CC Minutes 1997 09 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd Hofknan, Kate
Aanenson, and Anita Benson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Approve Private Redevelopment Agreement, Heartland America.
c. Resolution # 97-68: Accept Utility Improvements in North Bay 2nd Addition - Project 95-20.
d. Resolution #97-69: City Code Amendment Requiring Developers to Reimburse the City for
Updating City Base Maps, GIS Data Base Files, and Converting Plat and Record Drawings; Second
and Final Reading; and Approval of a Resolution Establishing a Fee Schedule.
e. Resolution #97-70: Accept Utility Improvements in Autumn Ridge 1st and 2nd Additions - Project
No. 95-5 and 96-4.
f. Resolution #97-71: Accept Utility Improvements in Townhomes at Creekside - Project No. 96-17.
g. Authorize Advertising for Bids for 1997 SWMP Water Quality Projects.
h. Approval of Bills.
i. City Council Minutes dated August 25, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 20, 1997
k. Appointments to the Citizen Oversight Committee, Park, Open Space & Trail Referendum Projects.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR LYMAN BLVD. AND UTILITY
PROJECT, PROJECT No. 93-32B.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dennis Baker
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Jesberg
Cathleen & Gary Preweitt
9219 Lake Riley Blvd.
8407 Great Plains Blvd.
421 Lyman Blvd.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Folch, the floor is your's.
Charles Folch: Okay. This is the assessment hearing of course, for the Lyman Boulevard, Lake Riley
trunk utility improvement project, 93-32B. We've included a copy of the the latest and greatest assessment
roll in your packet tonight. As I passed out in the work session, between the time that your packets were
submitted or printed and distributed to you last week and today, we've received two more formal objections
to the assessments. I've included those as a handout tonight to you. In fact here's the one for the Jessup's
that we verbally talked about. Basically the Jessup's and the Finger property were the two more that came
in today, and we'll address those in our presentation. With us tonight we have the project engineer, Mr.
David Mitchell from OSM to kind of just provide you with an overview again of what the project involves.
What the established and benefitted service areas that were determined and then review the overall project
scope and assessment funding and after that we're open to take questions from the public and Council.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
David Mitchell: Thanks Charles. Mayor, and members of the Council. As Charles mentioned, my name is
David Mitchell of OSM. Let's start with a quick overview and I'll try to keep the presentation as short as
possible but City Project 93-32 involved the extension of trunk utilities from the northern portions of
Chanhassen, Highway 5 to the watermain and Lake Susan Drive watermain. Also the trail crossing area of
TH 101 for the sanitary sewer extension and road utilities down into the Lake Riley service area. Also
included in the project was the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard from TH 101, as it extended to the
south, and the city limits on the eastern border where it meets Eden Prairie. As the project was initiated
about 4 years ago, it was eventually broken into two phases. The phases were constructed. The first
phase being the area that benefitted, the area outlined in red here. And we'll talk about both phases as we
go through each of these projects. Phase I was primarily to serve the Mission Hills development. Phase II
was to serve again north, I mean to the right of Highway 5. Up in this area. Lyman Boulevard. Phase II
served the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley area. This particular graphic shows the assessment areas for
the sanitary sewer improvements, or those areas benefitting from the sanitary that was installed. The area
highlighted in red is the area that was assessed under Phase I of the project. That assessment hearing was
held and approved already. The hearing for tonight involves the remainder of the shaded area. The area
highlighted in green is the Finger property that Charles has alluded to, that was discussed at the work
session. Similarly, watermain actually benefitted a larger area. Orientation, Highway 5 on the right.
Lyman Boulevard and this is a blow-up of the Lake Riley Boulevard area. Again, the areas benefitted from
the project is shaded. The area highlighted in red was the area that was assessed under Phase I of the
project. Two lots in this case that are highlighted in green, the Finger property and the Jessup property that
Charles alluded to in his opening remarks.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: So you're putting west as north.
David Mitchell: Correct. West is at the top. Orientation again. Trunk Highway 101. Highway 5. This is
Lyman Boulevard. The area shaded is the benefitted area for the Lyman Boulevard improvements. Those
are the areas that show up on the assessment roll for the street and storm sewer assessments. No more to
say about that. Some of the numbers. The first graphic, and it was included in the Council packet
indicates a summary for Phase II of the project. The total project cost was $4.242 million. The total
funding for the project was $4.233 million. A slight shortfall as the phasing goes. There was an extra
assessed in Phase I of the project which you'll see I think in the next graphic. You may want to highlight
here as far as the, maybe the next one. The project as a whole indicates an estimated project cost to '94
when the feasibility report was completed of $4.178 million. The final construction cost, $4.6 million. A
difference of $446,000.00. That difference was made up in the bottom four items that were added to the
project that were not part of the feasibility report. Those being the storm sewer, some additional soil
correction work, street lighting on the project and then there were two properties that were total takes that
will benefitting future projects so they're showing us an easement cost at this time. There's also additional
costs up in the street improvements. It involves some pond development that is part of the Springfield
development. At the time that the project was put in the feasibility report it was anticipated that the
development would be there before the City would be. Therefore it was anticipated that they would do the
pond construction. They were not there so some things had to be added with regards to storm sewer and
grading to accommodate the City improvement project. Funding and then these will change slightly with
the results of the Jessup's and Finger property changes. Total funding was estimated at $4.49 million in
1994. We end up with funding of $4.836 it looks like. The difference is being made up in additional
funding for... That really concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address
those at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you David. Any questions from Council members at this point? Thank
you. Charles.
Charles Folch: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. I will run through just briefly here, again
reiterating for the record, the three objections that were received prior to your packet distribution. One was
from the Jesberg's at 8407 Great Plains Boulevard. Basically they believe that they do not, would not like
to see an assessment against the property at this time. They do not believe it a benefit. It will benefit them
in the future, long term being that their property is shown in the future right-of-way corridor for TH 101
and anticipate being at some time when the project is approved, that they would be acquired. The entire
property and so they would wish to have the assessments dropped for their property. They're looking at
both the lateral assessment and one trunk watermain assessment and what we could do basically is, as a
compromise suggest that only the trunk one be levied at this point in time since they are in the service area
and not levy the lateral assessment. And if they did connect at some future point in time, then we would
collect the charge at that point as a possible compromise. The trunk hook-up charge for watermain would
be $1,375.00. The second letter received was from the Prewitt's at 4121 Lyman Boulevard, and we've
included that letter in your packet from the Prewitt's and staff has had a meeting with the engineer and the
Prewitt's today to discuss some of the issues regarding remaining work on the punch list that needs to be
done. And hopefully we've addressed those adequately. I will note that there still is the matter of some
easement acquisition for the project. That is being completed now in cooperation with the City Attorney's
office and probably we will be looking at some sort of credit, if you will, against their assessments based on
the value of the easement that we agree upon. So it's probably...pretty much at this point it'd probably be
a wash in terms of their assessment versus the easement cost so. The third objection received was from the
Sitter's at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. Did not believe that they benefitted from the street and drainage
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
improvements to Lyman Boulevard and stated that, you know they're going to be responsible for costs
associated with upgrading Lake Riley Boulevard in the future and we did, staff did submit a letter back to
the Sitter's explaining the methodology behind the frontage road assessment and the off road service area
assessment being with neighborhoods that are typically, like Lake Riley Boulevard. The only access to the
boulevard is through Lyman Boulevard so as we discussed in the feasibility stage, we establish an off road
assessment for those properties which is basically half the cost of those being assessed for the frontage who
actually front on and take access from Lyman so sort of to try and address the fairness issue with that
respect so. We would still, staff would still continue to support the off road assessment to that property as
well as all the other properties considered in the off road assessment area. With regard to the letter
received today from the Finger's at 9201 Great Plains Boulevard. At the time the feasibility study was
done, that property was basically borderline in terms of whether or not it would be served by this area of
this project or future area and accordingly we put them in the service area for this project. Looking at how
the grading plan and utility layout has developed for the Springfield development, which is the former
Dolejsi property. It probably is more likely now looking at it that this property would be served by a
different utility service area. You could still do it but you'd be pumping and it would be less cost effective.
