
so if Council would, we'd like to specify that condition 8(b) remain and that the language be revised to, the
first sentence be revised to state, detailed plans for the Galpin Boulevard landscape buffer (and berming
where feasible) shall be consistent with the.., site plan, Song/Carlson property, conceptual landscape plan
prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc .... date stamped April 14, 1997. And this has that landscaping in place
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
and is the plan that the applicant had originally submitted but it was never carried through on the official
plan.
Mayor Mancino: So was it reviewed for significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from
the roadway?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: It was evaluated that way? Okay. Okay, with that addition, and is that anywhere on
here?
Bob Generous: It would have be an added condition pulled back in.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, then I would like to see that added. Are there any other questions from Council
members on this? Would the applicant like to come up and say something? Please state your name and
address.
Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Brothers. I'm here tonight
because the project manager for The Woods and Meadows, David Henners is at another meeting. And I
appreciate the consideration that you've extended in not tabling this matter. In looking at it more carefully.
Just a few minutes before coming down here I was talking with the City Engineer about a concern that I
have and it pertains to the Longacres Drive state aid street and it's something I feel that needs to be ironed
out. I'd like the City Council's help in ironing it out. It appears that the status of Longacres Drive has
changed since the beginning of this development. It always was a 36 foot wide collector street which
Lundgren Brothers was required to construct. However, it originally was a 7 ton design street and it has
changed just in this last round of conditions of approval to a 9 ton design street. And for numerous
reasons, most of them economics, we feel that there's a little bit of a betrayal here. Changing the rules in
midstream and we would request the City Council go back to the original strength measurement for the
street and if indeed any additional strength is needed, that the City consider either compensating Lundgren
Brothers for the additional construction costs, or perhaps making do with a street that is two thirds 7 ton
design and one third 9 ton design.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Charles. I'm assuming this has something to do with being a state aid street.
Charles Folch: That's correct and this is all news to me here tonight and I think we obviously need to go
back and look at the original development contract to see what was approved. I mean this was, the original
approval was a number of years ago. I can tell you that it is a surprise for me from the standpoint that all
state aid routes have to be designed to a 9 ton section. Not to say that there couldn't have been an error
made or even an error on the approval but I don't know. I'd have to go back and do some research before I
can give you a response as to what was required and what was actually.., first go around.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so yes. We'll work with you. We'll try and find out what we need to do. We'll
have to go back to the State and figure it out Mike. I mean other than that, I don't think we're going to
come to any conclusion tonight but we'll obviously be fair and.
Mike Pflaum: Well we've got one problem out of the way, another one created but that's the way things
go. Thank you.
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion on this please?
Councilman Berquist: Are we moving to table?
Mayor Mancino: Well I think that we can certainly move to have staff work with Lundgren Brothers on
what the road construction needs to be and work that out. I mean I feel comfortable with that. I don't
know about other Council members. State aid road. I mean we're dictated what we can and can't do by
the State and.
Councilman Senn: I'd say that's fine. If there's a problem still and Lundgren Brothers wants to talk to
Council again, then it can come back.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'll move approval of l(b)-I and (b)-2 on the Consent. It was on the Consent
Agenda. Final plat approval for the Woods at Longacres 4th Addition, along with the Development
Contract, Project No. 97-3.
Mayor Mancino: And my friendly amendment would be, one. The revised report that we got with the
addition of 8(b) being revised per Bob Generous' wording to us.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the final plat and Development
Contract and Plans & Specifications, Project No. 97-3 for The Woods at Longacres 4th Addition
amended to revise item 8(b) per staff's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Barbara Montgomery: My name is Barbara Montgomery and I live at 7017 Dakota Avenue. I'm retired
and I live on a fixed income and I'm here tonight, not only on my own behalf but on that of several of my
neighbors, some of whom are here tonight. We are very concerned at the rate of the property tax
valuations. We feel that it has escalated so that it is very difficult for us as seniors. We know that you will
be sitting, or are sitting as the Board of Review for the City of Chanhassen and we would very much like to
express our concern to you that we may not be able to stay in Chanhassen. I've lived here for 37 years and
I hope to stay here the rest of my life and all the neighbors that I've talked to have the same feelings. They
really love Chanhassen. I think we try to be good citizens and I think that we don't, we're really scared at
the thought that we might be forced to leave. We do also know that the State has had some legislation.
They're talking about property tax revisions but we have no idea how that might impact us or when or
anything so I think we're really, we're asking for your assistance to see if there's something that could be
worked out that would be helpful to us. I know that Carver County and the City of Chanhassen have
initiated many programs that have been helpful to seniors to have us stay in our homes but this is sort of
the other side of the coin. You know it's just very hard. And so we are thinking of a different way of going
about it. That perhaps for those seniors who are on a fixed income and who have lived in their houses for
more than 20 years, to have a cap on the real estate valuation rate so that we would be able to keep up with
the required payments. We really would appreciate your help. And I need to ask my neighbors if there's
something I've left out that they'd like to say. Okay, thank you very much for listening.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming.
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Ursula Dimler: Good evening Honorable Mayor and Honorable Council members. I'm Ursula Dimler and
I live at 7203 Kiowa Circle here in the City of Chanhassen and I'm here this evening because these long
time residents have asked me to appear before them as a support and I think they wisely chose Barbara
Montgomery as their spokesperson to summarize their story and I think she has represented them well so I
won't repeat anything that she has said. So I'd like to move onto another aspect of this property valuation
process as we know it today. Soon you'll be sitting at the Board of Equalization for the citizens of
Chanhassen and I know how difficult a job that is. We all desire to reduce the valuations for the people
who have legitimate concerns and yet we have to abide by state laws and other laws that are put upon us by
other levels of government, so I know that it is indeed a delicate balancing act. But I also know that the
property valuation process is not an exact science and that there is room to make some adjustments. So I
have spoken to our Honorable Mayor Mancino about this issue and she has shared with me too that she had
concerns and that you have all worked very hard to keep our seniors in Chanhassen because they are such a
valuable asset to us. And if this year's valuations were just a catch up blip on the screen for these folks,
that would be one thing but it has been a yearly trend for the last 5 years or better so I'm not only
concerned with this year, but other valuation processes that will be facing us in the future. And not only
these senior citizens but I am sure that we have other senior citizens who are retired who live on a fixed
income, have fixed assets, and they have graced our community for many years, that would also be looking
for relief. So I'm suggesting that perhaps we look at the City of Minneapolis and what they have done for
their senior retired population and next year perhaps we'll have an opportunity to go to the State legislature
with some further property tax reform, but right now you are the first line of defense and therefore I beg
your closest scrutiny for their appeals which you'll be considering on May 12th. I'd be glad to answer any
questions if you have any.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions or comments?
Councilman Berquist: Specifically Ursula, what has the City of Minneapolis done to address this
particular issue?
Ursula Dimler: We are in the rudimentary stage of looking at that but I believe that they have set a cap for
seniors and I think they have chosen the age of 65. I think it's kind of anything that we want to do. They
have said that they had to be retired. Have fixed income and assets and I'm not sure if they had a
stipulation as to how long they have had to live in the community but we were suggesting that if we do
something like this, that we would say 20 years or better.
Councilman Berquist: So in other words the City of Minneapolis has not formally adopted anything to
mitigate valuation increases regarding seniors?
Ursula Dimler: I'm not sure if they have or not but we are looking into it and seeing, you know I'm sure
that other cities may want to look at this as well.
Councilman Berquist: I'm confused. You said the City of Minneapolis.
Ursula Dimler: They have done something but we were not quite sure what they have done. Has anybody
read? It was in the paper and I didn't have a chance to research it thoroughly but I'm just suggesting that
we might want to do that, not only at the city level but also at the county level.
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Well at the city level we have met with Tom Workman and Senator Oliver and have
actually made the same case and they do have some legislation which they have written. It has not gone
through yet.
Ursula Dimler: Right. So hopefully that will be helpful but if not, I'm suggesting that we go as a group
and press it again for next year. Okay, thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other comments from Councilmembers on this?
Councilman Senn: Just a question. Have you all filed appeals?
Barbara Montgomery: I don't know if everyone has. I have...
Mayor Mancino: Well that would be the first step.
Councilman Senn: I would suggest you do so. That's the first step and that has to be done I think fairly
quickly here for us to even consider this. As part of the Board of Review you have to have an appeal in so
I would suggest you get one in.
Councilman Berquist: The Assessor's number is 361-1960. That will get you right into their office at the
County.
Mayor Mancino: And they don't have a voice mail on the weekends, I can tell you that. Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone else from your group that would like to come up and speak? Okay. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE AND OFF-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE REQUEST, BY HOLDING, INC., 780 WEST 78TM
STREET.
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mayor. We have received a request for a transfer. This is actually a transfer
from the Byerly's ownership over to the Lurid group. Staff has gone through background review and is
recommending approval.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Council members? Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Move approval.
Mayor Mancino: This is a public hearing. Excuse me, we're going to open this. This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on this issue? Please do so now. Seeing none.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Councilman Senn. Any questions? Any comments?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason?
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: None.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: No ma'am.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please then? I have none.
Councilman Berquist: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the request for an on-sale beer
and wine license and an off-sale intoxicating liquor license for the Byerly's facility to BY Holding, Inc.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF A 6 MONTH BUILDING
MORATORIUM TO ALLOW FOR REVIEW OF FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENTS ON
PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND WEST 78TM
STREET.
Don Ashworth: The City Council acted to set this evening as the official time to consider putting into
effect a moratorium against various parcels within the downtown area. In staff's opinion, I think a
moratorium has, well tend to have a major goal that's trying to be accomplished but generally I've seen
very few of them actually accomplish that goal. And in fact in most instances create more harm than they
do help. I use the example of Highway 5 where we had looked at a moratorium and made a decision at that
point that if we simply pushed up the process and tried to put that item into a work session format. Try to
achieve the goals that the City Council was trying to achieve, that in fact could produce a better result than
putting through the moratorium itself. We made that decision. We did not put through the moratorium and
we did end up adopting what I think are some very strong development guidelines for that corridor. I
believe that this area can be, that we can plan for this area in a similar fashion without having to go
through a moratorium process. Accordingly staff would recommend that the Council not establish a
moratorium but instead to set out various work session dates, or to modify our work session agenda so as
to move this item within the very near future.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions at this point? I just have one. I'm assuming that the negativity of a
moratorium, the intent of a moratorium is to give a city time to plan and look at an area. At least that is
our intent. I'm assuming that the real negativity of a moratorium has to do with the time. How much time
is taken to do that. It's one thing if you have a 90 day moratorium. It's another thing if it's a whole year.
But if the City Council and staff moves with swiftness and does something in 90 days to 6 months, it
certainly doesn't have the negative effects.
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Don Ashworth: Well if you have some pending sales out there, you potentially may harm those, at least
I'm anticipating that's what you might hear when this item opens up because I've gotten a number of phone
calls from property owners in that area. The last time that we did this was in terms of convenience stores
where we had a number of like Holiday gas stations and they just kind of kept cropping up and cropping up
and the Council decided let's do a moratorium to study the desirability of convenience stores in the City.
Unfortunately, after extending it for, we went 6 months and then we extended it 6 months and really came
to this conclusion that we, as a City cannot really determine what type of services people either want to
provide or people want. And so actually we...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Peter: ... you get what you need and at the same time the interest of the property owners are protected and
respected by the City in this process. I don't have anything further to say at this point. I'd be happy to
answer your questions if you have.
Mayor Mancino: So Peter, you'd be willing, if we said we wanted to spend 90 days without putting a
moratorium on but really look at future land use, etc. to hold off and to do anything for 90 days.
Peter: I think that the property owners are prepared to try to cooperate with the City in that respect. The
90 day time frame is not something that we have specifically talked about but I, perhaps someone else will
have an interest in speaking. I'd be happy to check with my clients to see whether that's something that
they can accept, if that's acceptable to you Mayor.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
A1 Klingelhutz: I'm A1 Klingelhutz. I live at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and I'm here to represent St.
Hubert's Church and their property. Most of you heard what I had to say last Monday night at a working
session. I hate to repeat myself but I pretty much have to agree with Don about moratoriums. I was
Mayor of Chanhassen, on the City Council here for a time span on 12 years and we did have a moratorium
at one time and I think it caused us a lot more problems than what we accomplished and in the end it was a
lot like Don said. We were right back where we started again. I think a good planning session, like Don
recommended, over a period of time would be much more feasible. I don't quite agree with what your
attorney said. Yes, you can buy and sell any property on the moratorium but if the buyer has some other
plans for it, ... can't do it under the moratorium, it's definitely a cloud on the title and it's very possible
there could be a loss of sale, and that concerns us a lot, as I told you last week, because of the fact that we
are building a new church and school and monies from the present property that we own is going to be very
much needed in order to accomplish what we want to do. Thank you.
Dave Nickolay: My name is Dave Nickolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle here in Chanhassen. I'm here
also representing St. Hubert's. I work closely with A1 and a couple other members of the parish on a
committee that's involved in the transition of the existing property and not to restate what A1 and the others
have said but we don't believe that a moratorium is necessary. We are willing as a committee to work with
you, the Council or you representatives and we will give you all the time that we possibly can. Whether
that's in a 90 day period or whatever, to help determine what the area should be zoned for or designed for
and used for ultimately. We agree with the staff's recommendation that it won't require a moratorium to
do this. I think it's just a matter of cooperating and you will get St. Hubert's full cooperation and I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Dave?
Dave Nickolay: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: We're looking for people to come up who won't cooperate and tell us.
Tom Kowzinski: I don't want to be the first. My name is Tom Kowzinski. I'm here as the President of the
Housing Board for the American Legion Post 580. We are, as a Legion and as an entity in Chanhassen are
interested in looking at the Kenny's property as a possible site for the Legion operation. As you know our
property has been up for sale for quite a while. We have an interested buyer. We have a few problems to
iron out but the Kenny's property is being looked at as a real viable option. Now while a moratorium
doesn't necessarily preclude the sale of the property, it does affect the use and we would have to transfer
the Legion operation, liquor license, breakfast operation if the members so moved, and basically I'm here to
encourage the Board to go along with Don's recommendation that no moratorium be put on the property.
That's basically all I have to say. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer.
Councilman Berquist: I've got one. One quick one. I'm not certain that you can answer it but there was, a
couple of years ago when Pauly's was looking for a site, they had explored the purchase of the Kenny
property and this may be, well anyway. At that time there was a lot of dissension from the surrounding
neighborhoods regarding the location of that particular business to a site that was contiguous to St.
Hubert's property. Right across the street but yet there was a bit of an uproar as I recall. Tell me how you
see the, I mean I understand that St. Hubert's is moving, changing sites.
Mayor Mancino: But another church may come in.
Councilman Berquist: Another church may very well come in. Hopefully that's what happens. How does
the Legion see itself as differing from the other use?