Things like that. So staff would support basically eliminating the current present assessment for trunk
sewer, trunk water to the Finger property. Basically it's not going to change the overall assessment
revenue because at some point in time they're going to pay the trunk charges through either hook-up or
future assessment project down in that area. So staff is, would support eliminating that assessment at this
point in time.
Mayor Mancino: When you say future you mean in the next 5-10 years or something?
Charles Folch: It could be. Or there could be the chance where a property may have a private system fail
and can't wait for another public project so in essence they may have to do some things to connect to this
other system that's with this Lake Riley area, and if that's the case, then we would get our trunk charges at
that point in time.
Mayor Mancino: And would they be the trunk charges that are here today or those with an inflationary?
Charles Folch: They would be those at the current year's rate at the time that they would connect. And we
adjust, you're correct. We adjust the trunk hook-up charges.
Mayor Mancino: The rate on an annual basis.
Charles Folch: Based on construction cost.., right. Then the final one we received today was, I just passed
out tonight was from the Jessup property at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. A vacant property that previously
had a variance on the property. The variance has expired. They're contending now that, they object to the
assessments against the property unless variance is granted for the property. At this point, as we discussed,
it is a property of record. I guess staff would support either way. Either way we collect the assessments.
Now with the project, I guess it's a coin toss in terms of what's, how staff feels. I mean it's something that
it's either pay me now or pay me when the property has a structure put on it and they connect to the
system. So from that standpoint, staff I guess doesn't have a.
Mayor Mancino: It is a property of record and can be built upon?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. As long as it's a lot of record, they have a right to get a building permit. It may
require a variance but they have a right to go through the process.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it requires a variance due to lot size?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Charles Folch: So with that staff would, and our project engineer would be available to answer questions
that you or the public would have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Are there any questions from Council members?
Councilman Senn: One ifI could. Charles, what is the, looking at the project cost here. I don't know if
this is for you or for the consultant but you've got a column in there called mobilization and clean-up. Can
you kind of do a little explanation on that?
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, which? Oh, mobilization clean-up.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, where are you? What page?
Councilman Senn: Oh, I'm sorry. Right on the project budget that he reviewed. It doesn't have page
numbers but it's on the second sheet of paper, the back side. Does that help?
Mayor Mancino: It's, oh I see, yes.
David Mitchell: I've got it here. Mayor, Councilman Senn. The mobilization and clean-up item is an item
that we typically add to our construction bids. We do it for a couple of reasons. One is to compensate the
contractor for mobilizing his equipment to the project. But even a more important aspect is the clean-up
issue. We typically will not pay the clean-up until the phase of the project is cleaned up to the satisfaction
of the City. What it does is it just gives us one more strangle hold on the contractor, for lack of a better
term, to keep them on the project and get the project cleaned up. What I've done in the itemization here is
pro-rated that across the different bid schedules or the different assessment areas of the project based on the
percentage of the actual construction items versus the total construction costs. So it's been prorated across
each of the items.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but was this part of the bid or not part of the bid?
David Mitchell: It was part of the bid.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So the bid item totals you have listed in the first column are the bid item totals
less some things you deducted out and you're putting back in later? Is that.
David Mitchell: The bid item totals are for construction activities. Actual payment items other than the
mobilization and clean-up.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But when they submitted their bid for the work they included an amount for
mobilization and clean-up that you've separated out here.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
David Mitchell:
Mayor Mancino:
Councilman Senn:
On a separate line. It was.
A line item.
Right, a separate line item but was part of the bid and considered in the low bid.
David Mitchell: Right. The bid totaled for example $2.4 million and then there was two additional items.
One for mobilization and one for clean-up, which totaled the $96,000.00. There's two separate bid items
but, then I put them back into the actual construction activities.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but when we approved the bids on this project, what did we approve? $2.4 or
did we approve $3.4?
David Mitchell: $3.4.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Charles I've got, in going through the roster here. Coming up with a couple, I'd just
like a quick explanation on. Specifically the homeowners association of, one located on Deerfoot Trail.
Sunnyslope Homeowners Association. Is there property associated with that?
Mayor Mancino: What's the page number?
Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry. Page number 18. Third from the bottom.
Mayor Mancino: It's fax number in the upper right hand comer. It's what the fax produced as a page
number.
Councilman Berquist: I can give you the PID number.
Charles Folch: Yeah it's, I've got it now. It's got a PID number so it's a lot of record basically. It's
probably a common area lot that the association owns jointly.
Councilman Berquist: The association owns it jointly. Why would we have a lateral?
Mayor Mancino: Maybe they have water to that? They may have a drinking fountain.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, okay.
Charles Folch: It's a buildable lot I believe.
Councilman Berquist: It is a buildable lot?
Kate Aanenson: Beachlot. Association beachlot.
Councilman Berquist: So it's not an outlot?
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Charles Folch: No, it's a lot of record.
Kate Aanenson: But it's a neighborhood association for a beachlot. Not a buildable lot.
Roger Knutson: Recreational beachlot.
Kate Aanenson: Recreational beachlot. So they can use it.
Councilman Berquist: Can those be assessed?
Councilman Senn: I thought we didn't usually assess those.
Councilman Berquist: And the lot technically has no value.
Roger Knutson: Oh, it's got value. But not as.
Councilman Berquist: It's unsellable. I mean it's part of the homeowner's association's property but it...
Mayor Mancino: Can't they decide as an association to sell it? If they want.
Roger Knutson: They can sell it. Then it would really.
Councilman Berquist: They don't pay taxes on it.
Roger Knutson: Sure they do.
Councilman Berquist: Recreational beachlot?
Roger Knutson: They should. It's private property.
Don Ashworth: Well and the other beachlots, I think like next to Councilman Berquist. The value of that
is added back to each of the homeowners that are in that particular association. I believe that's what the
Assessor told me.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: That's the way I always thought we did it.
Roger Knutson: It has a separate PIN number obviously. What I don't know is whether they have, I don't
recall and maybe Kate does, whether they have or a potential for having like a restroom there.
Kate Aanenson:
Roger Knutson:
Councilman Senn:
They cannot have a dock. They can only have access.
No, they can't have a dock. We litigated that.
They can't have improvements.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Kate Aanenson: I don't think it's big.
Mayor Mancino: So maybe that would be something our engineer could check. Whether they should have
a lateral charge.
Kate Aanenson: Because it's not...
Roger Knutson: My guess is that you could never have sewer and water there.