Tom Kowzinski: Well first of all, I wasn't involved with the discussions as far as Pauly's moving across
the street into the Kenny's property at that time. I think the owners of the property are here. They may be
able to shed some light on that. The big difference I think is that the Pauly's operation was an on/off sale
liquor business and it was a public bar. The Legion operation is a private club. The liquor license that the
Legion holds is quite different from what would be considered a liquor store type of an operation so I think
there's a big difference there. The Legion itself has been active in the community as far as raising funds
and distributing funds from the gambling, you know the charitable gambling fund for different programs
within the city and I think, I would hope that the surrounding neighbors would look at us in a lot different
light than just the regular bar type of an operation. We do provide a meeting place for certain
organizations in town. We would wish to continue to do that. You know we've basically outgrown the
building that we're in and to pursue doing anything on that site I think has been looked at by the members
as probably not the best alternative. As far as any conflicts with, if a church moves in next door, again
we're basically a civic minded organization which is different. Our operation I think over the years, I don't
believe that there's been hardly any, if any, problems with intoxicated people and that type of stuff down at
the Legion. I don't know of any myself and I've been a member there for, oh I don't know, about 10-15
years. This is all, you know, this is my own personal view I guess. I can't speak for the members because
the members have to vote on anything but you know we're just looked at I think in a little different light
than the Pauly's operation would be looked at.
10
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And number one, you'd need to get a liquor license. Secondly, would you, as we took the
time and did some design standards and you were to go in and want to retrofit and redo the building, you
would wait until the design standards had been set?
Tom Kowzinski: I don't, we've already looked at the property a few times and I don't believe that there
would be any desire on the Legion's part to do anything to the outside of the building. It would be strictly
inside. You know the portion of the building that we're thinking about moving the Legion operation into is
currently the school section and the remaining two other sections. One which is leased would remain as is,
as the cleaners, and there's one other parcel that is, or one other piece that's used by Westwood Church and
we don't really know what's going to happen there but nothing to the outside of the building at all. It
would be strictly inside. As far as a 90 day, I don't believe that we'd have a problem with that. It's
probably going to take us that long or longer to do anything anyway. Everything has to be proposed to the
general members and has to be voted on. We as an entity, as the Housing Corporation, can't make a
unilateral decision. It all has to be voted on and that takes time. The 90 days I don't think is going to
bother us at all.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Tom Kowzinski: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Peter: Madam Mayor and members of the Council. I also have checked with my clients and the 90 day
period would work just fine from their standpoint as well. You'd have our commitment to cooperate with
the City during the schedule.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. That would be 90 days starting May 1st. I want to be real.
A1 Klingelhutz: Well you said you wanted somebody else to say they would cooperate with the City. I'm
part owner in a piece of property that's on this list. I'm sure, I don't know if Jack is here or not. Oh, there
he is. I'm sure that within 90 days if something came up we would be very willing to cooperate. And
Gerry Schlenk is still out in California and him and I own that piece of railroad property which by the way
wasn't on the list. I don't think you knew anything about that.
Mayor Mancino: We'll get it on the list. Thanks for telling us. We've got it on tape now.
A1 Klingelhutz: But I can assure you that Gerry and I will cooperate with you on that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Don Ashworth: Mayor? I did receive a call today from Gerry Schlenk who asked that I relay his desire
that the City Council not establish the moratorium and I can assure you that 90 days will not bother him
because he's not.
Mayor Mancino: He's not here.
Don Ashworth: Well...
11
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Mancino: Comments from Council members.
Councilman Senn: Before we have comments, a procedural question if I could. I noticed in the notices that
the notices were only sent to the property owners. Is that proper?
Roger Knutson: Councilmember, what we're talking about is, under State law is called an interim
ordinance, as you know. An interim ordinance is not an amendment to your zoning ordinance so there are
no ordinance requirements for public hearings or statutory requirements for public hearings so anything the
City would do is over and above what was required.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So the public hearing technically wasn't required.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. It was not required.
Councilman Senn: Alright. That answers the question.
Mayor Mancino: We were doing it just so we could hear from everyone. Comments Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess when push comes to shove you can sit and debate a moratorium a lot one
way or the other. You know to me I think the issue here is more being up front with people and telling
them that we see effectively a large opportunity, a potential opportunity here for the City and it's simply
not going to be something that follows the normal course. You know if you take all these, I mean it gets
real confusing when you start taking all the parcels involved. First the City spends millions to buy one
parcel which was a liquor store and bar and restaurant because they were by a church. Now the church is
leaving. You know well now the church is leaving, the shopping center across the street, which is currently
occupied by the church, will also be vacating. It's you know the pivotal piece of ground in relationship to
that end of the city in my eyes right now is the church piece of property. What happens with that under the
normal process is yes, I mean it could be very easily be left in church use. I think if it's going to be in any
use other than church, I think it's going to involve a great deal of discussion as well as planning and I'd
rather not see that planning be reactive to a proposal. I'd rather see it be up front telling people here's what
the City's desires are and what they'd like to see in relationship to that area. You know what happens on
the church parcel's going to have a lot to dictate basically with what happens with the other area, or the
other surrounding parcels.
Mayor Mancino: And let me ask you this, because I agree completely and I want to be proactive and I
want to plan for this area that's having some turnover and, but we do have, and I think that we should
contact every property owner in the area and tell them exactly what we are doing.
Councilman Senn: Fine, and that's one of the things that concerns me. I mean there's a lot of
apprehension Mayor out there now I think from people in the neighborhood wondering what's going to
happen with St. Hubert's. All they know if St. Hubert's is moving. That's all any of us know. None of us
are privy one way or another to what you know potential buyers there are or potential uses those buyers are
suggesting or whatever. There's, I mean anybody who's looking to effectively redevelop or change the use
12
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
on the property you know is going to have to make an application to the City which is going to take, on a
conservative basis, you know I mean more than 6 months. I'm sorry. You know to simply process through
and I mean and I think our history would dictate that very well. And so I mean I don't, I guess I don't see
all the, I mean I don't look at it as more time as simply being a negative instrument. I look at it as more of
an instrument which yes, can be viewed negatively but it could also be viewed positively and it could also
be viewed effectively as a notice, a legal notice to everybody effectively that the City you know, wants to
take a step back. Look at what we're going to do out there, or what we'd like to see out there. Again, I
mean our controls on that are somewhat limited. Again, if the church wants to sell it to another church,
same use or whatever, I mean that's the process. They can go along with that or even becoming involved.
But at the same time that they're starting their process to maybe do that or maybe not do that, which is also
a possibility, we should be starting a process to deal with it if it's not going to be a church property. And I
think everybody will be more uncomfortable if we wait to do that when something's on the table 3 or 6
months from now.
Mayor Mancino: Oh I agree. I agree.
Councilman Senn: And they're saying now why are you doing to the City.
Mayor Mancino: No, if we're going to do it, we're going to do it now.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think if we're going to do it, we should be doing it again up front. You know
be forthright about it and say here's our intention.
Mayor Mancino: And I very much agree with that intent. I'm just kind of waffling between making it a
legal moratorium or not. Councilman Mason. I'm sorry, are you done?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Mason: I was part of the looking to have a moratorium along Highway 5 or not and in fact
when it first came out I very strongly supported it. Subsequently I voted against the moratorium for a
number of the reasons that have been stated. My understanding of this moratorium is that it originally was
going to be put in place because of the Pauly's property and what should happen there. And then it, after
discussion was decided that well maybe it should be enlarged to cover the surrounding areas. The ex-
Pauly's property being in the domain of HRA, which is soon to be an economic development authority, will
be in control of City Council so I don't see that as a threat to the needs of the city. I think we've served
notice tonight to anyone that is considering doing any, buying or selling in that area, that we are taking a
very close look at it and what will we want because it is a rather pivotal place in downtown Chanhassen. It
will need to be well done. We put the Highway 5 task force on the fast track and it took 2 years. No, it
wasn't quite that long but it was a very monumental project.
Mayor Mancino: Now wait. We have a good start on this one.
Councilman Mason: Hey, I was with you all the way on that Nancy. The bottom line for me is we had a
number of people looking at multi-million dollar projects that when they realized that no. We could have
done a moratorium. We chose not to. We need to develop the area right. They were very responsive to the
needs of Chanhassen and I, yeah. We're leaving the door open a little bit here but what I'm hearing from
13
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
all the people involved is that they are willing to wait at least 90 days before anything happens and they're
willing to work with the City. I'm comfortable with that.
Mayor Mancino: Roger, may I ask you a question. If at any time during this time period, this 90 days and
we put it out there and we don't do a moratorium. If we wanted to enact a moratorium at any point, we can
do that?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So if somebody doesn't want to work with us we can. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I think that given the past that Mike just rehashed for us, we can accomplish what we
want without the formal moratorium and that's really what we are after is to get the Pauly site and preserve
that. I have one other matter on that and that is, while the Legion may not want to make any changes in the
property across the street, the old Kenny's, the City may desire that and I don't know if we can do that or
not. But we may want to move the building. We may want to make that part of a park. I don't know. I'm
just throwing that out there. I want it to be thought of but I don't want to do a moratorium if everybody
will cooperate as they have in the past and we can accomplish what we want without any problems. It
sounds like we can and we have so. I'd like to put it off.., don't want to go with a moratorium for now.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well originally when this idea was brought up I really, I thought it was a great idea
and I still do. I think for us as a City Council to take a look at what that portion of Chanhassen is to
become down the road is very important. To me, when I was a kid I used to drive through that area. That
was Chanhassen. I rode my motorcycle through there mostly. When I moved here 10 years ago it was,
that was Chanhassen. Quite honestly the, that St. Hubert's Church to me is Chanhassen and we've simply
expanded out radially from there. I have a very difficult time separating church and state. I'm a St.
Hubert's member and I have a vested interest in what goes on with the St. Hubert's community. But I also
have a very vested interest in what happens in the city and trying to maintain some semblance of the city's
history. The City is an interesting way to talk about everybody that's here and everybody that's not here.
It sounds like this separate entity and it's not. We're, the idea to try and put the property in some type of
protective custody was done for the betterment of everybody in the town. Not so that we could necessarily
dictate what does and doesn't happen because of our own desires. I too though believe that a moratorium,
a formal moratorium at this time would probably be counter productive. I do think that we need to really
figure out what the old Kenny's site becomes. If the Legion were to purchase the site and come to us, I
honestly look at the Legion as a very core group of Chanhassen residents that do a tremendous amount of
good for the community at large. The, I should probably end that there. I think the issues can be worked
through without a formal moratorium. Everybody has said that they'd be willing to go under a 90 day time
frame. If in fact they want to go under a 90 day time frame before we can come to some kind of agreement,
there's absolutely no reason for us to put it in legalese. It's a gentlemen's and gentlewomen's
understanding that 90 days from now we'll have some idea as to where we want to go, and I think that's
great. I think that's what we need to do.
Mayor Mancino: I think that also works with me, and in fact I've talked to Planning Director to put this on
the fast track so that we can be very focused, and be proactive and let people know, and hopefully get a lot
of public input on that area because so many of us, and we've gotten several letters as Councilmembers.
So much of the community cares about it and so we would like to, as the process goes on, hear from you
14
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
and what you'd like to see happen to it. But I very specifically want to be very forthright and say we're
going to take this time and do it and we'd like you to work with us during that time period. And I guess
that's it. May I have a motion then. Do we need a motion?
Roger Knutson: If you don't desire to do anything on the moratorium, you can just let it slide.
Mayor Mancino: Well I think the consensus here is that we don't. We certainly, and I think a lot of it has
to do with all of you coming tonight and giving us the support that, or giving it to the city to do some good
proactive planning and how important it is to us. So thank you. We appreciate your support and
supporting us for taking the time to do it.
A1 Klingelhutz: We'd like to thank the Mayor and the Council people for listening to us and I think you
came up with a very good decision and I can assure you that we'll give you all the support we can. But let
us know when you're going to have these working sessions so that we can be involved and I think that's
going to be a big part of solving any problems that we've got. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Good, thank you.
UPDATE ON U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CARRIER ANNEX.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the Council. As a part of your packet materials there's a letter from
one of my partners, Tom Scott, explaining where we're at with this matter. The weather station, excuse
me, the Postal Service is willing to build the berm and the fencing and the landscaping as it goes past their
property but not as it goes past the weather station property. That is official where we're at and we're still
working on it trying to get the post office to reconsider their decision on the other part of the property and
we're looking at other avenues as well. That's where we stand. If there's questions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and that is not a formal decision, written decision at this point?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there any comments?
Councilman Berquist: I've just got, Tom has been talking with them? Mr. Scott has been talking?
Roger Knutson: That's right. Tom has.
Councilman Berquist: Any rationale for the reluctance to take responsibility for the recommendations
made by their own sound engineer?
Roger Knutson: It's not on their property.
Councilman Berquist: That's it?
Roger Knutson: That's it.
Mayor Mancino: I don't think that it has gone to the higher up's in the Postal Service yet.
15
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Not talking to the right people yet?
Mayor Mancino: Anyone here tonight wishing to address the Council on this issue? Okay. Seeing none
we will move onto the next new business.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS
AT 7660 QUATTRO DRIVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE 3m~ ADDITION; AND SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR A 135 FT. AND 76 FT. MONOPOLE TOWER, 12' X 24' EQUIPMENT
BUILDING AND A 6 FT. CHAIN LINK FENCE; U.S. WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP, INC.
AND AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM.
Mayor Mancino: With that I'm going to make a motion myself, with some information that I have and let
me tell you how I'll be doing this. We will open this up for a public hearing but first I'm going to make a
motion and get a second from the Council and listen to Councilmen's comments on my motion. Then I'll
open it for public comment. And lastly, we as a City Council will vote on the motion. So please listen to
my motion. And there's two parts to this motion. APT shall locate their antennas on... communication and
the City Council authorizes our City Attorney to enter into a lease agreement, with our final approval, with
U.S. West on the City owned water tower in downtown Chanhassen. May I have a second to that motion?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Mancino: Comments from Council members on that motion and then we'll open it for a public
hearing.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm glad that it's being resolved in the manner that it's being resolved, for the
time being. The concern that I have, number one is that at some point in time I had asked about the City of
Chanhassen water tower. Whether or not that could be used and I was told by someone that there was too
much clutter so it was impractical for it's use as a tower site. I don't know who or why or when I was told
that but I do remember being told it. I'm glad that it was not right. I'm also very glad that we're
continuing to negotiate with the City of, or APT is continuing to negotiate with the City of Eden Prairie for
construction of a tower on their water tower site. The concern that I have insofar as that this legislation
that enacted construction of these towers is recently, recently in terms of laws, come into effect, is that we
have no idea how many of these towers are going to be created as a result of the Federal
Telecommunications Act. We have no idea how many sites we're going to be requested to approve. All we
can do in the process is develop an ordinance that's structured to allow these things to go on areas. Once
those areas become built, other options are going to have to be looked at and those other options may very
well by necessity have to abut neighborhoods. When this thing originally, did you ask for questions or
comments?
Mayor Mancino: Short comments.
Councilman Berquist: When this thing originally came to the, came to us, I asked whether or not the
applicant had looked at the Eden Prairie water tower site. The applicant at that time didn't know. Then I
went further and asked about some buildings that were directly east of the proposed site, which at that time
was Lotus Lawn and Garden and the old West 78th Street office site. The applicant didn't know at that
point either. Come to find out that the sites that I specifically asked about, including the water tower, had
been denied by City of Eden Prairie, for some reason. Another case of not talking to the right individual.
And then a couple of other businesses.
16
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: We're all learning.
Councilman Berquist: We are all learning.
Mayor Mancino: In setting policy.
Councilman Berquist: In setting policy. What I find interesting though, and I talked to a gentleman today
about this, is that we can set parameters for where these things can be located. But if the landowners say
they don't want them located there, for whatever reason, the only choice that the applicants have is to move
onto the next site. That next site may or may not negatively effect homeowners, businesses, whatever, but
the only choice that they have is to move onto the next site. So when this comes up again there are
additional sites in that area that would be less, that would affect the neighborhood in Eden Prairie less and I
would suggest that pressure be put to bear on those businesses, as well as the City Council that's making
the decision. Because if in fact there's a better site than 7600 Quattro and someone has said no, for
whatever arbitrary reason, that isn't necessarily the right decision and perhaps we're not talking to the right
person. And by us I mean us or residents that are directly affected. I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I think Steve pretty much covered most of it, which is typical. I would just like to add
that, as Steve said there's no guarantee we won't have to give further permits out. I would like to see all
public utilities used to the maximum extent possible, and that goes for Chanhassen as well as Eden Prairie.
Whether it has to be power lines. Existing poles, which there are plenty of around there, or water towers, it
still, even though we've been dealing with this for many, many weeks, it's not clear to me why we can't go
halfway up that water tower with the short use antennas. And I would encourage you residents to push
these issues with your City Council in Eden Prairie so that you get the maximum use out of that water
tower. We'll do the same with ours I'm sure because everybody would like to keep them off and away
from residential property as much as we can. So we've got to learn how to use these public utilities to the
maximum extent possible and I don't think that's happening. In any city property so, I just want to add
that on the record.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. First of all I'd like to thank the applicants for their continuing flexibility in
this. It's nice to work with a group of people that will say okay, let's see what else we can figure out.
That's always nice to, I mean in any situation. I'd also like to thank the numerous Eden Prairie residents
who called me. I talked at length with a number of them and for the most part, even though we may, and I
stress the word may, have disagreed, we had fairly amiable and amicable discussions. I got a couple of
letters that were, and they're copies so I'm sure the rest of Council did too, that were threatening. Just, you
know when I want to get something done with somebody I tend to be as polite as I possibly can and at some
point agree that we maybe disagree. Those letters I got that were definitely threatening, that were, certainly
nothing prejurous or anything like that but used language that certainly didn't win your points. I hope
those people re-think how they deal with human beings. The other point I'd like to make is, are some of the
comments about border wars that I've heard. Both my wife and I teach in Eden Prairie. I go to Eden
Prairie. I still would whether that tower went up or not and I'd like to think people from Eden Prairie
would too. I think ultimately this is a case of people working together to try to solve the problem.
Hopefully this will solve the problem. All of us are caught in this Telecommunications Act of 1996 that I
17
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
would argue was passed without a whole lot of knowledge of a whole lot of people and I think perhaps the
issue is not city politics here but an issue greater than that. And I hope this works out the way it's planned.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Any comments?
Councilman Senn: I'm on the end. I'll pass.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Don, do you want to give an update?
Don Ashworth: I did talk with Carl Julie, Eden Prairie City Manager late this afternoon. He informed me
that the agreement with APT was very close to being finalized and the few items that were left on that, he
didn't see a real problem with.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I'd like to go ahead and open this now for public hearing. I don't
think I need a motion on this one so anyone wishing to address the City Council at this point, please give
your name and address. Any remarks. The applicants? Either applicant here.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, Peter Coyle, Larkin-Hoffman here tonight on behalf
of APT. First of all let me indicate to the Council and to the community that we have been pleased to
cooperate with the City in trying to find a resolution to these tower siting questions. I live in a community
too and I understand the concern that you have and that the citizens of your community and Eden Prairie
have as it relates to possible imposition of a tower in their neighborhood, and if it's not a tower it's some
other kind of use that wasn't there yesterday and therefore somehow it's objectionable and that's just the
nature of human beings. I accept that. We do appreciate the willingness of the Council to bring this matter
back before you this evening. We were before the Planning Commission earlier, as you know, and we
continue to stand by the application as it's been submitted to you. Madam Mayor, could I ask you to
repeat, just for my edification, the substance of your motion because I think I support it but I want to make
sure. Not that I get to vote but just as a matter of curiosity I think I support it but I would like to make
sure I understand it because I may have an objection to one part of it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then you'll have to deal with our City Attorney on that part. Your part of the
motion Peter is APT will locate their antennas on the Eden Prairie water tower on Dell Road. They can
locate on the 7660 Quattro Drive site subject to not consummating a resolution with Eden Prairie. And that
approval for the Quattro location is subject to consideration of the City Council approving a site plan.
Peter Coyle: I thought I heard that correctly. I like the first part of it a lot. A couple of questions then. Is
the site plan review process intended to require formal consideration by Planning Commission and Council?
Or would this be handled on an administrative basis?
Roger Knutson: It would come back to the City Council. Directly.
Mayor Mancino: But not to the Planning Commission.
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Peter Coyle: And what would be the time frame that the City would impose on this requirement?
18
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Roger Knutson: Mr. Coyle, the idea here frankly is that rather than spending a great deal of time reviewing
site plan conditions, which hopefully will not be necessary because you will be someplace else. Not you
personally. It's a way of expeditiously dealing with the matter and if any details need to be worked out
with, rather than sit here and spend a lot of painstaking time on it, it will come back here if that's
necessary. And just one other point so we're clear. The condition of approval would be an inability to
enter into a reasonable lease agreement with Eden Prairie, and there's so many leases out there now that we
can really pretty well judge what's reasonable. So only one person can't put a hammer over the other one's
head.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, Mr. Knutson, thanks for that explanation. First of all I made this comment at
the Planning Commission meeting and I will say it again since this is a public hearing. APT has committed
to try to go on the Eden Prairie water tower if it's feasible to do so. We had.., could have resolved the lease
negotiations by now and quite frankly I'm disappointed that that didn't happen. Having said that I have an
obligation to my client to try to protect their interest in this process and we've certainly been pleased to try
to accommodate the City's scheduling concerns and I must respectfully object to that portion of the motion
which imposes a new approval process on APT at this late date, after we have really bent over backwards
to accommodate the City's desire to slow it down a little bit. I would say respectfully that I don't think the
City has authority to legally impose that new requirement on APT at this time. Secondly, I would just note
for the record as well that the statutory review time period has lapsed as of today. Based on the voluntary
extension that APT granted the last time this was before you and so I do respectfully object to that aspect
of the motion which would seek to impose that new requirement on APT because I think quite frankly it's
illegal. What I would suggest as an alternative for your consideration Madam Mayor is the following. We
would ask for your approval of the CUP this evening. We believe we have already submitted the site plan
and that it's been reviewed and accepted by your staff based on our conversations with them up to this
point. What we would suggest then is that the applicant, presuming that you're inclined to do so, gain
approval of the CUP this evening but you will have our commitment on the record this evening to basically
take no action on perfecting the CUP by seeking a building permit from the City until we can get ourselves
a little bit more time to work with the City of Eden Prairie on the finalization of the lease. And here's why
I say this. Because if the City adopts the resolution that's before you this evening, we'd fall into a brand
new time cycle that's going to be dictated by the speed with which Eden Prairie desires to try to
consummate the lease with us. There will be no time constraints. The City will kick off a brand new cycle
of delays and reviews and question and hemming and hawing and meanwhile the applicant that has played
by the rules will be the one that is forced to bear that responsibility and I think quite frankly that's beyond
being unfair. I think it's inappropriate to ask that at this date. So you would have our commitment to
cooperate with the City and to continue to work forthrightly with the City of Eden Prairie to try to
consummate the lease, but we would like approval of the CUP this evening as proposed, but we would also
like not to have to come back before the Council for the, I think fifth, or fifth or sixth time that we would be
before a City body for this application. I don't think that that's necessary. I don't think it will serve a
purpose. But you will have our cooperation that we will not attempt to obtain a building permit for let's
say a reasonable period of time.., whatever would be acceptable to the City under that circumstance.
Roger Knutson: And that's really the Council's call. I mean you could delegate to staff site plan approval
based upon any comments you want to make.
Councilman Berquist: May I ask a question?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
19
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Coyle. This may be a bit sensitive but what issues are holding up the
agreement? You know if you choose to refrain because of negotiations, please feel free to but I wonder if
perhaps knowledge of them may not be beneficial.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Berquist. I will not comment on the specifics because that
is a private contractual matter. You can assume that they are the typical kinds of issues that one gets into
when you're trying to acquire space on a public facility. You've probably undoubtedly reviewed and
approved countless leases involving public space and they translate into money. They translate into
accessibility. They translate into kinds of liability and damage questions. That if something gets damaged
accidentally or otherwise, who bears the responsibility? And the methodology whereby upgrades to the
system can be made in a timely manner. But I believe that all of the issues that are central to the lease are
on the table and I believe that the parties are working in good faith to try to consummate the lease and we
certainly continue to take the view that that's our preferred location, as it has been so these many months.
Councilman Berquist: So is it fair to say that these are issues that have been addressed successfully in a
number of different communities in the metro area?
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, Councilmember, I believe the answer is yes to that but I will look over to Mr.
Barstow who is with me as the project manager and he indicates through a gesture that that's the case.
That these are resolvable issues.
Councilman Berquist: Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, Councilman, I'll just point out. Like in the last 18 months or so our office alone
has done 20 cell tower leases or so.
Mayor Mancino: And they're all about the same.
Roger Knutson: You fuss with the, well it's more than fussing.
Mayor Mancino: That's legal talk.
Roger Knutson: There are lots of forms to choose from, let's put it that way.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, I would echo Mr. Knutson's comments. APT has 120 locations currently
established in this marketplace with a desire to have a good number more. But where there is good faith
present on the part of both parties, it is not so difficult to reach closure and we believe that we are going
down that path. And I think the support of the residents who are here this evening to try to see that that
happens, couldn't hurt. As I say, we had hoped that it would have been done by now. It's unfortunate that
it's not.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Engel: I have one. I realize Mr. Coyle you may not be able to comment because of the
negotiations but would it be appropriate for the people here from Eden Prairie to attend their next Council
meeting and ask the same question that Steve just asked and get the answer from their Council at that
meeting?
2O
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Yes, don't answer that question please. Okay. Obviously it is and obviously they'll be
there. Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Good idea.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: No, no questions but I would like to move to amend your motion. Striking the part of
the motion regarding it to come back for site plan review. My reason is quite honestly I agree with Mr.
Coyle's comments. We've made a commitment to him in the past in terms of stretching this thing out and I
don't think it was ever our intention to you know start new time cycle running. Effectively guaranteed not
to do that and I think if we're going to effectively go ahead on the basis that we've indicated in the past to
get this matter resolved, I think in keeping with that we need to effectively pass your motion tonight but not
inject that new condition.
Mayor Mancino: Let me talk a little further on that, and that is, that's fine with me as long as it can be
done administratively. The Mayor of Eden Prairie and I went out to the location and where the site was
originally we felt could be moved to the south, and I don't think that you would have a problem if that came
up to moving it to the south. Obviously you would have to look at the location but there certainly is enough
land there and could be further away from the property line. So that is specifically what we're asking. If
you would take that into account. Again have the monopole, I mean everything would stay the same but
moving it.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, subject to the cooperation of the property owner we certainly are prepared to
try to accommodate that.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: I believe that Bob had relayed a couple of other conditions. In addition to moving it to the
south we wanted to see a plan that would show any type of clear cutting that may occur on the property so
we want to make sure that the least amount of trees as possible are removed. The same thing with the
location of the structure.
Mayor Mancino: Equipment building?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, Mr. Ashworth. On the last point. APT, unlike the cellular companies,
doesn't build masonry structures. We use instead metal utility boxes, which you're familiar with for NSP
or some of the other public utilities. So you won't see our facilities designed with that kind of end use in
mind. It's not to say that some other potential co-locater in the future, if the tower actually were built,
wouldn't require that but that's not our model and that's not the kind of equipment requirement that we
have.
Don Ashworth: Well the condition was really one just to assure that we not only identify the trees out
there. Identified the ones that would be required to be removed because of the construction of the tower or
access. And that you literally reassure staff that that is the least number of trees possible.
21
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, Mr. Ashworth, we certainly will cooperate with your staff on trying to do
that.
Don Ashworth: Bob, was there another condition?
Mayor Mancino: I think just making sure it was co-locatable.
Bob Generous: Yeah, co-location and that if it's so designed that if the second user would come in, that
their structure would be located north of the tower.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Peter Coyle: Say it again please?
Bob Generous: Well you have it in the staff. The tower site shall be relocated to the southwest comer of
the site and be arranged such that any enclosed building structures shall be located on the north side of the
tower.
Peter Coyle: I understood that, okay. I thought he meant a new.
Mayor Mancino: So you'll work with staff on that. Thank you Peter. Okay.
Peter Coyle: Any other questions I can respond to, otherwise.
Mayor Mancino: Then I will feel comfortable amending the motion and will state the motion again, okay.
Thank you.
Councilman Senn: So I need to second it and then we need to vote on the amendment first before we go any
further. No, we have to do that before we continue the hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Just one second. We'll go ahead and we'll amend the motion and then get a second on it.
So APT shall locate their antennas on the Eden Prairie water tower on Dell Road. They can locate on the
7660 Quattro Drive site subject to not consummating a resolution with Eden Prairie and that approval for
the Quattro site.
Councilman Senn: Is contingent upon staff's recommendation.
Mayor Mancino: Is contingent upon staff's recommendation and approval. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. We'll go ahead with the public hearing.
Glen Soller: Hi, my name is Glen Soller. I am a resident of 18808 Twilight Trail in Eden Prairie. I'm
losing my voice so please excuse me. First of all before I begin I want to just thank a lot of people who
have been active in this process. The representatives of the APT, the City Council of Chanhassen and I
know Mayor Mancino came out to meet with us the first time during a Gophers game and that's a very
difficult thing to do when they're in the NCAA tournament. I appreciate your time and the Council's time.
22
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
The Council of Eden Prairie and also the city managers and attorneys of both cities. More importantly I'd
like to thank my neighbors. I've not been as active in this as they have. The Millers, the Tims, the Macks
and I'm sure I'm missing a few others who spent a lot of time working on this issue. I do appreciate the
spirit of the motion that you have put before us. The spirit being, trying to get the tower located on the
Eden Prairie water tower as opposed to built on the Quattro site. But as was discussed earlier in some of
the downtown Chanhassen issues, I guess I still have an overriding concern of one, you are approving that
site. Despite the spirit, which again I appreciate, you are approving that site. Second of all, as mentioned,
you want to be forthright and honest and open about the long term use of the land and I know that site, I'm
relatively new. Only 3 years in the area and that land has been debated for quite some time as I understand
it, but I guess I would ask the Council what are the long term intentions there. Even if we were to move
these particular towers to a different site, like we've talked about, there are other towers that may come in
and when I read through some of the Minutes of your own meetings you talk about how there has been
quotes of these things being blights on neighborhoods or not aesthetically pleasing to neighborhoods. And
Chanhassen, as a resident who's going to possibly see one of these looking out my front door, I agree. I
don't know that they're exactly the nice things to look at. There's a temporary tower there right now and in
the spring and summer it's only 60 feet tall, it may not be an issue but in the winter and at 135 feet it's
definitely going to be an issue. I think that this city should work with Eden Prairie, as they have been, to
try and define how they want to use that site. Long term we're hoping that this particular issue gets settled
but long term how we're going to work together as neighbors to make sure that both the industrial, the
needs of Chanhassen and the community that neighbors you are working together to make sure that all
parties are accommodated as we have in this issue worked diligently to try and make that. One final point
is, although we may not be residents of Chanhassen and we don't officially vote for this City Council and
we don't work, necessarily work or live in this city, I did a quick study. I'm one of those people that uses
Quicken a lot to do my accounting and of my day to day household expenses, well over 50% are spent on
Chanhassen businesses. And so I guess I feel I'm a part of this community and I would just like that we
work together as communities and I would ask that you not pass this motion despite the spirit. I still have
to be concerned that it is being approved, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Randy Legal: Good evening. I too would like to thank everyone.