Charles Folch: We can just eliminate it then, that's fine.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Then just for, I'm sure we'll get into the public hearing part of it, but the
names that I've got. Somebody correct me ifI don't have them all. Jessup's, Finger's, Sitter's,
Prewitt's...
Charles Folch: That's what we've received to date.
Mayor Mancino: You should have five.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to open the public hearing. The public
hearing was opened.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, those wishing to address the City Council at this time, please come forward.
Come to the podium. State your name and your address.
Dennis Baker: I also presume it's still Madam Mayor, or am I that old?
Mayor Mancino: No, that sounds fine. Thank you.
Dennis Baker: And members of the Council. My name is Dennis Baker and I live at 9219 Lake Riley
Boulevard. And the reason I'm here is, I see one of my neighbors signed that letter and it's an objection to
the assessment for the storm sewer on Lake Riley Boulevard, or lack of thereof. To give you a little
background. I've been involved with the lake for, I've lived there for 19 years and I've been involved with
the lake for that number of years. And so I'm very familiar with the lake. I was very upset when Jack
Nickolaus decided to build a golf course on the Eden Prairie side of the lake and I was equally upset,
obviously with the development on the western side of the lake because I liked the atmosphere and all that.
But more importantly, Lake Riley is now 8 feet shallower than it was 19 years ago. And that 8 feet is
sediment runoff. And I've got pictures when Jack Nickolaus was building his golf course and I've got
pictures with the subdivisions building, being built right now. Witht he mud going into the storm sewer, so
I don't even like the storm sewer. So when I got an assessment of $800.00 for a storm sewer that isn't even
on Lake Riley Boulevard, even though the City Engineer explained that it's an off road assessment and it's
half of what the builders of the subdivision are having to pay. I'd still like to express my objection to it
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
because in spite of everybody's honorable intentions as far as the sediment ponds and everything like that,
Lake Riley is filling up with sediment so the sediment ponding isn't working and it's not working because
of the way the storm sewers are being put in, in my opinion, and it's not an educated or an opinion. It's
just an opinion based on, I've gone out there and taken secidisc measurements of the lake to measure it's
clarity and it's not any cleaner than it was 19 years ago. Other than the weeds, and the milfoil's kind of
taken care of that. And the lake is 8 feet shallower. It was 55 feet deep when we moved here, and using
the same measuring instrument that I used then plus an additional, it's now 48 feet deep, or 47 feet deep.
So that's 8 feet shallower. So I'm a lover of Lake Riley. We've lived there 19 years. We've had, the only
city service we ever had was a storm sewer until we got the water, and we're thankful for the water because
I've had three neighbors burned out because there wasn't any water there. So we're thankful for the water.
We're thankful for the fire hydrant but I don't think that we should be paying $800.00 a household for a
storm sewer that, like Mr. Sitter explained, doesn't benefit us whatsoever. Mr. Sitter's at the end of the
road and he really doesn't get benefitted. He gets washed out every time there's a storm because there's no
drainage away from Lake Riley Boulevard. Add on top of that, when they tore up our road they only took
half of it and left the other half as an old road. So we got short changed there too. Anyway, thank you for
your attention.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Mr. Baker. Do you want to respond? Tell us a little bit about one, Lake
Riley and the concern about what's happened. And what we're doing now.
Charles Folch: Well I don't know that I can address the Lake Riley issue in terms of overall what's
happening. I guess what I'm prepared to address tonight is, there's not a specific assessment for storm
sewer. Storm sewer that we're referring to within this project is an element of the overall road
improvement cost and so basically the $800.00 which is a storm, is a road assessment cost, has some of the
storm sewer costs and project built into the road assessments. So it's not an $800.00 assessment for the
storm sewer. It's $800.00 for Lyman Boulevard improvement project, which an element of that, like the
street lighting. Like the curbing. Like the storm sewer. Is all part of that. If you look at like the overall
project construction costs.., kind of rationalize, or try to relate to this. Construction cost wise, the road,
street construction, that sort of thing was just about a million dollars. The storm sewer, catch basins and
ponding improvements associated with the road are about 20% of that or about $212,000.00. So if you
look at your $800.00 assessment, and you want to use the same linear rationale, about 20% of that was
related to the storm sewer improvements and the ponding associated with the road improvement project. So
it's not $800.00 just for storm sewer. It's for Lyman Boulevard road assessment.
Mayor Mancino: And explain a little bit about the road construction. Half a road that Mr. Backer brought
up.
Charles Folch: Half a road? I'm sorry.
Mayor Mancino: He said that half of the road was.
Charles Folch: Oh, half the cost. Well I think that's the difference.
Dennis Baker: May I? When they put the watermain down Lake Riley Boulevard, they tore up half the
road and repaved half but the other half of the road...
Mayor Mancino: So they feathered the new into the old.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Dennis Baker: Pardon me?
Mayor Mancino: They feathered the new into the old.
Dennis Baker: ...the old road was pretty weak and at the end of it, they did replace it. I would like to say
one more thing though. When I moved here 19 years ago my taxes.
Mayor Mancino: We want to get you in the Minutes.
Dennis Baker: When I moved here 19 years ago my taxes were $1,100.00 on my house and now they're
$5,000.00, okay. But I've got water.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Some of us still don't have water.
Charles Folch: In terms of, thanks for clarifying. I'm sorry. I missed that part about the road earlier
there. I was concentrating on how to address the other answer but, at any point. What we did at the
feasibility time we sent out a survey to all the residents along Lake Riley Boulevard and we wanted to find
out whether or not they were interested in having the road reconstructed. We addressed the issue. We were
going to have to tear up part of it to put watermains. Were you interested in having us rebuild the whole
thing? There was an overwhelming majority that said no. We do not want a recon project. We'd leave our
road alone. We don't want to be assessed so accordingly we basically just cut up half of it to put the
watermain in. Put it back together as best we could and sealcoated it because, when we got feedback from
the residents, the majority of the residents down there did not want to see the road reconstructed.
Mayor Mancino: And the overall costs reflect that.
Charles Folch: That's right.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions, comments from Council members?
Councilman Berquist: The only question I had was addressed to Lake Riley. Perhaps you're not the right
fellow to speak but he brings up a good point. Water quality of the lake and the.., of the lake.
Charles Folch: The only thing I can speak to, and maybe because this is a lake that of course borders both
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen, is that with projects that we're doing, you know we're under a National
NPDES requirement so all of our storm drainage systems must meet the non point source discharge
pollution. Basically the federal requirements so my only, and again you're correct. I'm not the guru to
respond to that from a global issue but we are, our design has to meet and it goes through review of the
DNR, the PCA. Everybody like that has to review our plans and approve them before we can get the
permits to do the construction and we're meeting the requirements and standards that are set forth. I guess
that's the only response I have in terms of what we're doing with our project.
Mayor Mancino: Just a minute. Mr. Baker, could you leave with Kate your name and telephone number.
Phillip Elkin, our Water Resource Specialist will call you and discuss the Lake Riley because he's on top
of a management plan for our lakes.