Mayor Mancino: Could you please give your name and address.
Randy Legal: I'm sorry. My name is Marty Legal. I live at 18455 Twilight Trail. I too would like to
thank everyone who's been involved, but I have a favor to ask I guess. If you vote this resolution in tonight
you're taking the pressure off both cities and as an Eden Prairie resident I am telling you that we need to
keep the pressure up on Eden Prairie to get this done. It's been in negotiations for over a week. It's not
moving anywhere. The same issues that they just supplied a few minutes ago were the same issues... If you
pass this this evening, it takes the pressure off the telecommunication companies from going ahead and
trying to finish out the negotiations. It also takes the pressure off Eden Prairie in my opinion, because it's
in their best interest to just let it go where it's going to go. I don't believe they're actually negotiating with
an intent to try and get it done. I'd like to believe they are but I don't believe it. While in the last week I've
talked to a couple of attorneys about this and one of the things they talked to me about was whether or not
we would lose any value to our property. That's one of the things that they thought would be a way we
could use some legal influence on this process. I have contacted attorneys and we are ready to go forward
if we have to but I thought I'd read this into the Minutes. This is from some of the local real estate
companies in town here. What they thought of this tower going in and what it would do to property values
23
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
in our neighborhood. And if you look back at your Minutes over the last few months you'll see that one of
the things you addressed over the months were what it would do to property values in Chanhassen
neighborhoods having this tower. We're, as a lot of my neighbors have said, we kind of feel like we're
Chanhassen residents as well as Eden Prairie residents, because we do most of our shopping down the
block. This particular one is from a Chuck Abramson who happens to be a sales manager with Bumet
Realty. He says in my opinion the addition of a communications tower which would be in direct view of an
existing home would most definitely have an adverse affect on that property's value. As an example, two
identical homes who are priced the same and one faced the tower and the other one did not, a buyer would
certainly prefer the home with the unobstructed view. The second home would need to be priced
somewhere between 3% and 5% less. I have another one from a Pam Erickson who is also a realtor here in
this area. Her estimate is a little higher, or actually about 5% I guess is where she thinks we're going to
lose. All and all in a $200,000.00-$225,000.00, because here we're talking $5,000.00 to $10,000.00,
maybe and more on some of the bigger homes in that area. And so I think you really are going to have an
affect if you allow this tower to go in. I need to have the pressure kept on Eden Prairie to go on the water
tower. That's acceptable to the neighborhood and I would appreciate your tabling this motion, if you can
in any way, and let it go for another couple weeks. Long enough to see if these negotiations can be
consummated. If not, it will be the neighborhood's decision I guess on whether or not they want to go on
and try to press some legal action trying to stop it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay Randy, I can answer that, or our attorney can answer you tonight as to whether we
can table it. What we can do.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the Council. We do not have the luxury of tabling this tonight.
Under State law we have 120 days to act. We've gotten an extension to bring us to this point. We either
approve it tonight or deny it tonight or it's approved tomorrow morning automatically. And if it's
approved tomorrow morning automatically, there will not be any conditions attached to that approval. It's
just approved.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Randy Legal: Well again, anything you can do.
Mayor Mancino: I understand your concern and I have talked to your Mayor twice today.
Randy Legal: I understand.
Steven Miller: My name is Steven Miller. I live at 18904 Twilight Trail, which is in the same
neighborhood as the others. I'd like to, not to repeat what Mr. Stoller said about the spirit of the
agreement, but also I'd ask that you consider the message that you send to neighboring communities. As
you look at the map on the wall and there are several pointed pieces that stick into other communities and I
think if you look at the location of where this tower would be, it's kind of in the farthest northeast comer of
Chanhassen and this is something I think that we've heard over and over again. It's going to be around for
a while in terms of decisions to make about towers and I think the message that you send to neighboring
communities may affect how difficult it is in the future to try to get these things approved. As people, I
don't think people in neighboring communities understand what a dead zone is. Instead they just look and
see that that's one little portion that sticks into Eden Prairie and that's where Chanhassen wants to put a
tower, perhaps their border is in jeopardy also so I'd ask you to consider not only the spirit but also the
message that you're sending to neighboring communities. I have a couple of questions that I was hoping
24
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
you could answer for me as a City Council. The first question was, the Planning Commission has, I don't
know how that recommendation is made but there was a Planning Commission meeting just prior to the
City Council meeting and yet I don't know if that's just handed to you on a piece of paper or what the
recommendation is or if someone actually gets up and talks and I was wondering if you could help me
understand what that process is.
Mayor Mancino: Well most of the time we don't have Planning Commission right before a City Council
meeting and that is communicated from our staff to the City Council.
Steven Miller: So you've been communicated to tonight about what the decision was out of the Planning
Commission?
Mayor Mancino: No we have not.
Steven Miller: My next question is, the Way Tech site, my understanding from the Planning Commission.
I've had several conversations with folks on the Planning Commission. My understanding is that the Way
Tek site was not selected as a high priority site. It wasn't even selected by the Planning Commission but
instead was selected some other way.
Mayor Mancino: The City Council selected it.
Steven Miller: So the City Council approached Way Tek, is that true? The City Council.
Mayor Mancino: No, we approached the applicant and asked them to talk to different land owners in that
area.
Steven Miller: So the City Council didn't approach Way Tek?
Mayor Mancino: No.
Steven Miller: Okay. My next question is, does Chanhassen have a strategic plan for placement of towers
in the City of Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: We have an ordinance.
Steven Miller: And my last question is there, if the motion can't be tabled and it can't be denied, if it's
going to be approved tomorrow, basically what you're saying, the only condition tonight is that these
conditions can be put on it and if you don't do that then it just goes through...
Mayor Mancino: Exactly.
Steven Miller: Okay, then I guess my concern is, Councilman Senn suggested that we amend the, what is
it?
Mayor Mancino: A motion.
Steven Miller: A motion. To not have that condition on it and if that condition for the site plan is not
included in the motion, then I'm having a hard time understanding what the difference would be.
25
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: We changed it so it would just be a staff approval.
Steven Miller: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else?
Robert Evans: Roberts Evans and I live at 18951 Twilight Trail and I've heard a lot tonight about
cooperation, working with people and I have a concern. Mr. Berquist, you mentioned it was to somebody,
that didn't you follow the recommendation of your own Council?
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. All questions are to come to the Mayor and then I will ask the appropriate
person.
Robert Evans: I'm sorry.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Robert Evans: I believe there was a question raised from the Council regarding following the
recommendations of somebody's own Council saying weren't you advised to do this? And since you were
advised to do that, why did you ask to do something else? And he was questioning that act. And my
question is, did the planning council recommend the 7800 site? The site planning council stated that they
recommended.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, the Planning Commission?
Robert Evans: The Planning Commission, I'm sorry. Did they recommend the 7800 site?
Mayor Mancino: The 7800 site? Did they Bob?
Bob Generous: No, they recommended denial of the Quattro site.
Robert Evans: In a previous recommendation.
Mayor Mancino: But on the 78th West Street. I think at one point it did come, there was a
recommendation on that.
Bob Generous: ...approval on the 80 West 78th.
Mayor Mancino: They did and.
Bob Generous: Tabled 78th West 78.
Robert Evans: And it was the Council's decision to go with the other site?
Mayor Mancino: Yes. It was our decision to not follow our Planning Commission's recommendation.
Yep.
26
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Robert Evans: Okay. I just wanted to understand. I was trying to reconcile his statement with your
statement.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. There were two sites that the Planning Commission reviewed and they gave us
which site they preferred and we did not go with their recommendation. As a City Council.
Robert Evans: I see.
Mayor Mancino: And I sat on the Planning Commission for quite a few years and that happens quite a few
times.
Robert Evans: I just wanted to, I was just trying to reconcile what his statement was versus the
recommendation of the Council. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I hope that answered it for you. Anyone else?
Lynn Simmon: My name is Lynn Simmon. I live at 188...Nature Lane and I'm part of the neighborhood
that's here tonight. A comment that was made to an Eden Prairie of mine over the phone by one of the
Chanhassen City Council people was that they didn't want to look out of their window and see that tower.
I would have to agree with that statement. I don't want to look out my window and see that tower either. I
would hope that you would give our neighborhood the same consideration as far as property values and
impact, especially visually impact of a tower on a neighborhood. Give our neighborhood the same kind of
consideration you would your own. I have some concerns that that maybe isn't the case I think you would
consider it but I wonder if they would get more of a preference than what our neighborhood has been given.
135 feet is what I've been told. It's about a 13 story tower. Or what would be equivalent to a 13 story
building. It's hard to not have that visually impact any neighborhood, regardless of the angle and when
you're talking of 300 feet or approximately, it may be a little bit less than that, we will be impacted by that.
I have called the Council people and left messages for the most part. Chanhassen City Council people
Friday to ask them to drive through our neighborhood and to see the kind of impact that the tower that's
presently there now has. And keeping in mind that that's only about a 70 or 80 foot tower and yet it towers
over the trees. It's clearly visible to our whole neighborhood and we're only talking about, you know
obviously a much shorter tower than the 135 foot tower that you're proposing to put. There's no way that
we're not going to see that same, that we're not going to look out our windows and see that huge tower
there looming over our neighborhood. It will be highly visible and I can't believe that people who want to
move into any neighborhood would not take into account some type of visual impact that a tower like that
would have over a home that they're looking at and thinking about purchasing.
Mayor Mancino: Let me respond for a minute.
Lynn Simmon: Pardon?
Mayor Mancino: Let me respond for a minute. I mean obviously we have listened and we have heard and
we have walked our talk about trying to come to a better resolution on this. And I think that has shown
very much tonight by the two motions that were made.
Lynn Simmon: And I would agree that you've given some time to us but unfortunately if this goes through,
we will be having that tower there and as long as there's not an agreement with Eden Prairie at this present
time, my only.
27
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: You're so close.
Lynn Simmon: I know. So close and so far. We're hoping the same thing, we truly are. But in the end if
Eden Prairie doesn't go through or they cannot come to an agreement, we will have that tower on this site
from the proposal or the motion that you're giving us tonight.
Mayor Mancino: That is true.
Lynn Simmon: So I have to assume that this is going to go forward. The other thing that I have been
disturbed about is there's been some consideration given to the impact of the tower on Highway 5 and
knowing that, you know you're trying to keep kind of a clean corridor into Chanhassen and I think that's
admirable to think about that but as I, before I knew anything about cell phone towers, as I drove around, I
didn't really see them. Maybe I saw them and didn't know what they were. Now I have looked for them.
Mayor Mancino: Every place.
Lynn Simmon: That's right, yeah. And they are every place. I mean you go around, you can find them
but to be quite honest I see them on major highways or freeways. Those are things I didn't notice before.
They weren't there. They weren't visible. I wasn't looking for them and they didn't particularly stand out.
It's hard for me to understand why a tower of this size would stand out any more along Highway 5 than it
would on any other highway and yet it certainly is going to stand out in our neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
John Mack: Good evening. I'm John Mack. I live at 18847 Twilight Trail. I do appreciate the Councils
of both cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. I know they've been working very diligently on getting a
deal done here. I guess I do concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation this evening to deny
this project at this site. One of the numbers, and I would like to poll the Council Mayor please. If part of
your vote, if this was, our neighborhood was a Chanhassen neighborhood, what way would you vote and I
would ask that the Council be polled on that. Secondly, I would ask that as part of the amendment, or
excuse me, motion, that the term reasonable. I don't know if that was in there but what I think we just need
to be careful of is that we don't give one party undo leverage with respect to negotiations with the Eden
Prairie City Council. So if they can not come to a reasonable lease arrangement, I think that that's fair for
everybody involved.
Mayor Mancino: Actually I think Roger you had that in.
John Mack: Okay, good. Again I think that the crux of this whole issue is treating neighbors like
neighbors. I go to St. Hubert's Church. We shop in the city. We are members of the greater community
here and I think all we're asking, when you cut through it all, is that the City Council treat us the same way
that you would your own citizens.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and I can just answer that for the City Council, and obviously we do.
John Mack: Thank you.
28
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing
and let's take a vote on the motion.
Councilman Senn: Don't we first have to vote on the amendment?
Mayor Mancino: We've already voted on the amendment to the motion.
Councilman Senn: No, you seconded it and then you went to the public hearing so we didn't vote on it.
Mayor Mancino: Can we do the whole thing at once with the new amendment on it, Roger?
Roger Knutson: I thought you had voted on the amendment.
Mayor Mancino: No, we just seconded it.
Roger Knutson: Then you should vote on the amendment first.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Then let's vote on the amendment and Councilman Senn, would you
like to reiterate the amendment?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Mancino: But you have to.
Councilman Senn: Let's see. The motion was to amend your motion to delete the language that you had in
saying that it needed to go through site plan review process again.
Mayor Mancino: With City Council approval.
Councilman Senn: As set forth, staff approval according to staffs recommendations.
Roger Knutson: Just so we're clear. That means relocating the tower in the southwest comer of the site
and the arrangements that the enclosed building structure should be located on the north side of the tower
and minimize clear cutting of trees.
Mayor Mancino: And showing a plan which shows which trees come down.
Councilman Senn: Well my motion was intentionally not that specific. It was basically to say that it needs
to basically administratively go back and be approved by staff without, you know according to whatever
the recommendations are. They have to function effectively within a set of negotiations. I mean the
applicant does not control the property owner. The property owner has some you know say in those
decisions too so. That was the intention of my motion was basically to leave it in staffs hands to decide.
If you want to attach those specific conditions.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. For staff to approve it with those conditions.
Councilman Senn: With those specific conditions and if the property owner doesn't agree?
29
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: I think the property owner already has. Is that true Bob? Okay. We're not aware that
that would be a problem we can say and the property owner agrees to those.
Councilman Senn: But again, I'm going back to our timing issue here. I don't think that is an option. If
the property owner doesn't agree, I mean I don't think we're in a position to.
Roger Knutson: I think we have an answer.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, Council members. We don't have the discretion of the landowner as to the
specificity of where this tower's going to go so I can't commit to that process. What I am able to commit
to you is, we'll work with your staff to try.
Mayor Mancino: In good faith.
Peter Coyle: In good faith to try to resolve the concerns you have relating to siting, the tree issues, but I
specifically am not acquiescing to another formal approval process.
Mayor Mancino: No, I understand that.
Peter Coyle: We'll work with your staff to try to resolve your problems.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's what I heard.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and then in good faith and considering those three issues.
Councilman Senn: Considering them, yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a second?
Councilman Engel: Before we do, for a second. Can I ask one question. Mr. Mack asked the question and
no one responded to it. Can we make a comment on that before we go?
Mayor Mancino: After we go ahead and do a second and take a vote.
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the amendment to the motion
that approval for the Quattro site is contingent upon staff's approval with the following
specifications: relocating the tower in the southwest corner of the site and the arrangements that the
enclosed building structure should be located on the north side of the tower, minimize clear cutting of
trees, and showing a plan which shows which trees come down. All voted in favor of the amendment
and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: The other part of the motion is as follows, which we've had a first and a second and now
we're going to vote on. That APT shall locate their antennas on the Eden Prairie water tower on Dell Road
subject to their not having a reasonable, give me that language again? Coming to a reasonable resolution
3O
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
with Eden Prairie. They can then locate on the 7660 Quattro Drive site. Secondly, the U.S. West New
Vector Group has agreed to withdraw their application for the 7660 Quattro location and we, the City
Council authorizes our city attorney to enter into a lease agreement, with our final approval, with U.S.
West on the City owned water tower in downtown Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Senn seconded that APT shall locate their antennas on the Eden
Prairie water tower on Dell Road subject to their not having a reasonable resolution with the City of
Eden Prairie. They can then locate on the 7660 Quattro Drive site. Secondly, the U.S. West New
Vector Group has agreed to withdraw their application for the 7660 Quattro location and we, the
City Council authorizes our city attorney to enter into a lease agreement, with our final approval,
with U.S. West on the City owned water tower in downtown Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Engel, do you have something to say?
Councilman Engel: Thank you. Mr. Mack asked one question. What would we do if you were
Chanhassen residents and you were faced with this decision of what to do with this water tower and this
antenna. I don't know if I can speak for the whole Council. I'm pretty sure I can.
Mayor Mancino: I already did.
Councilman Engel: Having spent a lot of time on this issue but if I were on the Eden Prairie Council and I
was faced with the decision of putting one antenna anywhere near one of my neighborhoods or putting 10
or 20 of them on top of that water tower, it'd take me about a New York minute to put all of them on that
water tower. So I'd just like to say that's what we ought to do.
Resident: ... the question was, would you put a 135 foot tower this close to your neighborhood if it was a
Chanhassen neighborhood. That was the question.
Mayor Mancino: I think we're done.
Don Ashworth: I can respond. The City Council has approved a tower taller than this one in the Business
Park at approximately the same distance away from a residential neighborhood as this one. You've already
voted on that issue as it would apply to Chanhassen residents.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming. We will take a 10 minute break until 20 till 10:00.
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO REZONE 102 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL); LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF
HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41, GATEWAY, STEINER DEVELOPMENT.
Bob Generous: Madam Mayor, Council members. As you stated, this is a conceptual planned unit
development. What happens at this stage is the Council gives a general idea of support for a concept in a
development proposal that provides the applicant with direction for continuing the process and develop
issues that need to be addressed as a part of the preliminary approval which would be the next stage of
development if this goes forward. There are several issues involved that would need to be addressed by the
applicant in bringing this forward. First of all, one of the issues is this project, due to the scope would
31
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
require an Alternate Urban Area Wide Review for it's environmental impacts. Another issue that needs to
be resolved is whether or not the TIF district should be created for this project and what uses the TIF funds
could be used for. Third issue would be the extension of utilities from the east which would include the
timing and the scope of the, some of the expansions. Fourth issue is the extension of Coulter Boulevard
from the east of this project, which is one of the issues that the Park Commission brought out in their
review that their preference would be that the connection not be made. Fifth issue is the amount and
location of the parkland that would be incorporated into this project. There are several different scenarios
that have been presented and we would need to provide the applicant with a little more direction in what
we'd be looking at. And finally whether a residential component should be permitted in this project and the
type and the number of units that the applicant should be, should include in that. And finally the access to
Highway 5, whether or not it should be a full or a partial opening onto Highway 5. Staff has reviewed this
project and believes that a planned unit development is the most appropriate way for this project to develop.
We are recommending approval of the concept PUD to permit the applicant to move forward subject to the
conditions in the staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Berquist: Bob do you know, the Park and Rec elected not to opt for the connection of Coulter
through the project. Can you tell me why? Was there a thought process behind it?
Bob Generous: My understanding is they'd like to keep that 100 plus acre preserve in the middle, between
the Autumn Ridge development and this development.
Councilman Berquist: How many acres?
Bob Generous: Over 100 acres if you include the 60 we have on the east side of the property line and the
approximately 39 acres that the applicant's proposing on their side of the line.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. They just thought it would be better if it was undivided?
Bob Generous: Yes. That it just remains open space.
Mayor Mancino: I think we'll hear some of those people speaking to that. Thank you. The applicant like
to address the City Council at this time please.
Fred Richter: Mayor Mancino, Council members, staff. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development.
With me tonight is our planner Howard Dahlgren and Tom Kortonowy with Steiner Development. I'm
going to be very brief. Staff has kind of presented a quick summary of the issues. As a background
Steiner Development has owned this property going back to the late 80's. We were in front of the Council
starting in ~91-~92 with an industrial proposal at that time which when things kind of refined themselves
due to some of the concerns with access, open space, and basically rough grading issues, it was determined
not to go ahead with industrial. We came back through a purchase agreement with Rottlund Homes, as you
remember, and a housing proposal was put in front of the Council in '96. That mitigated the rough, the
grading, some of the open space issues. Subsequent to that we realized that the goals of the City were to go
ahead with the industrial office district. To enhance tax base. We had a work session with the Council in
May of '96 last year. At that time we spelled out some of the concerns that are necessary to make a viable
industrial development predicated on the previous two experiences, they've been really kind of highlighted
by staff. Again, full access off of TH 5, TIF district, a certain amount of densities and so on. With that
32
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
we've had, as you're probably aware, a work session. Was in from of the Planning Commission. We've
revised some drawings. We're trying to make them clear and succinct, addressing the issues and Howard
Dahlgren will address that and Howard, do we want to pass these out to the Council?
Howard Dahlgren: Yes. That'd be helpful.
Fred Richter: Okay.
Howard Dahlgren: Thank you for the opportunity to come back and talk to you folks. We've been
working very closely with the staff these past months to come up with a solution that will be workable, that
will be good for the city and will be good for us. It's a very difficult piece of land to develop... The uses
on the remainder of these lots will all be industrial lots... Down here on this comer we talked about.., a
year ago when we... preliminary plan at the work session. We talked about having a convenience store here
but if you'll note... We're talking about a convenience store here with gas... And then on the site to the
east there might be a bank, a daycare center and office.., something like that. That would be the extent of
the commercial development that we would... On this site we currently have a development proposal that
we could begin yet this summer.., approval process, the development of this land through spring. We
would like to build these buildings here.., approximately 100,000 square feet. We'd have to carefully
design the industrial... This remaining site we would propose to have houses.., and develop this parcel and
then get.., we would be able to finance this development and be able to proceed .... very difficult to make
this site work because the grades.., so grading the site is very, very simple. It's going to... $1.2 million just
to grade the site. The area assessments against this property to bring water and sewer to the site.., is
another $1.2 million.., all of it comes to about $4.5 million. The economics of that are very, very tough to
be able to market this plan... And so we really do need help if we're going to make it industrial, as you
folks desire, we need help in order to make this thing happen. So at this point we feel that there's a
potential for.., and the sale here and the development of this housing, we can't afford to start this
development process and make it work. What we can't do is... Now there's a park issue here, as you folks
know. The Park Board... some time ago and they decided they'd like to have the park that we showed.., all
the way over to this lot. We said we're not opposed to parks but we can't afford to give you the land.
We'd like to but we simply can't because.., development proposed on this high ground here. At that point
we were proposing to give more of this land down here. But now with the... We've gone from, in the
southeast comer we've gone from the... This drawing shows how we take that out. In about 2 weeks we'll
be back... Now this is a knob of land down here which has very nice oak trees in this area and we
suggested as one of the possibilities, if the City wanted to buy this much of the land, that would be then an
additional 4 acres. That would take this entire knob over to the wetlands... So that's one of the solutions
that... Then you'll be adding an additional 9.10 acres and those two together then would be... The
problem here though is that in order to make this a viable residential area, we have to... Now is there any
questions that I can answer, I'd be happy to do so.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions at this point?
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Dahlgren, Lot 12 as you have it delineated at 20.85 acres. That in and of itself
would support a multi-family, viable multi-family project?
Howard Dahlgren: Yes that would. That acreage goes over to this point. There would be 20.85 acres. If
the City accepts the land use proposal...
33
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Hang on. Let me see where your pencil's going. Todd doesn't have the right
camera on. Show me one more time please.
Howard Dahlgren: Sure, sure. The figure of 20.85 acres as indicated here, takes the land over to this
point. That's the size of that parcel.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, that takes it all the way over to the 2.0 acre dedication?
Howard Dahlgren: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Howard Dahlgren: ...this being a 4 acre site, this would then become 16.85. Now that we believe might
be workable as a residential development but that's the minimum .... then you don't have a residential site.
Councilman Berquist: Let me ask another question. Let's assume that you put Lot 12 together with Park
B, or that 9.1 acres. That then is 16.5 acres. Does that also work as an industrial site?
Howard Dahlgren: Well it's tough because we've got all of these trees here.., access for an industrial use.
... some trees for a residential use. That is a problem.
Councilman Berquist: And it doesn't work as two, if it doesn't work as one, obviously it's not going to
work at two.
Howard Dahlgren: No. No. It's really hard to utilize.., because for industrial you've got to have a flat
site.., of all these industrial uses.., so it's very hard to preserve trees and develop the land...
Councilman Berquist: Is it possible to, let me ask another silly question. Would it be possible to access
that site delineated as Park B with an access off of 82nd Street?
Howard Dahlgren: Now the answer is that there's a very...
Mayor Mancino: Or yes you could. I mean you, then you wouldn't have to go through all these trees.
You can go through the gully.
Howard Dahlgren: ... out the trees you don't...
Councilman Berquist: Well I can't see the topography under the trees but I can see it has 82nd Street makes
a turn, and I don't mean to get into that detail at this point. Pardon me?
Howard Dahlgren: I'll get a topographical map and show you that topography... This is all very, very
steep. Right, and this is 82nd Street here and... That area and this area...
Councilman Engel: Why can't you branch in earlier from the elbow of the turn?
Howard Dahlgren: Right here?
Councilman Engel: No.
34
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Councilman Berquist: That wetland?
Howard Dahlgren: Here?
Fred Richter: Well our land runs out right here. This is all wet here.
Councilman Engel: Okay. That's all I want to know.
Councilman Berquist: So that site, with the trees there, that site is kind of land locked.
Howard Dahlgren: That side of that road here...
Councilman Berquist: Okay, but it doesn't do anything to make that a separate industrial site.
Howard Dahlgren: Beyond this it's very difficult to access...
Councilman Berquist: But not impossible?
Mayor Mancino: Time and money, everything's possible.
Howard Dahlgren: Sure it's possible. I won't...
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Fred Richter: Along that same line, I might go along with the Councilman... but the wetland doesn't go
right through there. It stops here and it stops here. But this is a kind of isolated piece... But the point
probably, if you can buy it through the parkland, you get.., concern about townhouses and perhaps there's
other forms of housing that we could use that would be workable like zero lot line and that sort of thing...
We have looked at the market for.., but there may be other forms of housing that would be workable for
there that would be... but it's very important that we have this residential site in order to make all this work
and be able to...
Councilman Berquist: But it also, correct me if I'm out but it also works if that site remains industrial?
Fred Richter: Well, if you brought all the land up to here, then it would be easier to make it industrial
because now... The trees, as part of the residential site are an enhancement as a part of the industrial site.
Councilman Berquist: So the residential element sort of goes by the wayside if we choose to purchase B, A
and B and A.
Mayor Mancino: Then we could do industrial there.
Councilman Berquist: Right.
35
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Howard Dahlgren: ... say a word about... It does make sense from a land standpoint to have a local.., and
approval for Highway 5 which would be done.., from a traffic standpoint, that's... So we have no problem
with you putting Coulter in if you don't want to. We don't have to have it for the.., of this development.
What we must have is full access here at Highway 5 to make this development work.., we would connect
down here...
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Okay. Thank you. I'm going to open this up for
public comments. Are you done, Howard?
Howard Dahlgren: Yes, thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone wishing to come and address the City Council on this matter?
Jane Meger: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. My name is Jane Meger. I live at 405 Highland
Drive and as well as being a resident, also a member of the Park and Recreation Commission. I'm here this
evening just to reiterate our desire as the Park and Recreation Commission, to obtain Outlots A and B as
identified on the maps you've seen previously. It's been well over 3 years that we've identified this
particular parcel of land as part of our park concept and very much in desiring of this as an open space
with some trails meandering through it to have a nice area for our community and people to enjoy some of
the environment. Also, as a member of the Bluff Creek Task Force, this also ties well into that plan as well
as far as that land there and beginning to think about an interpretative center that could be accessed by the
elementary school. Another commissioner will talk about our desire, if possible, not to have that Coulter
Boulevard continue through there, if that's possible. We are questioning what the need would be. The
applicant had identified to us that if the site was used as industrial, that it really wouldn't be necessary to
have that meandering through there and we thought if it is industrial, that it just increases the chances of
more industrial traffic going through there and it is park safety.., to not do that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Fred Berg: Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Fred Berg. I live at 6910
Chaparral Lane. I'm also a member of the Park and Rec Commission. I'm here to talk specifically about
the extension of Coulter Boulevard. I feel a little, I don't know, awkward isn't the word I'm looking for
but I don't have any economic reasons for a Coulter Boulevard to not be developed. I'm looking at it more
from a point of view of the environment, aesthetics and in my opinion common sense. I guess I'd like you
to weigh a number of factors. First of all the value of extending Coulter Boulevard versus the impact that
it's going to have on the environment. The impact that it will have on the wildlife in the area. The impact
that it will have on the aesthetics of the area. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me and other members of the
Commission to have this large wildlife area and have a road running through the top third of it. I think
that's the common sense angle. I also would like to point out to you the obvious in that with the recent
survey that was put out to our community concerning parks and everything else in that area, an
overwhelming majority were in favor of preserving our natural areas. I think that was one of the highest
items on the survey. This would seem to be, an extension of Coulter Boulevard would seem to be throwing
that back in their face and saying we agree with you but we have an opportunity to do something about it
and we chose not to. Again, just to state the obvious I guess. To run a road somewhere between 32 and 56
feet wide through a natural area, just seems to be an oxymoron to me and I want to appreciate, or tell you I
appreciate your listening and thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Fred.