Dennis Baker: Some of my disdain about the sediment comes from the Eden Prairie side, but I went to
their City Council meeting too when that project was going. They said the same thing that you're saying,
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
you know. But now you go around the lake and you measure the depth and wherever the storm sewer
runoff basins are coming into the lake, you know it goes 10 feet, 10 feet, 10 feet, 8 feet, 7 feet, 6 feet, 10
feet, 10 feet, you know. Just like that and it's going to be the same thing here. And the main reason, it's
going to be even worse here because we didn't have the vegetation. You know the seeding didn't work and
you've driven down Lake Riley I'm sure and seen the, I mean there's 6-8 inches of mud down the gutters.
That water's going into Lake Riley.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Cathleen Prewitt: Madam Mayor, Councilmen. I'm Cathleen Prewitt and my husband Gary is also here
this evening. And it was addressed, we wanted to make note that it was addressed in the meeting tonight
that we were concerned with assessments versus what our taxes are going to be on this property. And we
are with meetings with them now but I just wanted it for the record so you know that we were here.
Mayor Mancino: Do you know what the timing will be? Do you have any idea? Is this going to take place
in the next couple months?
Charles Folch: In terms of the finaling the easement acquisitions? I spoke with Tom Scott last Friday and
it's our desire, we don't have a whole lot of property left and we're very close in terms of the numbers with
everybody. I would expect that within the next one to two Council meetings we'll be bringing back our
proposal for an agreed upon assessments values to you for approval and then we can clean up that matter
as it relates to the project.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you understand that they will come in front of the City Council to get our
approval for the assessment value of your property. And you will be notified to come to that Council
meeting.
Cathleen Prewitt: Great. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. You're welcome.
Mark Jesberg: Good evening. I'm Mark Jesberg and I live at 8407 Great Plains Boulevard. And I guess
the reason I'm objecting to the assessment on our property is, as I wrote in my little letter stating to the City
is basically because it's something that was out of our hands from the start. When we bought our house
over there, I did check into where this realignment of TH 101 was going to go because it was in the plans
and it was supposed to go behind our house. And our house was therefore going to be able to stay there
and so we went ahead and bought the house thinking well, this is going to great you know. It will be nice
and quiet to the lake side of the house. TH 101 will just be a dead-end and so we went ahead and bought
the house. And about a year later the City representatives came up and told us that the alignment was
changed and our house was going to be taken for the improvement of TH 101. So what it boils down to is
we're basically condemned. We're going to have to go and we just feel we don't really, shouldn't have to
pay for any of these water hook-ups that we're going to be having because we're just not going to be there
to benefit it. Our well is good now. Hopefully it will hold up until we move. There's no guarantee of that
but it was kind of nice Mr. Folch wanted to compromise and you know say we don't have to pay the lateral
but my wife and I would be even more happy if we just you know, put it all off since the City's going to
end up paying for it anyway. Thanks.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Charles, tell me about TH 101 and Jesberg's property as far as, any idea of
when the timing of that will happen?
Charles Folch: Well, as we I guess taking it a step further from our discussions with, recent discussions
with the Hennepin County engineer and the team for the TH 101 North project, and the uncertainties, you
know in terms of what timing would be. A lot of it of course again is based on trying to put together the
funding packages in a multi-agency effort to try to accomplish these types of improvements. You know if
we're looking probably you know, I mean it could be anywhere from a few years to maybe 10 years
depending I mean, it is a priority. It's a project that once the official mm back of TH 101 is completed,
which we expect to happen this Fall, this October. All the agreements signed. It will go under County
jurisdiction and I know the County is very interested in trying to improve the roadway and by law, I believe
on a turnback situation, an agency has up to 5 years to submit an improvement project proposal in order to
receive funding through a turnback fund process, to pay for a good share of the improvements. So it would
be my guess that it would be Carver County's high priority for them to want to apply for the turnback
funds. The big question would be is when those funds would become available and at this point it's
anybody's guess. If it's a few years down the road or if it's many years down the road.
Mayor Mancino: So you do understand that. That this is not something that's going to be happening
immediately.
Mark Jesberg: Well yeah, I know that but you've got to understand too. This wasn't our choice. We
would stay and live in that house forever if we could. We like it there. We don't want to move but we're
being forced out. And we're also living with the uncertainty of not knowing when we're going to be gone,
which is another problem with us. If I get a hole in the roof, should I fix it you know. Should I paint the
house? Should I put new carpeting in? You know all these factors weigh into the thing and it's just a
shock we're trying to take. You guys are going to have our house anyway so you know, I'd like to just try
to get out of paying that trunk line also as long as, as well as the lateral. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions? Comments from Council members.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Don Ashworth: We will be acquiring that property, at least I am hoping that we will be. That will be done
through the State turnback funds. The actual agency that would be purchasing it would be Carver County.
In the process of doing that, they are responsible for paying any costs that are basically associated with the
properties so you have to go through the whole appraisal process, etc. If the assessment is simply kind of
pushed aside, forgotten, not shown whatsoever, then there never would be a reversement to the City for that
amount. If on the other side of the coin the City Council acted to approve Jesberg's request in the form of
like a 5 year deferrment. Then come back at the end of 5 years and you could give him another 5 years. At
least it would always be on the books. In that fashion, when the Council would come in and acquire the
property and go through the appraisal, they would find that assessment against that parcel. It would be
counted for as part of that whole process. In other words, we would eventually get our money back.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Councilman Senn: Don, how does it, I mean the only thing that bothers me. I mean my first inclination is
to say you know that sounds fine. Sounds good but.
Mayor Mancino: We're talking about $3,800.00.
Councilman Senn: When you go into the assessment process, the assessment process is going to basically
determine a value. That value's going to be determined effectively by comparables and other properties
around it which are all going to be serviced by water and sewer. And it seems to me, what you're
suggesting works but it works only if the property owner now agrees effectively to sign something, I heard
something saying that that's the deduction off the value when you purchase the property. Because how else
how are you not going to effectively pay for the improvements even though you're not charging for the
improvements?
Roger Knutson: The way the process works, and I'll make up some numbers. Let us say the County or
whoever acquires...find out what it's worth. Say it's worth $500,000.00. Then what they do is they, then
before the property owner gets a check, they pay off mortgages. They pay off special assessments and
those are pending, levied special assessments have to be paid off at that time. And they pay off the taxes so
you get the $500,000.00 less the item.
Councilman Senn: Only if it's negotiated that way though right?
Roger Knutson: No because you'd want.
Councilman Senn: Pending assessments just aren't an automatic deduct from the.
Roger Knutson: If you go through condemnation they're automatic.
Councilman Senn: Oh they are?
Roger Knutson: Yeah. The check is just.
Councilman Senn: Just like the seller's side?
Roger Knutson: Yeah. Buyer's side too. It's automatically. To get clear title, anyone with an interest in
the property has to get paid off. That would include special assessments, taxes, mortgages so they'd have
to be paid off. And if we're acquiring it, if we're just negotiating a deal, I can negotiate anything but we
get paid off so you have clean property.
Mayor Mancino: So that scenario will.
Roger Knutson: Well it gets paid off, if they're there. If you, if they aren't levied assessments, then they
don't get paid off because there's nothing to be paid off. But they will get paid off the levied assessments,
even if it's deferred. You rely upon connection charges to get paid. Then that connection charge will never
be paid because there will never be a connection unless there's.., before that happens.
Mayor Mancino: And at that time if there was.., etc, they would pay the lateral charges.
Roger Knutson: Then they'd come in and want to hook up, then they'd have to pay the connection charges.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: That sounds like a good solution to me. Councilman Senn. I'm just going to go down.