36
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Colleen Dockendorf: Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Just to tack onto what Fred said. A
couple other issues to consider about the extension of Coulter is the fact that the City will be paying for
that road extension since it will be adjacent to two parkland sites. That will be the City's responsibility and
probably at a price tag to use, I don't know Charles, you'd better answer that, but not cheap. And the
other issue is, I'm not in favor of putting a full, another stop light at that intersection. However, MnDot is
determined, based on this development, that that's going to happen. Therefore I don't feel that Coulter
extension is necessary. All it would do would be to divert traffic from Galpin and mm and taking a left
onto Galpin and cutting over on the frontage road. If there's a full intersection at where this development
comes in, then there's really no need for Coulter to pull over, so thanks.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, at the risk of over staying my welcome.
Mayor Mancino: How many times have you been up here?
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Coyle, Larkin-Hoffman law firm. Here
tonight on behalf of the Wrase family. To support the application, the conceptual application that's before
you this evening with a couple of I think minor requests. Your staff asked me to put in writing a letter
which I submitted this afternoon, that formally confirms the willingness of the property owner, that is the
Wrase family, to have their parcel included within any rezoning petition that might relate to the Gateway
project in order to provide for perhaps more.., long range planning and zoning as it relates to that southwest
comer of the property and so my letter confirms the willingness to do that. Mr. Generous has also
requested, and I just frankly dropped it. Asked that I consent also to have the property considered as well
within the area study for environmental impact purposes and to the extent that the City feels like it needs to
know what the potential impact may be as it relates to the Wrase property. We certainly would not object
to that either. A third point related to the concept plan, insofar as we have been able to review it. There
seems to be a very small access provided to the Wrase property from the south and our request generically
would be that whatever approvals are forthcoming for the Gateway project, that there be minimal access
required. That is access which would be required under the city's ordinance and our understanding from
talking to your staff is that that would be something in the range of 36 to 40 feet in order to ensure full
access. That is in/out access as well as the necessary buffering on either side of that access point, and I
would just simply make that request as a matter of record at this point, recognizing that there's still plenty
of finalizing that has to go on with regard to the plan. Fourth point, the plans that I saw showed a water
tower on the Wrase property. I can't seem to find anybody who is willing to own up to how that water
tower came to be on the Wrase property but for the record we object. That's not what we have in mind for
the use of the property and I just want to convey that to whoever might be listening to that.
Councilman Senn: You mean you don't want cell antennas there?
Peter Coyle: Good source of revenue. We'll take that deal. Final point, again it just appears preliminarily
and I appreciate that this is very preliminary. It appears to us that there may be a catchman base been
planned for someplace along the southwest comer of the Wrase property and we would just note a concern
about making sure that our property doesn't become the conduit for someone's drainage pattern, which
would of course impede the use of the Wrase property. I'm sure many of the Council members know that
Mr. Wrase has occupied this property for 82 years and continues to occupy the property as his homestead.
In fact he sold a good chunk of property surrounding this 3 acre remnant approximately 20 years ago,
according to his son who's with me this evening, and so Mr. Wrase is perfectly willing to cooperate with
37
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
the developers on seeing that a good, sound development results from this effort and the extent to which we
can cooperate in that process, we're willing to do so and those are my comments. Thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 2461 Bridle Creek Trail. Just a couple more points. I'd
like to go along with the Park and Rec Commission saying that the extension of Coulter Boulevard doesn't
seem to be necessary. I know the people in our neighborhood will never use it. It's, putting all that salt
and sand and stuff on the roads between that marshy area and then having it all end up in the marsh in the
springtime seems kind of to defeat the purpose of a nice wetland area. And if you decide to pick up the
parcels A and B to make it parkland, and not residential, that would be seem to make the road extension
less important and it would also probably be able to pay for the parkland if, with what you would save by
not putting the road in. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Peter Sidney: Peter Sidney, 2431 Bridle Creek Trail and at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd just like to
second the comments made about the Coulter extension. I'd like to encourage the City Council to think
about whether that's necessary if the applicant doesn't feel they need it and you don't want track traffic or
industrial traffic going through that residential neighborhood. Also I guess I'd like to compliment the
applicant on the modifications since last Thursday I guess it was. Not dedicating basically a road right-of-
way and adding those 2 acres in that comer that's more desirable and I would hope that the City Council
would consider acquiring at least the one additional parcel, and possibly the two and keeping that comer
site industrial as opposed to residential. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: I don't think the City Council would acquire it. I think we all would. Anyone else
wishing to address the City Council? Okay, seeing none. Comments from Council members. Councilman
Senn. I know that you had a lot of questions from the work session and I'm not sure all of them have been
answered.
Councilman Senn: No. I'm going to say I don't think they have. One issue I guess, I don't know. I
wasn't going to do this but I guess I am going to do it. One issue I'd like to address is, I went back and
looked at my notes from that '96 meeting, which I just happened to have because it was part of the strategic
planning session, and I'll tell you what I'm hearing versus what we did that night are very two different,
very much two different things. Now I didn't write down everybody's comments so I apologize. I didn't
do that but I did make note of the comments that I made at least that night. And one of the primary issues
we were dealing with that night was whether we wanted to look at that property being developed
residentially or if we wanted it developed Cl. And the Council made it very clear that we wanted to see it
developed Cl. Not residential. There were a lot of other issues discussed that night. A lot of time was
spent discussing the property on the west side of TH 41 in relationship to what was planned for that area,
which at that time was.
Mayor Mancino: Multi-family.
Councilman Senn: Multi-family, fairly intense commercial too and we made the comments back at that
point that they should go really, you know pursue that with the Arboretum and my feelings, we'd look
towards residential along that side but really weren't very enamored with the.., was being suggested there,
etc. We talked about the access on TH 5 and the applicant expressed their need for it. I mean there was
38
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
really no commitment back from the Council, I think at least from the comments I had written down, that
it's something we'd certainly look at...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Councilman Mason: ... I share Mr. Coyle's concerns too there. It would be awfully easy for them to get
completely overshadowed in this and I think we have to make sure that does not happen. I too am
interested in the traffic study, although I'm not quite sure, depending on what other people say here, I see
this needed to be tabled on that just because it is conceptual. Multi-family housing in some form,
affordable housing, I see as a real plus. Historically Mark and I have disagreed over TIF. I certainly
would not discount TIF but I think we need to take a very long, hard look at it. I'm okay with the park
stuff. As a City Council member, I like the idea of Coulter going through. If I was on Park and Rec or if I
wasn't on City Council, I would share your concerns so I'm, I can see that one going either way right now.
I think access is an issue there. I don't see industrial, we get this an awful lot that if we put a road in
anywhere close to an industrial use, all the trucks are going to start barreling through there and I don't
believe we've seen that in the past, although I could be wrong. For now I think, I'm okay with. No. I
don't need to see more stop lights on Highway 5 but I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference how I
feel about stop lights on TH 5 one way or another. I can see a need for something to happen at that
intersection, although I certainly would like. If we don't have a traffic study on that, or on Coulter, I would
like our traffic study to be amended to include that and I guess for about now that does it.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'll try to be brief and concise. I'm okay with the acquisition of more parkland in order
to make Lot 12 industrial, and not do Coulter Boulevard. Likewise I'm okay with Coulter being in there if
that's the option with the single family homes, and we sign it for no truck traffic. And I'm okay with the
intersection on Highway 5 if that's the way it's got to be with this plan as we see it. I'm not excited about
the banks and the fast foods. Everything else looks okay to me.
Councilman Mason: I believe the comment by the, by Mr. Dahlgren was that it would be fast food, like is
in gas stations now was what I heard, which is considerably different than Burger King or McDonalds or
whatever.
Councilman Engel: That's the difference. It's not a drive-up window?
Howard Dahlgren: ... fast food...
Councilman Engel: No problem with that.
Councilman Berquist: Microwave pronto pups.
Councilman Engel: They're ruining my brevity.
Councilman Mason: I'm sorry Councilman.
Councilman Berquist: The conceptual approval, if we can identify lot size and width, we certainly have
some broad based outlines here that I think match that. We have general location of major street and
pedestrian ways. The Coulter Boulevard issue is frankly one that I considered not very deeply until I began
39
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
to hear what the Park Commission had to say. I don't, I could probably go either way. If it was
determined that at some point in the future that road was needed and we had that dedicated as a part of the
preliminary, part of plat approval, that would be my ideal situation. As to whether or not we spend a
million bucks to put it in, I'd like to see the documentation that would support the need for it. If it's not
forthcoming, I'd like to at least have the ability to, for some future City Council to choose to put it in if
they really decided it was necessary. So that's something that we can certainly talk about. I don't know if
the trail, if the road goes in there, would the trail go through? I suspect it would so we'd have some
construction costs through that area. We'd have some surcharging on the wetland and what not anyway.
The rest of the road, actually it's the north/south road, the cul-de-sac and then the proposed connection to
Highway 41 at some time. I don't have any major problem with that whatsoever. General location, extent
of public open and common or public and common open spaces. We're getting there. The wetlands being
dedicated as part of the plat. Considering that they really have no value, from a tax perspective the
applicant would be better off gifting them to the City as opposed to holding them. Whether or not we
choose to exercise an option on Park A and Park B remains to be seen. From my perspective right at this
moment, I would really like to have Park A. I'm debating about the overall cost of Park B and yet if we
don't purchase Park B, then we're looking at residential on the site. Now I don't have a, I don't necessarily
have a problem with residential. I do agree with Mark though that if we're going to have a residential
element, I would like it to be something extraordinary. I don't know what we can do but if there's some
kind of tax increment that can be used for high density, I'm not certain how it can be worked out so that it
could be, I mean obviously the tax climate for constructing high density is terrible. How could we use the
district to allow the developer to hold that site? I mean they need, they've as much as said that they need
the cash flow to make the thing work. So how could we use, how could we create a district, use the district
to allow the developer to hold the site for a period of time until the tax climate became more favorable for
high density?
Councilman Senn: There are ways to do it. I mean I don't know if you want to get into the specifics
tonight but there are ways.
Councilman Berquist: No I don't. So I'd like to explore that route. If in fact it's going to be, it's not
going to be industrial, then I would like to see it be something that we don't have an abundance of as
opposed to more of the same. Let's see. Staging and time schedule of development. I'm fine with that.
From what the developer has told us so far. Moving on from there. The 11 specific items. Full
intersection at Highway 5. I've already intimated my acquiescence to that. The City to pay full cost of
building a road through the park, and a pro-rated share of the north/south road. I have a question Mr.
Dahlgren. On item 4 on your list of conditions. Mitigation to be achieved on the high parkland. Can you
tell me what that means specifically?
Howard Dahlgren: What happened here is that we had proposed to put the ponding areas...
Councilman Berquist: Hang on. Todd's having a hard time getting the camera working. There we go.
Howard Dahlgren: Okay. These two purple areas.., are ponding areas which will treat the water before it
goes into the wetland.
Councilman Berquist: Oh okay. Alright, so that's.
4O
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Howard Dahlgren: And some of that is being done there. Some of the mitigation that occurs at various
places.., so we did agree here and there to make it work. We've got a wetland that goes up in this area,
right through here...
Councilman Berquist: Alright, I got you.
Howard Dahlgren: ...the water here does not include the acreage for that...
Councilman Berquist: Alright, thank you. Okay, let's see. What other items did I want to talk about? I'll
wrap it up as quickly as possible. I'm concerned about the Wrase's. On the other hand, at the risk of
seeming like an ogre, I don't really want, I haven't talked to the Wrase's. They have called me and, both
the son and their attorney. Peter did you, it wasn't you? They have another attorney.
Peter Coyle: My other brother.
Councilman Berquist: I have not called them back. I'm sure I should have by now. I'm afraid of the
impact on this proposal on their site, and while I want to do everything I can to minimize the impact, I'm,
you know you're well aware, I'm well aware I'm sure they're well aware that there's going to be significant
changes to the land surrounding them and probably that they're on. I know sometimes I can be awfully
stubborn, and I know there's other people like me.
Councilman Mason: There's nobody like you.
Councilman Berquist: I don't have any problem with the proposed uses in the commercial ends of the park.
I think they're fine. The last thing that I will say is that, at some point I was talking with another Council
member and we were talking about a builder/developer actually being the City is a client of any given
builder/developer and you're in essence our supplier for end product on raw land. Although you may own
the land, we do get to dictate kind of what goes there and the flavor of what's there. I appreciate with the
work that you guys have gone through and all the hoops that you've jumped through over the years. I think
that you're treating this as if we are the client, and I appreciate that. So, I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: I'll give a few comments, thank you on that. And I'm just looking at the staff report and
saying as part of the discussion proposal, the following policy items will need to be discussed. And as I
look through the list, quite frankly there are things that have come up from Thursday night that I don't feel
I'm in a position to answer and to give you a good conceptual approval at this point, for me. I don't think I
will have done the due diligence, even on a conceptual level to say yes on behalf of our city. And that has
to do with number one, the roadway or the transportation routes. Number one is the Coulter Boulevard.
Whether we should put that through or not. And I think yes, we need to do the traffic studies. To me it
will tell me a lot on whether there should be a full intersection off of TH 5. And now after driving 394
every day, will I let MnDot tell me how to design a road or will I follow necessarily what they say? So I
would like to see the traffic study amended and expanded to tell us about Coulter Boulevard. I think that
there is no question, from the City's perspective, from a planning perspective, that we have over the last 6
or 7 years made sure that we have a frontage road on the north and south side of TH5 because we
recognize the congestion and the problems that we do have on TH 5 right now and will continue to have. I
have seen many, many highways widened and I don't see the congestion lessening. More and more people
come is what happens. So I think it's very important, as far as from a traffic study perspective, to see
whether we need Coulter or not and I'm certainly not one that wants to put a roadway through a wetland if
we don't need to. But I think that we need to have that information. And I think that if we don't have a
41
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
frontage road down there, it will make even more congestion on Highway 5 having an additional
intersection there. I think that having Coulter go all the way through will alleviate some of the congestion
on TH 5 and that's what has always been planned from the city's perspective of why we have our access
boulevards. To allow the residents to be able to travel internally so that we do not have to use Highway 5.
And they don't have to go out on it. It is also access from the school and the Bluff Creek corridor all the
way over to the Arboretum and I think that conceptually an underpass going from the west side of this
development to the Arboretum should be looked at conceptually at this time and where it makes the most
sense so that this roadway can be adjusted. And again that's very conceptual but I think we need to think
about that now. So the roadway, part of it, the transportation area in this is still very question marked for
me, and what will work. As far as the land uses within a PUD, I'll be very specific in saying that the
residential component, if it is just regular multi-family, I would not be approving that. If we can use TIF
dollars to do affordable rental, yes. Otherwise I would just as soon have that industrial. The amount and
location of parkland. Sure, I'd love to say A and B. Somebody tell me, and I haven't read in a report, I
mean how much does A and B cost? So conceptually, sure. Sure, would I like to have more parkland?
Yes. But I want to see the fiscal impact on that.
Councilman Senn: It depends on... but what's the dedication requirement?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, what's the dedication requirement? How much we will, if we don't put in Coulter,
will we pick up more parkland somewhere else so that the traffic study has I think a lot to tell me
conceptually. The other question that has come up, and came up on Thursday night, which I also said I
needed some more information on, was creation of a TIF district and the uses of the funds. And I just want
to make sure that we as a City Council look at what happens when we create a TIF district and how we can
benefit from those funds for the City. What are the negatives and positives so that I could not tell the
developer at this time conceptually whether we would create a TIF district for the industrial areas. I don't
have that information to be able to tell you. I can tell you that just intuitively I would be in favor of
creating a TIF district for the rental property. But I'm not sure that that would include the industrial so I
would need some more information that. So I still have a lot of questions, unlike some of the Council
members that need to be answered for me prior to giving conceptual approval. I need a little bit more of the
details, especially when I think that this applicant has been very fair and has done a lot of work on this and
I just don't want them going down a road that we may have to change from. And it seems that that may
have happened before and I don't want to put you through that, to be very honest. So I would like to get a
few things answered prior to keep going down this road. Any other discussion or questions between
Council members? We would like to ask each other or ask the applicant.
Councilman Berquist: Alright, what type of information do we really require before we can make a
determination on Coulter? High density residential and the impact of the TIF on the industrial to fund that.
Mayor Mancino: One, we need a traffic study done.
Councilman Berquist: We'll need a traffic study done.
Mayor Mancino: It would also include Coulter. Number two, we would need to understand will creating a
TIF district in that area, and having that TIF district as it applies to industrial, as it applies to apartment
rental. You know affordable. What that means to the City. The pros and cons. Number three, oh keep
going.
Councilman Berquist: Did you pick up on that?
42
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Number three.
Councilman Berquist: If we can. And methods by which. I mean given the nature of the development and
the costs that are involved in the development and the fact that the developer has a 100,000 square foot user
that I believe he's hinted. Not that this enters into my decision but necessarily it becomes a factor in the
overall equation. He has a commitment to try and provide a project, the user by the end of the year. And
yet by their own words, the cash flow generated by the potential sale of land that would be residential is
necessary to make the project work.
Mayor Mancino: Well so is TIF funding probably.
Councilman Berquist: Well that's the question. How can, if in fact we want this to be high density
residential, and there is no market at this time for high density residential. No builder, no apartment builder
is going to come in and build them because there's no incentive to it. You can't make money on them. The
question is what, how can we use the TIF program, if in fact that's a program, to allow the developer to
hold onto that land until the tax climate becomes more favorable for the construction of that type of
housing. Mark said he knew of some ways. Maybe he does.
Don Ashworth: I'll probably end up giving Mark a call. I'm not really sure. I guess I would have to,
Todd's kind of shaking his head because I'm, as it deals with. I misunderstood the question. I thought that
the question was, how much TIF is being generated off of this property and we can make guesstimates on
the industrial side and costs associated with what I'll call public improvements and I think Mark used the
example oversight. How that could get translated into a residential project. Well, we'll have to work on it.
As we're sitting here right now, I think what you'd have to do is come up with some good faith belief that
in fact this project will happen. That it will generate TIF and therefore.
Councilman Berquist: This project being the entire parcel?
Don Ashworth: Correct. And therefore that you would be willing to literally advance the money through
the bonding, which could be done to pay for the land. But the actual residential program, I mean the
actual... That's the only thing I can think of right off the top.
Councilman Berquist: Is that what you did, when I restated, is that what you understood my question to
be?
Mayor Mancino: So we're not only looking at TIF for high density rental but also for parkland.
Councilman Senn: Well it comes back to the issue on the parkland with what's required dedication and
where do we want to see that dedication?
Mayor Mancino: Whether we have Coulter or not?
Councilman Senn: Well, Coulter becomes and in relation to that question.
Councilman Berquist: Well you know what, it sounds like we pretty much all darn well agree on
everything to the west of the north/south road. I mean there's a lot that we agree upon.
43
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Councilman Engel: Mine are reservations on the east.
Councilman Berquist: Well certainly. I mean we all care about the Wrase's.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I didn't even say anything about the Wrase's because I think the things that they
bring up are pretty common sense that we need to think through. Nor have we thought through
conceptually I said the underpass to the Arboretum. But that's a part of this. Not the whole so I think we
still need to look at it as the whole and tell the applicant that, I mean they can obviously hear where we're
going with it. But on the eastern part we really do need to, and it also, we haven't answered TIF on the
western part. The use of TIF funding.
Councilman Berquist: The use of TIF funding.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: The creation of the district though we've, but.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, but the district may not go over that far. Or the use of it because one of their 12
items was, and they wanted TIF funding. A liberal tax increment district. So I mean that's one of the
things that we still need to answer for them.
Councilman Berquist: Yes, so have we done them any good whatsoever?
Mayor Mancino: Tonight? Well I think these are many of the questions that we asked on Thursday night,
and in fact we knew that between now. Between Thursday night and tonight, we wouldn't have those
answered. I mean you know. Our City Manager and Assistant City Manager are going to have to get, talk
about TIF district and the uses of the funds. We need to have engineering give us the traffic report on
Coulter Boulevard. I mean we're going as fast as we can. The amounts and location of parkland will be
tied into probably the TIF district and do we have the funds to buy A and B as a City. And I think we've
all concurred very much on the residential component. That in this PUD, if there is a residential
component, that it needs to be something that we don't have. Not just multi-family.
Councilman Berquist: So how do we get that is the question.
Mayor Mancino: So how do we get there?
Councilman Berquist: No, you don't have to answer that now. I think that's simply the question.
Howard Dahlgren: Your Honor, could I make a comment regarding... ?
Mayor Mancino: Sure.
Howard Dahlgren: ... and I believe it would be integral.., move to table this matter to two weeks.., so we
are set to proceed. Much of the details that you talk about is in those reports...the timing on this
development will fall apart. That they will not be able to do this development unless we are on that time...
I suggest a 2 week delay could be helpful in tonight's comments...traffic study has been drafted and
completed... It doesn't include the analysis on whether Coulter should be there or not be there but I think...
44
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
that could be looked at in a relatively short period of time so I think the traffic.., could be there in that 2
week period... But we're willing to work with you closely in the next two weeks...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Don, what about getting some scenarios for TIF. Is that something we
could review at a work session?
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure how much of the public costs that we have, like say oversizing of roads or
whatever. Estimates as to park costs, I think we can come pretty close to. Estimates as to total TIF that
would be generated off site I think we can come up quick. I am quite honestly at a loss as we're sitting here
as to what type of an analysis I can give you for the residential component. I really think I need to go back
to kind of ;;experts" in that whole area and try to get some ideas from them.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I don't see a problem with this going ahead to the Planning Commission as it's
scheduled. You know to keep it on time line but at the same time I hope, I sincerely hope the applicant is
hearing what the Council is saying over these issues. Which means the issues are still open and they need
to be resolved and simply continuing through the process isn't going to resolve them. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Then why go through Planning Commission?
Councilman Senn: Well like I say, they're not going to get. I mean if their timing's that critical, it's their
risk Mayor I guess is what I'm saying, okay. If they want to proceed on that kind of a basis, with that kind
of risk, I mean it seems to me that's their call and I mean I don't have a problem with that but I think this
Council at least, you know had some issues and the gentleman just got up again and said we're buying the
park from him. You know we can work out what you're going to buy. Well I mean, we haven't even
worked out what we get dedicated yet, let alone what we're going to worry about buying. And you know,
and other issues such as the Coulter one is going to have a big impact on a number of different issues
relating to the project and of course if TIF goes, I mean I keep seeing liberal, liberal, liberal TIF. Well,
maybe so but you know, my first thought isn't to think of this as a liberal TIF project. So I mean again, if
they're hearing what we're saying and they understand these are open issues and these issues may not
necessarily go the way they think they're going to go, but they want to keep on track, why not let it.
Councilman Engel: And they can go through the process.
Councilman Berquist: We have two Planning Commission members here. I would guess that the Minutes.
Mayor Mancino: Doesn't it waste staff's and Planning Commission's time if this is just going to come to
us and we're going to have different opinions?
Councilman Mason: Excuse me, didn't I hear Mr. Dahlgren say he was okay with this being tabled for 2
weeks while we continued to work with him?
Mayor Mancino: He did.
Councilman Senn: But he said the Planning Commission meeting was the absolute.
Councilman Mason: Well but that's May 7th.
45
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: That's May 7th.
Councilman Senn: Right, and that's all I'm saying. It keeps it on track for May 7th.
Councilman Engel: Which means it's okay to table?
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Which we can table and see it back on the 28th and maybe get to it, get some details in
our work session in-between our next Council session.
Councilman Engel: Does that work for you? Does it keep you on time line?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, if we get the May 7th. Okay. That makes sense.
Tom Kordonowy: Tom Kordonowy. At some point we hope that we can rely on good faith. When we met
with the Council in May of '96, we brought our list of 11 issues before them. Highway 5 intersection. We
talked about TIF. We used the term at that point liberal TIF district. Since that time with staff they
described what the TIF district would look like. What the numbers would look like. We said that was
acceptable so although it says liberal TIF, in working with the staff, we worked out what is acceptable to
us and what staff has said these programs are like. Granted it's Council approval. Councilman Senn said
that his recollection of that meeting is entirely different. Well we didn't talk about the west 30 acres at that
meeting because we had sold that land more than a year before that so I think perhaps you might be
thinking about '92 or '93 meetings that we had. But certainly not that meeting. And we defer to staff to
make representations about.., so we're looking for not just direction but we've spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars on this stuff so far based on good faith. And for us to proceed at this point, I'm not sure where
we are.
Mayor Mancino: And that's exactly what I said earlier. That's why I think we need to look at this again
prior to your working on it and we're willing to do that and we'll spend the next 2 weeks doing that and
these 3 or 4 items that we talked about.
Tom Kordonowy: And we'll work closely with you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So do I have a motion?
Councilman Berquist: Motion to table.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the conceptual review to rezone
102 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, located near
the southeast quadrant of Highways 5 and 41, Gateway, Steiner Development. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: We will table this to the April 28th City Council session. And we will set up a time line
and certainly make the applicant aware of when we will be reviewing the traffic study, the TIF district and
46
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
uses of the funds and we will do that in our work session. In our next work session and at our next Council
session on the 28th. And then you should be prepared to go to the Planning Commission on May 7th.
Okay?
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT~ ROTTLUND
HOMES.
Todd Hoffman: Mayor, Honorable Council. Attached for City Council's consideration is a private
development agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the Rottlund Company for the North Bay
project. Single family residential development comprising of about 76 zero lot line single family homes. In
order to accomplish the objective of meeting the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the City Council
directed staff approximately one year ago to create a tax increment financing district to assist in reducing
the cost of the single family home. Of the 76, the City is proposing to write down 35 of those units.
Approximately 18 of the units would qualify for first time home buyers, thus having a purchase price of
$95,000.00 or less. The second group of 17 units would meet the affordability guideline set out by Met
Council of under $120,000.00. I've attached to my report an example that outlines a 7 % realtor' s fee to
that value and showing the impact of including a realtor's fee and the affordability range of those homes
over several years. After discussions with Councilmember Senn and talking to Todd Stutz from Rottlund
Homes, staff would look at not including the 7% realtor fee in that because it does make a dramatic impact
in the affordability of those units into the future. However staff would recommend that you direct staff to
modify the agreement to include provisions that the homeowner would take a benefit if they were to make
any home improvements to their home, such as finish off a basement, add a deck, that they would be able to
recapture that benefit once they resold the home. Staff's concerns regarding this was that we didn't want to
limit the homeowner of not improving his home or giving him the capabilities of expanding the home for
future family or whatever it may be. With that, again just to quickly go through the financing of it. The
City Council approximately one year ago agreed to pick up approximately $350,000.00 worth of
assessments against the site. Also to provide a land write down of approximately $400,000.00, not
including interest. In the cash runs in Attachment #2, we gave an 8% pay as you go interest rate and with
an inflation factor of 4% so over that period of time the cash payment out to Rottlund would be
approximately $993,978.00.
Mayor Mancino: Over and above the $400,000.00?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. That would be interest, if you subtract the $400,000.00 from that, that would be the
interest over the 15 year period. And then the City picking up the cost of the assessments and I'd also like
to note that this tax increment district also has a local match so we have to come up with approximately
$8,000.00 a year to, or in the beginning about $8,000.00 a year, towards the end about $14,000.00 a year
of local match dollars towards this project. That means we have to come up with some type of general
fund or money from the historical district. Historical trust district to put towards this project. This was a
guideline set out by the State several years ago...the cities also have to feel a little bit of the pain when you
create these TIF districts. Or we can take dollars to offset those assessments. It just can't be tax
increment. With that staff is ready to answer any questions you may have. Todd Stutz from Rottlund
Homes is here too if you have any questions of him.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I have a couple questions and then I'll open it up. Tell me about property taxes
here? Are we limiting the property taxes that's paid to the City, County and School District by limiting the
market value?
47
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Todd Gerhardt: In creating the.
Mayor Mancino: And is there any relationship with the County Assessor as we limit the market value
because we're saying they can only sell the house for so much. We're also subsidizing the homeowner by
limiting the market value and the property taxes to the State and to the County and to the City.
Todd Gerhardt: Well because they are in a TIF district, we would be collecting all the increment with the
exception of the base value as it is today out there. So the County, the School District and the City will not
be receiving those tax receipts. The District will be receiving them and you're absolutely right. We will be
receiving less increment because we have frozen their base with these restrictions, but we've done that to
ensure that we have 35 units of affordable housing in Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: I'm just trying to get the full impact, fiscal impact of what we're subsidizing.
Councilman Senn: But Nancy, if I could just add to that. Okay, you're really not subsidizing it because
you're controlling the value on the home, okay. And the taxes are set by the valuation. So I mean you'd
say you were subsidizing if we were allowing the value on the home to increase at the same time that we
were holding the taxes down. Then we would be subsidizing it. We're doing both in this case. The taxes
stay down because we hold the value down.
Mayor Mancino: Well I know but I meant it's still not true market value.
Councilman Senn: No, granted but, well it is and it isn't. It's true market value in the sense that we've
established the market value, a means by which it can grow and it's an absolute so it is the market value
and that, when I talked to Todd.
Mayor Mancino: That we've created.
Councilman Senn: Well that's right, what we created but that was also my point to Todd why we didn't
need to include 7% on a realty thing because these homes effectively will sell themselves out of the list that
will be created effectively for people wanting to you know get into the affordable housing situations so
there's no reason to enter effectively a free market. I mean we're developing these outside of a free market
in the first place.
Mayor Mancino: And we're guaranteeing the developer profit. I'm just going through all the things that
are going through here. If we get to first time, let me just ask one other question because I wasn't in on
part of this. I mean part of it is we're getting the first time home buyers and.
Councilman Senn: Part of it qualifies for first time home buyers.
Mayor Mancino: Which is 18 of the units, correct?
Councilman Senn: Correct. Qualifies. That's under the State program.
Mayor Mancino: How did you get Todd, the captured tax capacity that's estimated to be $60,481.007
When I actually your example 3 here. On the last page, the taxes per unit, townhomes # 1, townhomes #2
and townhomes #3. You get to a per unit market value of $95,000.00. How did we get a tax per unit
there of 17297 When I do it on a rate I get $1,180.00.
48
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Todd Gerhardt: It should be $63,660.00. If you look at total tax capacity, the second row.
Mayor Mancino: Where are you?
Todd Gerhardt: On Attachment 3, the first page. You go to the project value information and you've got
townhomes #1, #2 and #3. You add total market value. Total tax capacity. It's $63,660.00. My number
came from probably an old run. This is the most current run is Attachment 3.