Councilman Mason. Councilman Engel. Councilman Berquist.
Mark Jesberg: So what does that mean... ?
Don Ashworth: Well I'm assuming that you'll have a motion in here to adopt the roll and probably as a
part of that...how you're going to modify the roll. So if you're going to defer a particular one for a 5 year
period, and you're going to reduce one or whatever...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Roger Knutson: All you need is one motion.
Mayor Mancino: Right. Roger, would you clarify it for Mr. Jesberg what we just?
Roger Knutson: I'm understanding what the sense of the Council was to defer it for 5 years with interest so
you don't have to make any payments.
Mark Jesberg: On either the trunk or the lateral?
Roger Knutson: I think that's what they said.
Councilman Senn: Unless hook-up occurs.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, but if for whatever reason you come into the City and say I want to hook up now,
then the deferrment essentially ends and you've got to pay us off.
Mark Jesberg: Yeah, just as a side I was also thinking, with Village on the Ponds going through and St.
Hubert's, I don't think it's going to be as long as they think it is before that road gets updated because
there's a lot of traffic on there and something's going to have to be done a lot sooner than later so again,
thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Okay, may I have a motion
then please.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion then please. Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Oh okay. So everybody's, everybody who's had to appeal has appealed? Okay,
alright. Move approval of the assessment, well basically the assessment roll, right? Is what we're doing?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: As submitted with the following changes. On Jesberg, adopt but defer the assessment
for 5 years, unless hook-up occurs. On Finger, delete the assessments. And that's it.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Councilman Mason: Well how about the Sunnyslope one?
Councilman Senn: Oh, the association lot, I'm sorry. And the Sunnyslope Association lot would also be
deleted.
Mayor Mancino: And just for the Jesberg's know that that would be for 5 years with interest.
Councilman Senn: Correct. So that means, just to kind of stack it on one side versus the other side.
Would that then leave, from the people we've either gotten letters or heard from, there is no change to
Baker.
Mayor Mancino: Nor for Sitter's.
Councilman Senn: Or Sitter's or Prewitt or Jessup. I think I got them all.
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Mayor Mancino: Discussion.
Councilman Berquist: Can I make an amendment to the, or I suppose I can't do that now because you
seconded it. I should have jumped in first. I would move, or I would amend the motion to make Jessup's
responsible for paying... ? Jessup's responsible for.., variance was granted on the property a number of
years ago. The variance was not acted upon. The lot was not built out. The assessment of laterals in...
to grant the variance.
Councilman Mason: But that variance expired...
Councilman Senn: A buildable lot, it's got to come back through.
Councilman Mason: But if we set a precedence by assessing lateral.
Mayor Mancino: Roger, can you clarify that?
Councilman Senn: Clarification, that's not how I understood it.
Councilman Berquist: That's how I understood it.
Roger Knutson: Well it's a lot of record, I don't remember what the details of it. Under most
circumstances, if you have an existing lot of record, unless there's severe problems, you'll be granting them
the variance. It's just a matter of formality. If you want to assess the whole thing now, you certainly can.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That doesn't change it in any way, or whether it's a variance. Whether it's a lot
of record or anything.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Roger Knutson: If you were to mm down the variance frankly, after specially assessing them, they would
have a real complaint? Yeah. But the idea is you've already granted the variance and have every reason to
believe that you will, and will have to again unless there's something I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't have every reason to. I didn't grant it in the first place.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but the variance itself has to be reasonable as it would relate. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So is, do you want to keep your amendment to the motion?
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm not sure. The motion was made and seconded. I threw it out for
discussionary purposes only. I understood something obviously quite different than what the rest of you.
Resolution #97-72: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the assessment
roll for the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area Improvement Project No. 93-32B dated
September 3, 1997 be approved with the following changes:
1. The Jesberg's assessment be deferred for 5 years, or until hook-up occurs.
2. Delete the Finger property and the Sunnyslope Homeowners Association lot from the roll.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist who abstained for lack of clarification, and the
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT FOR FRONTIER CINEMA ADDITION~ VACATION NO. 97-5.
Charles Folch: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. As indicated in the staff report, basically this
deals with the Frontier Cinema Addition plat. There was an existing easement encumbering a portion of
the property that was 60 feet wide. There is currently sanitary sewer and water main there. The applicant
is, has requested the vacation, is requesting that the easement be, the original easement be vacated and a
new easement reduced in width to 45 feet covering the existing utility infrastructure be replaced and staff
has reviewed the request. There was, the original easement was acquired back in 1976. The document is
listed accordingly. Staff has reviewed this application and would feel comfortable that a 45 foot easement
over the existing utility infrastructure would provide us with an adequate easement and therefore would
recommend approval accordingly.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff? May I have a motion to open this for a public
hearing and a second please?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to open the public hearing. The public
hearing was opened.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone here tonight wishing to address the City Council on this issue?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing. The public
hearing was closed.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Any comments from Council members on this vacation?
Councilman Mason: No, but I wish I was one right now. I've wanted to say that for 6 1/2 years. I'm sorry.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I move to approve the vacation of the utility easement.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97-73: Councilman Berquist: moved, Councilman Mason: seconded to approve vacation
of the right-of-way and sanitary sewer and watermain easement recorded August 30, 1976 as
Document No. 30099 contingent upon Chanhassen Properties, LLC dedication to the City of
Chanhassen a 45 foot wide sanitary sewer and watermain easement centered upon the existing
utilities through Lot 1, Block 1, Frontier Cinema Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER REQUEST BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR EXTENDED WORK HOURS -
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK-PROJECT NO. 97-5.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. Due to the month of July and early August
with the abnormally higher percipitation amounts, rainfall amounts combined with a site where soil
conditions were probably marginal from a moisture standpoint to begin with, it's really set back this private
development improvement project by probably a month, month and a half in their schedule. In an effort to
try and increase the work effort over the next few months to try and get closer back to the original schedule,
the applicant has requested a work hour extension to the development contract. The original development
contract limited work hours to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 to 5:00 on
Saturdays. The applicant would like to, is requesting the hours be extended one hour, additional hour on
Monday through Friday being 7:00 to 7:00 and a two hour earlier start on Saturdays with a 7:00 a.m. start
and working until 5:00 p.m. Staff has reviewed the area. There is one property, the Wrase property that is
located within basically the site development area. Other than that, the closest residential neighborhood is
probably some 800 feet away and is buffered by some, a wooded area inbetween. As a compromise staff
would be willing to maybe modify the Saturday start to be 8:00 a.m. versus 7:00. 7:00 may be a little bit
too early for a request but staff would support an 8:00 a.m. start on Saturday and also allow the 7:00 to
7:00 work schedule Monday through Friday, giving them the extra hour in the evening. With that staff
would recommend that proposal.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I have a couple questions. Number one, I would like to put a time limit on this,
meaning that it would go until October 15th. That is approximately the time that they lost a month, month
and a half. So it's just not for forever.
Charles Folch: If I might, I like that point. If I might recommend that the other thing that you could look
at as a caveat or barrier is that when they daylight hours, the time that we lose. Once that becomes closer
to 6:00 p.m., I mean where they basically would have to work under lit conditions to be able to go past 6:00
p.m. If you wanted to make that more of the barrier in terms of deadlining this fall as to when the working
hours would be limited to.