Mayor Mancino: And what is the taxes per unit that are generated out of that? On a $95,000.00 unit.
Todd Gerhardt: That's the, each individual's property taxes of what each unit will pay in taxes.
Townhome # 1, there are some different values that we associated with the three townhomes. I think
townhome #3 had three bedrooms. Townhome #2 had two bedrooms. Townhome # 1 had a one bedroom
and a den type thing.
Mayor Mancino: And are you using the formula on the market value of $95,000.007 The first
$72,000.00 is at 1%. The second $72,000.00 or over and above is 2%?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Yep.
Mayor Mancino: And on $95,000.00 you get 17297
Todd Gerhardt: You should, times local tax capacity rate of 1.465510.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So the overall increment of these 76 units, the captured tax capacity is
$60,481.007
Todd Gerhardt: $63,660.00 since the last run. Oh that was on 42. Yeah. 35 of the units are what we're
subsidizing but we do have an additional 7 units. You can include 20% of the units outside of the district
that are going to get assistance so we wanted to capture as much increment as we could to help subsidize
the units to pay this off as soon as possible. So we included 7 units that will not be receiving tax increment
assistance. Or won't be the affordability rate. It will be the $140's. Increment from 7 of those units to
help offset the cost. To make the pool of money greater.
Councilman Berquist: Have you specified those?
Todd Gerhardt: They're in the development district boundaries. The TIF plan that we approved.
Councilman Berquist: ...the specific units have to be specified.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And the per market value you have down here is $135,000.00 but now you're
saying it's 1407
Todd Gerhardt: Those would be for the 7 units outside the district. But still the 18 units inside the district,
18 would be at a value of $95,000.00. No more and the remaining 17 units would be at the $120,000.00.
Mayor Mancino: 120, okay.
49
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Councilman Senn: But Nancy, also in relationship to what Todd and I have talked about to date, by adding
the element into the formula where the homeowner can make improvements and basically share, I mean
basically be able to get his equity effectively back out of as he makes those improvements, those values will
go up so these projections don't assume that yet in relationship to... and those taxes will actually be higher
because that's just naturally going to happen even though they're being sold as affordable houses. People
will still finish basements, add amenities and that sort of thing so those values, that will then enter into their
value and their tax values will go up as will tax capacity.
Mayor Mancino: And how are we going to prove those that have added value and those who haven't?
Todd Gerhardt: Well just like they would on a resale home, they're going to have to show some receipts.
Capital gains receipts.
Councilman Senn: Just like you have to do for a tax return on capital gains.
Councilman Berquist: Are there slab on grades?
Todd Gerhardt: Todd Stutz from Rottlund Homes could answer that question.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, what's your name sir?
Todd Stutz: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. I'm Todd Stutz, President of Rottlund Homes,
2681 Long Lake Road in Roseville. Of the 35 units that are proposed as part of the tax increment program
that we're discussing this evening, approximately half of those will be multi-level so that we'll have a lower
level and the other 18 of the units will be slab on grade but two stories in nature. So they are a slab on
grade product but some are multi-level with a half basement if you will.
Councilman Berquist: 18 slab on grades with a second level?
Todd Stutz: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: 17 ramblers with a basement?
Todd Stutz: Well actually multi-level. Split entry type units.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, any other? Oh, go ahead Todd.
Todd Gerhardt: Bob brought up a good point this afternoon which I think was a comment that he received
from you regarding conditions in the 3rd Addition that you don't have similar units next to each other and
... think Mr. Stutz would like to hear that language...
Mayor Mancino: Did you come up with that language?
Bob Generous: If I can remember it.
Todd Gerhardt: Well our discussion this afternoon, it was said that they wanted to include that in the
redevelopment or the development contract. And it's still the case.
5O
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Yes, I think that Bob had figured out how many different sets of plans or you know what
you could pick from and vary it, etc. so that we didn't have a whole area looking alike and kind of project
look oriented.
Todd Stutz: Madam Mayor, there's four different plans that are suggested as part of the 35 units and we'd
certainly be receptive to something that would alternate so we did not have the same elevation or same plan
adjacent to each other.
Mayor Mancino: And four or five different exterior variations too?
Todd Stutz: There actually would be four different plans and each one of those plans would have two
elevations. SO if we wanted a situation where you'd have no more than two plans adjacent to each other,
of which both of them had to have different elevations, I think that that would satisfy the mix of product
that we've been working with staff on. One of the things that staff has worked on with was to get a variety
of different types of product that fit different lifestyle requirements and that's what we attempted to do.
And so just by that we will have some variation but you may have some cases where you'll have the same
plan next to each other but it would have a different elevation.
Mayor Mancino: But only two, okay.
Todd Stutz: No more than two though, yes.
Mayor Mancino: So that will be part of the contract?
Todd Stutz: We're fine with that, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, other questions? Or comments.
Councilman Senn: No, nothing additional other than what I already went over with Todd, and you heard of
them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: None.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Are we inventing the wheel in this particular case? Have other cities been
successful of doing something like, have other communities done something like this? Have they been
successful or not? What problems have they encountered? What can we expect that's, from a problem
point of view that will be foreseen, unforeseen? That's an open ended question. The complexity of the
document is, is this manageable?
51
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Todd Gerhardt: The nice thing about this project, it's very similar to a project that Todd was involved with
over in Minnetonka. That's why I think Rottlund has been so receptive to this plan. Seeing the success
that's happen over in Minnetonka. I think we've tighten it up. We extended our affordability past
Minnetonka's guidelines that they had. We've got a recapture clause in here. After the 30 years, the guy
at the end doesn't get a windfall. That money will come back to the City so we...
Councilman Berquist: One thing I noticed in here, but go ahead.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know how much of a windfall there will be but I mean that's 30 years down the
line. Don will still be here but.
Mayor Mancino: But nobody else will.
Todd Gerhardt: But this has been picked through pretty good. I mean we've been working on it for a year
now and I think this is just a great project and even after all the things I heard today over at the legislation.
Mayor Mancino: That's what I was going to ask you about. Are we going to be able to keep on doing
this?
Todd Gerhardt: This has been, this is an excellent project and a representative from Minnetonka brought
out their project and told us that we should be doing things like that. I told him we are.
Todd Stutz: And our project is actually a lot better than the Minnetonka project.
Councilman Berquist: You've talked to the Director of the EDA over there and sounded him out as to the
pros and the cons of his particular project?
Todd Gerhardt: I didn't talk to their EDA, Mark Ruff, who represented us from Ayler's and Public Corp.
The consultant that we used worked on that project.
Councilman Berquist: How long ago was that project implemented?
Todd Gerhardt: I'd say 3 years ago.
Todd Stutz: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Berquist. That development was undertaken, and really
began sales in June of 1996. It was a total of 104 units, of which 96 units were restricted under a similar
program you're discussing this evening. And it was extremely successful. 104 units are sold. The last
unit will close in May of the 104 units.
Councilman Berquist: So we haven't experienced any cycles, any turnovers yet at this point?
Todd Stutz: I think that is probably the larger issue here is that, and maybe perhaps in the first couple
years of ownership and after that initial owner sales it, who certainly is aware of the declaration of
restrictive covenants that their property was purchased under, is the enforcement of that after that initial
buyer sells it. Maybe it will work the first time but then the subsequent buyer and the subsequent buyer to
that and 20 years down the road it certainly is something that will appear in their title work but in the
interpretation of that by an attorney in reviewing title work and such and how the enforceability of that
might be and laws may change in the meantime. I think that's certainly something we can't speculate on
52
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
right now. I think that we've done our best in terms of setting up the declaration of restrictive covenants so
it is something that is easily interpretable and enforceable, at least in the near term. I think the long term is
something we have yet to see.
Councilman Berquist: As long as the people don't change. The people that are administering the program.
That's one thing. The question really is then, is there a project, are there projects anywhere that have some
maturity to them? So that the logistical, you know the operation of the thing as it matures, you can get
some insights from them.
Mayor Mancino: Other working models.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, working models.
Councilman Senn: There isn't.
Councilman Berquist: There is not?
Councilman Senn: There is not.
Councilman Berquist: Why not?
Councilman Senn: We put the rough framework of this together before June of '96 when they did the
Minnetonka project. We've been working a long time on basically finding a place to use it and then this
one came in and we used it so. I mean this, to answer your earlier question, this is strictly, how would you
call it, cutting edge.
Todd Gerhardt: The tendency has always been to provide assistance for rental for affordability. And never
in the single family. City Manager Don Ashworth's been saying for years that we need to put the
affordability in the owner occupied units. To have that individual take the responsibility of that and the
upkeep and that's going to be the best for all, both sides. From the City and from the homeowner. Start
building equity and taking ownership.
Don Ashworth: But that probably is a good example from the standpoint that you do have at least, at least
10 years of history as it deals with this type of program in the rental area. And again like Todd said,
recently applying that over into the home ownership type of thing and, but it should still work the same. I
mean I think Todd's done an excellent job in trying to look at what some of the unforeseen problems are
going to be. I mean if you can do that. But I think he's done, and our advisors.
Councilman Berquist: Last question then, as a little bit related. Would any of this information be
applicable to the rental housing that we were just discussing on the Gateway piece?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve the Private
Redevelopment Agreement with The Rottlund Company, Inc. and the Limited Revenue Tax
Increment Note for $400,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COULTER BOULEVARD PHASE III ROAD AND
UTILITY PROJECT NO. 97-1.
53
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Resolution #97-25: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to authorize the
feasibility study for Coulter Boulevard Phase lll Road and Utility Project No. 97-1. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Senn: ...or at least that's what I've now been told. I didn't understand that at the time. I
thought we were just setting the fees for the licenses. I'm glad I'm not the only dummy. I was very
surprised and stuff but I think at this point we really ought to talk about, I mean I think we need to
basically be more proactive in relationship to that thing rather than just sitting back. I'm very comfortable
the way we're doing it right now for some people just to sit around and wait forever and I think it's to our
interest to see things go forward rather than to sit around and wait forever so maybe we'll have to put a
little more pressure on there to our original request and requirement which has basically been ignored.
Mayor Mancino: And who's been dealing with him. Who's been communicating? Todd, has that been
something you've been doing? I mean who's the point person that's.
Todd Gerhardt: Well, there's been so many different things going on. I mean Mr. Pauly is very frustrated
that the process is going slow. Dan Dahlin has a variety of different excuses and they seem legitimate. His
attorney's got pneumonia. He had an accident. You know a variety of things. However, I do agree with
mark in that we need to, the City needs to put some additional pressure and make some seriousness to this.
I've expressed that both to the movie theater and Frontier people. You know that basically the TIF deal is
off the table if construction doesn't start this year. And I don't know how much.., that will really prove but
they know that that deadline's out there. However staff would like the opportunity to sit down with the
City Attorney's office to see whatever mechanisms we may have available to force this deal to get done.
And there's a variety of different title issues that need to be resolved. Somebody's got to go down to
Mississippi and get a signature and things like that. But there's a big title issue. But staff would like the
opportunity to.
Councilman Senn: You've got a number of volunteers. But you'd better act quick because they'll change
their mind next week if it's 70 or something.
Todd Gerhardt: ... maybe we can get them to fax the signature up but staff would like the opportunity to sit
down with the City Attorney's office and get some options of how we can pressure this. I spent an hour on
the phone today with Mr. Pauly and so he got me all fired up and we'll see what we can do.
Don Ashworth: I think we also have to take and meet, go down to the County Auditor's office and the
County Attorney's office. This property went through a tax forfeiture process. As a part of that there was
a particular plan that was developed which Mr. Dahlin was supposed to live up to to take and bring himself
back into compliance. Well, that's been ignored and nobody has picked the issue back up again and I
think, I don't know if it's too much work. Work load for the County Attorney but I think that's another
aspect that needs to be pursued. We will do that and put it back on another work session.
Councilman Senn: I think it's really too comfortable. I mean we've carried the situation where a guy is
down there saying cash...
54
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Well you don't want it to be too comfortable.
Councilman Berquist: Did we, when we approved the liquor license fees, did we also approve the liquor
license?
Don Ashworth: There was two separate processes. The fee portion was set I would say in February so
that we could send the notices to the owners so they would know exactly what the amount would be. Then
we came back in March and specifically approved the fee, or I mean the licenses themselves and that's
when you got into this discussion as to Pauly's fee versus the bowling center's fee and.
Councilman Berquist: So last year when we had the discussion with Mr. Dahlin, a public forum regarding
the reduction in the back taxes and we held the club of non-renewal of the liquor license.
Councilman Senn: We just took another action which effectively undid it.
Councilman Berquist: Right, we did. And at one point I even remember talking about giving him a
temporary extension with the understanding that he would work to get those back taxes paid. Now since
we, back in March we passed those, we allowed those liquor licenses to come back in force. I mean if we
chose to right now at this moment, could we rescind that effective... ?
Todd Gerhardt: That's what we'd like, the option to sit down with the City Attorneys. I think, you know
my opinion to Roger would be that, you know your motion last year said if anybody's delinquent in taxes, I
don't know how that relates to liquor license. If anybody's delinquent.
Councilman Senn: Can we legally revoke?
Roger Knutson: Once they have the license, if you want to revoke it, you'd have to go through a hearing
process. Examine the record and see exactly...
Councilman Senn: I mean the last thing I think we want to do is leave the action a few weeks ago which
simply just renews the liquor license with no club, no nothing and we haven't put any pressure on, for him
to do what we asked him to do a year ago. So I mean that's why I think Todd should sit down with Roger.
We should figure that out to come back to us next Council meeting for an action so we can.
Councilman Berquist: As I remember, I might not remember right. Liquor licenses run from May 1 to
April 30? So in effective the new license isn't in force yet.
Mayor Mancino: Hasn't taken effect.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, so we could still act to do something.
Mayor Mancino: So go ahead and do it. Okay. Any other comments on that?
Councilman Senn: Not on that. That was the only issue. I have a piece of news to report ifI could. I
don't know if anybody really cares about it but. The Transportation Funding Bill went to the Senate Floor
this afternoon and Senator Papus from St. Paul had changed the language to take out local veto on toll
roads. And Jane Raymond, who's from South Minneapolis put an amendment on the floor to put local
control, or local veto back in and it passed on a 40 to 24 vote.
55
City Council Meeting - April 14, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Good, good.
Councilman Senn: So that's one...
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
PROPOSED 1998 BUDGET CALENDAR~ CITY
MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: I would suggest I put this on the next work session.
Councilman Mason: I couldn't agree more.
Mayor Mancino: The budget calendar? Okay.
Councilman Senn: Could I ask one question out of the Administrative packet? What's the first memo all
about? It totally threw me.
Mayor Mancino: The thank you card? Oh from the Rotary.
Councilman Senn: From March of 19977
Mayor Mancino: Oh, Don talked at the Rotary. Don Ashworth.
Councilman Senn: But this is dated March of 1997.
Councilman Mason: He just did it a few weeks ago.
Councilman Senn: I thought you went and talked?
Mayor Mancino: Don did.
Councilman Senn: Oh Don did. Oh, okay.
Mayor Mancino formally adjourned the meeting at 12:00 midnight.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
56