Mayor Mancino: Until when it gets dark you mean?
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Charles Folch: Yeah. To when sunset is basically around 6:00 p.m. Where they can no longer work under
daylight conditions without the additional lighting assistance.
Mayor Mancino: But don't they put floods up and do the whole?
Charles Folch: Not on a mass grading operation.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: But you can't look at this as a trade off for a month and a half to a month and a half.
Okay, what was lost is the weather was for days so what we're talking about here is adding.
Mayor Mancino: I just want to put a time limit on it.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but why don't we give them through the construction season this year,
however long it may last. Whether it's November 15th or probably November 30th at the outside. And do it
that way and then we can always re-evaluate it for next year based on what happens this fall. So why don't
we just give them the run for the fall.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, do the other Council members feel comfortable with that? I just don't want it
continually. Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Through the end of the construction season, whenever that is.
Mayor Mancino: Whatever the construction season means.
Councilman Senn: If you'd like to say no later than November 30th or something like that so we have an
outside date on it and then that would have to be re-evaluated basically from that point.
Councilman Berquist: Well insofar as the constraints on the project, there's constraints on the project
relative to the first building.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Well I think it has to be done by somewhere around there anyway so.
Mayor Mancino: By the end of December.
Councilman Senn: So the site work better be done by, oh was that end of December?
Councilman Berquist: Site work or is it site and construction? 97-16 is limited to.
Charles Folch: All improvements, this fall, this is a modification to the development contract. So any of
the work items identified in the development contract...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and there will be signage up that will show the work hours on it?
Charles Folch: They should be up already. We'll probably have to modify them.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Councilman Senn: I'd move approval of the following extended work hours for a period from now through
December 31, 1997, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m, Monday through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays.
Mayor Mancino: It's 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, isn't it?
Councilman Senn: I thought we said they didn't care if they went a little bit longer.
Councilman Berquist: No, I've got 8:00 to 5:00 Saturday.
Councilman Senn: Oh, 8:00 to 5:00? Okay. 8:00 to 5:00 on Saturday.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the extension of construction work
hours to install site improvements in Arboretum Business Park to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMNARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1-9~ 16 AND 17~ BLOCK 1~ AUTUMN
RIDGE 2N~ ADDITION INTO 21 LOTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BLVD.~ AUTUMN RIDGE 3m~ ADDITION~ D.R. HORTON~ INC.
Kate Aanenson: This amendment is pretty straight forward. The site plan itself has not changed except for
a minor grading which is reflected in the revised development contract which is 7(b). The reason for the
change in the plat itself is to allow some.., so it lays out to elongate the building. No additional buildings
will be... Staff is supporting changes including grading, site berming and we'd recommend approval of the
replat.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? May I have a motion please for 7(a).
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I will move for 7(a). Move preliminary and final plat as stated in staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve preliminary and final plat for
PUD 93-5 for Autumn Ridge 3ra Addition to replat Lots 1-9, 16 and 17, Block 1, Autumn Ridge 2na
Addition into 21 lots as shown on the plans prepared by Brandt Engineering and Surveying, dated
July 18, 1997, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed extension of the berming along Galpin Boulevard eliminates one tree. This tree shall
be replaced by two conifers with a minimum height of seven feet.
2. The developer shall execute an addendum to the development contract for the Second Addition to
incorporate the Third Addition.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
The applicant shall provide a copy of the final soils report for the subdivision as well as a copy of the
final grading plan for the entire subdivision prior to issuance of any building permits.
The building designer should meet with the Inspections Division review staff to discuss design and
permit requirements before finalizing building plans.
All voted in favor, except for Councilman Berquist who was out of the room at the time, and the
motion carried.
APPROVE ADDENDUM A TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR AUTUMN RIDGE
2N~ ADDITION.
Mayor Mancino: May i have a motion please, i'll move that the City Council approve Addendum A to the
development contract for Autumn Ridge 2nd Addition. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: i'll second it.
Mayor Mancino: moved, Councilman Mason: seconded to approve Addendum A to the development
contract for Autumn Ridge 2na Addition conditioned upon the developer supplying the City with a
recording fee escrow in the amount of $100.00 and D.R. Horton requesting the City to reassign the
development contract for Autumn Ridge 1st and 2na Additions to D.R. Horton. All voted in favor,
except Councilman Berquist who was out of the room at the time, and the motion carried.
AMEND A CONDITION OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A 32 SQ. FT.
MONUMENT SIGN AND AN 8 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 24 SQ. FT. MONUMENT
SIGN REQUIREMENT, 850 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, DICK HENNING.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site was given an interim use permit and the applicant has
requested a larger sign than was approved for the site. The reason staff had supported the additional sign is
that because it was an interim use with a termination date on it, we felt that it could support the sign.
Although the Planning Commission did not concur. They were concerned about the looks of the sign and
that there really wasn't a compelling reason why the applicant needed the sign .... address for identification
of exactly... Therefore the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the request. If you would
choose to approve it, staff did have some concerns that we had and some recommendations. One is that the
interim use is for a garden center and.., so that that's clear and that's not reflected in the sign.., so we have
included four conditions if you so choose to recommend approval.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Reading the Planning Commission Minutes, they did not have the drawings
to see what the sign looks like. Colors, materials or anything.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Has the applicant brought in that to staff'?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Councilman Senn: So we have nothing?
Kate Aanenson: You have the drawing. A painted sign. A white sign with black letters.
Mayor Mancino: You mean this is what we have?
Kate Aanenson: That's it.
Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here tonight?
Councilman Senn: What about, I guess, I don't know, I'm not quite sure how to approach this because I
mean, how do we, I mean this lot's been a lot more than a nursery.
Kate Aanenson: It is a non-conforming garden center.
Councilman Senn: But it's a lot more than a garden center.
Kate Aanenson: Right now?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: I think it's leaning that way, yes and we've advised the applicant of that.
Councilman Senn: And quite frankly it's been a big mess and it continues to be a big mess.
Kate Aanenson: Well actually this site's pretty cleaned up. I think he's running...the property behind this
is a mess and that's not, they're two separate...
Councilman Senn: So the property.
Kate Aanenson: The garden center itself, the underlying property owner.., taking pretty good measures to
clean this property...
Councilman Senn: Well I looked at the map and that's where I got confused. When I looked at the map it
showed this property going all the way up to the corridor, which really confused me because then I assumed
we were talking, is this in error? Kate here?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's a separate landowner to the north of the nursery.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So the nursery property is separate from the property to the north, the junk yard
so to speak.
Kate Aanenson: Separate property owners.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And the property owner to the north isn't a related party or anything?
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Kate Aanenson: No. No. Mr. Cook owns the property and he's worked very well with us. We had some
problems out there and he responded every time. He's aware of the issue we have right now that it's not...
If you recall the ordinance we put in place...
Councilman Engel: I just want to make sure we don't have two properties by the same person.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Engel: Two properties. Two different owners. Okay.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That's it for questions, unless you're looking for comments.
Mayor Mancino: Again, is the applicant here? Okay. Comments from Council members. I can say I'd
really like to see a drawing of the sign and what the sign will look like and materials used, etc. So I would
like to.
Councilman Senn: For a minimum.
Mayor Mancino: For a minimum. So I'd like to wait until the applicant is able to do that and tonight, deny
it at this time. Or table it?
Roger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor. I would recommend that. Otherwise you have to start the whole
process over again.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments?
Councilman Senn: Well is our timing up that we can't table it?
Roger Knutson: Yes you can but if you just denied it then you'd have to go back through the public
hearing process, the Planning Commission and come back up here.
Councilman Senn: Oh okay, but I mean we are okay tabling this?
Roger Knutson: I don't know about the time line. I assume you are.
Councilman Senn: Well let's make sure of that.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, did the applicant get the or come to the Planning Commission meeting or?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, a representative did. I think they were under the impression that the Planning
Commission got and really what they were looking for was an address so people can find them. There is an
existing sign which is old with their name on it. What they wanted to do is put this plywood on top of that.
I mean they're taking the existing center.., while it's not architecturally significant, it matches what's
happening down there I guess and we felt because it was interim use. So I can appreciate that you want to
see more...but that's where the staff is coming from that issue. The concern that we had is that...but
architecturally it's old rundown.., that they' re tried to keep.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: When we table this if you could, could we make a phone call to the applicant and ask
them to come in and show us.
Councilman Engel: They applied August 6th SO tabling's no problem.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I mean I'm okay with a hunk of plywood but let's make sure.
Councilman Senn: It depends on what you consider a monument I suppose.
Kate Aanenson: Alright with a hunk of plywood?
Councilman Mason: Well, considering the area.
Councilman Berquist: Considering all the discussion that's occurred with the other businesses in the
developing corridor, we've been developing the corridor in the last few months and as concerned with
granting variances and granting monument and pylon signs and what not, and when I first saw this I
thought no way. No compelling reason that I would go for it.
Mayor Mancino: And again I think we have to make sure that we apply the same standard... Anyway, can
I have a motion.
Councilman Senn: Move to table.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the request to amend a condition to
the Interim Use Permit to allow for a 32 sq. ft. monument sign and a 8 sq. ft. variance from the 24 sq.
ft. monument sign requirement at 850 Flying Cloud Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACKNOWLEDGE STATE ESTABLISHED LEVY LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AND SET TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING DATES.
Todd Gerhardt: Attached is a memo from Don Ashworth. Under State law it requires that the City
Council establish a Truth in Taxation hearing date. Currently you must establish this date between
November 29th and December 20th. The four open dates, because the City, or the County and the School
District must also hold hearings, the dates available to the City of Chanhassen are December 2nd, l0th, 15th
and 17th. If the 15th or 17th are chosen for the initial hearing there is no allowance for a continuation
hearing. Staff would recommend that the Council select December 2nd at 5:30 for the initial hearing and
Monday, December 15th as the continuation hearing date.
Councilman Senn: What about the other half of this action?
Todd Gerhardt: As to the budget? We cannot levy more than $4,202,000.00 so establishing the levy limit
amount, we continue to recommend that you go to the maximum.
Councilman Senn: And that maximum is what?
Todd Gerhardt: $4,202,014.00.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Councilman Senn: Okay, but that takes into account the cut by the State or not?
Todd Gerhardt: I'm not sure. I thought I was doing pretty good with this.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, what's your question?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess, you know I have no problems with setting the 2nd and the 15th as the dates
here but I would like some discussion and I'd like to talk about the limit that we set. The limit we set is
what is published and goes out in the notification to the residents. And as I've advocated for the past, I
don't know how many years it's been. Almost as many as Michael. That we do not do that.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, you're not that old.
Councilman Senn: That we in fact, I know. I'm not even near as old as he is. I agree but, see he has a lot
more gray hairs.
Councilman Mason: Well sitting next to you.
Councilman Senn: But I would like to pick a, I'd like to set as a goal a limit which is much lower than the
maximum, and in fact is lower than the current.
Mayor Mancino: But we're not setting that tonight?
Councilman Senn: Yes. You're setting what is published and is sent out to the taxpayers saying this is
what your taxes will be next year based on.
Councilman Mason: This is the maximum your taxes can be.
Councilman Senn: I understand this but when you get the thing in the mail and you see it and it says this is
what your taxes are going to be, okay. And that's what you read and that's what you effectively operate on
the premise of that in terms of you know.., appealing or whatever, okay. And I think it's poor policy to
simply take a maximum and do that and notify people that you know, unless something else happens, it's
going to be the maximum because that's effectively kind of what you're saying by this kind of an action
just adopting a maximum. I don't think we should even leave ourselves the authority to do the maximum.
In the first place it should reflect the 5% to 6% minimum reduction that the State has done. Across the
board, which is going to happen. And that's why I asked, that was my question. I mean this is unclear as
to whether that really reflects that or doesn't. If it doesn't reflect that, I mean you know it should come off
the 5% or 6% and then we should talk about from there what we want to set as a goal you know beyond
that limitation, so.
Mayor Mancino: Well I certainly don't feel comfortable tonight deciding whether this is going to be the
maximum or published in the paper at 6 point without having our City Manager here and having some
discussions about that. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well, every year we talk about this and every year we're faced with an identical
dilemma. I understand what Councilman Senn is saying insofar as he is in effect asking the City Council to
make a pledge to the residents of Chanhassen to do everything in it's power to minimize spending, and
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
maximize value. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Insofar however as we do not have any budget
preparation done. We haven't begun the process yet for 1998. We have to play the hand dear us and the
hand that's dear us with the least constraints is setting it for $4.2 million. And I am not in the habit of
purposely handcuffing myself for any reason. However, I do agree with Mark's... to achieve it.
Mayor Mancino: Conceptually.
Councilman Berquist: Conceptually, absolutely.
Councilman Senn: Well just understand. Last year we did not adopt the maximum.
Councilman Berquist: Yes we did.
Councilman Senn: No we didn't. We did not adopt the maximum last year. We adopted the then current
plus a percentage. I think we picked like.
Mayor Mancino: Well this is 97's. Or 96's. Isn't this the same number as was brought forward? Didn't
they base it on '97?
Councilman Senn: No, it says in 1998 the City can't levy more than $4.2.
Mayor Mancino: So do you know what we did last year?
Councilman Berquist: We're in exactly the same boat .... same thing that we're being asked to do.
Councilman Senn: I guess the question is, do we have to do it tonight?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's my question.
Councilman Senn: Or do we just have to set the dates tonight?
Roger Knutson: I believe you do.
Councilman Senn: Dates and amount?
Roger Knutson: Yeah. I don't know if it's the last day but it's this week. We're there. By law, I can't tell
you the exact date but if it isn't today, it could be tomorrow.
Councilman Engel: What was our '96 number?
Mayor Mancino: Well our '97 number, line one says, total final certified levy for the taxes payable year
1997 was $4.586. So this is under '97, which is $4.2.
Councilman Senn: So it includes the 5-6% State deduct, is effectively what it's done.
Mayor Mancino: Yep.
Councilman Senn: And that's all it's done.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: That's all it's done. And I do agree with Councilman Berquist. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I like the idea of going further into cuts but if we get out there and...cut too far
now, we could put ourselves in a tough position. But for sure we've already got the 5% off here,
according to State guide is that correct?
Mayor Mancino: That's what it looks like.
Councilman Engel: It looks like that to me. So I would want that as a minimum to be taken off if we're
going to note what our maximum levy's going to be. Looks like we've done that. But I want to go...
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Well this bruhaha all started when the State said, in my view, some kind of silly idea
for Truth and Taxation because everybody knows, well I mean the way they did it was so archane and
bizarre that nobody knows what's going on anyway anymore. And I don't think anyone's disagreeing with
Mark on this and I know, I think I do know where he's coming from on this but I certainly also agree with
Steve that if we end up shooting ourselves in the foot by going too low, there are all kinds of major
problems that would be so unwielding. We posted the maximum limit ever since I've been here and we've
done this and we've also made it very well known that we have never gone to the maximum limit and have
absolutely no intention of going to the maximum limit. And so I'm comfortable with doing it the way
we've done it every since it's been done and that is, tell people what the maximum limit is and no, we will
not be taxing that high. I mean that's just, I don't, I quite honestly don't see we have any other way of
doing it and I again, I don't think there's anyone on this Council that disagrees with what Mark is saying
conceptually at all. But I am loathe to set the limit lower than that, knowing like it says in the report, the
County hasn't completed it's calculations yet for what the tax base is going to be. Any of that kind of stuff
so if we go ahead and grab a figure out of the air now and the County goes, wrong. We're going to be in
trouble, so.
Don Ashworth: If I may add on that. Just this morning I received a second notice from the State where
they had made a correction on the amount of HACKA we're supposed to be getting and so that number
actually drops down to $60,000.00 less and yes, last year I had thought that I had set the amount very close
to literally what our previous levy was knowing full well that the Council could reduce it. Lo and behold,
again as Mike brought out, that was based on incomplete information and actually came out for the Truth
in Taxation hearings. Was actually about 5% under what should have been sent down. And yes, we made
a further cut from there. This year I have no idea really what's happening. They made wholesale changes
to how you get from taxable value to tax capacity. The auditor, actually it's the assessor's office has been
given up until October 1st to actually get all of the work done that he needs to do. Well just because of
again the massive changes. I do know that residential property should be getting a 6% decrease simply
because of the formula changes and also because of the dollars that the State has fused into the whole
property tax system. And then the second part is, I have every reason to believe that when the numbers do
come back from the assessor, that we probably are right now setting a levy that's probably 4% to 6%
below what values, what new construction values we brought on. So I mean by the time we get into
hearings we could very well be at least 10% under. But again, I may be totally wrong. One of the
problems with the wholesale changes in how tax bases are calculated, assuming the dollar amounts of
school, county, whatever, are similar. Then the only thing that happens is the tax rate itself goes up to
make differences. But I don't think that will be the case this year, and especially as it comes into public
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
schools. There was a huge amount of money that was put into public school system and you may see
reductions in your property tax, right in that one category. And that again is the reason that the State put
through levy limits. We haven't had levy limits for 10 years. And by them infusing, and I think one figure
was $280 million and I can't remember what the other one was. But what they wanted to protect against
was that local governments would know that property taxes were being driven down by the State so they
would simply jump back in, hurry up and raise their's and nobody is the wiser.
Mayor Mancino: No, I understand that.
Don Ashworth: And the State didn't want that to happen.
Mayor Mancino: My only question Don was do we need to set the levy limit tonight?
Don Ashworth: Correct. It has to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15th, which is next
Monday.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, another question I had is the date of December 2nd. Isn't that the, our
National League of Cities convention? Tuesday, December 2nd.
Don Ashworth: No. I believe it's Wednesday.
Mayor Mancino: We fly out on Wednesday, the 3rd.
Councilman Berquist: Wednesday the 3rd?
Don Ashworth: Right. Unless you want to go to a pre-conference event type of thing.
Mayor Mancino: Well I agree, I mean I agree with everything that the other Council members have said,
number one and that I would, I'm committed to reducing our levy limit. But I'm only committed to do so
when I have information, good information from the State to make sure that we are doing a prudent and
wise job of setting that limit for the City. So I concur to go with the $4.2 we are asked to tonight and to set
December 2nd and 15th. And then work for the rest of the fall with our 1998 budget and reducing that limit.
Councilman Mason: Is that a motion?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97-74: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council set
December 2 and 15, 1997 as the official Truth in Taxation hearing dates and to authorize certifying
Chanhassen's levy limit plus bonded debt to the County Auditor. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT ENCROACHMENTS ON SETBACKS
THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR VARIANCES~ FIRST READING.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This is a housekeeping item for a section of the City Code...to allow
encroachments of certain architectural features. We had a problem with this, two recent variance cases
were.., further encroach with an architectural feature, whether it's a bay window or roof eaves. So what
we want to do is clearify in the ordinance that states that, first page of the ordinance, subsection 5 where it
says variances granted from the setback are not entitled to the following encroachments. We spell that out
right up front so it's clear. Because at this point it's kind of fallen into a gray area. We've had some pretty
unhappy people and rightly so because it's not clear in the ordinance so we wanted to spell it right out in
front.., ordinance change.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Kate. So the only thing new in this whole ordinance is on, in the parenthesis
in 5?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of an amendment
to the City Code to prohibit encroachments on setbacks that have been granted variances. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: LIBRARY TASK FORCE.
Mayor Mancino: How did I get on this? Oh my gosh. Contained in this packet is information that Jill
Shipley and a host of others presented to us at our work session, and I know that Councilman Senn and
Councilman Mason were not here for that. Jill, are you here tonight? Do you want to come forward for
just a minute? Do either Council members have any questions on the material that is in the library section?
We just wanted to make sure that you got everything and to see if you had any questions.
Councilman Mason: They've already been answered.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: No. I don't have any questions on it, no.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Do you have anything that you'd like to say?
Jill Shipley: Well I've taken the liberty of preparing a statement of what I believe the purpose of the
Library Task Force could be, and I'd like to present that to you at this time. Do you have any questions
about this?
Councilman Berquist: It looks very good. When I was trying to think of something that I could add and
look smart but.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Discussions on a task force. One of the things I talked to Jill a little
bit this week and I told her that one of my thoughts was, their presentation was very good. That I wanted
to... City Council to form a task force until we had gone through our budgeting for 1998 and kind of looked
forward into our planning to see what funds we, the City would have. And to also talk about the existing
library and what we wanted to see happen as a Council as a library, as a public facility in our city. And
correlate that not only with the value of it but also with the financial responsibilities that we would have as
a city.
Councilman Mason: Why do you tie budget in with forming a library task force?
Mayor Mancino: Because I think one of the biggest areas is going to be funding options and I think that
the first item on here is City commitment and quite frankly.
Councilman Mason: City commitment isn't just financial. I mean I would suggest that would certainly be
part of it but I guess maybe I'd argue that I see this as perhaps running parallel to a budget process but I'm
not sure why we would need or want to wait for that. It seems to me if we get a task force in place and we
get some kind of citizen and city input, my sense is talking with Jill a number of times that we get that task
force in place, people out there are going to know that the City is serious about it and in terms of fund
raising and those kinds of things, I think the sooner we can get the ball rolling on something like that, the
better. And I mean I'm not, I want to make it really clear here that I am not knocking Carver County. I'm
not knocking anything but we need to do something about a library for this area, and I don't think it should
just be the City but we need to do something and I think by starting the ball rolling I think is a very good
first step.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Gee I hate to say this but I agree with elements of what you both said.
Councilman Mason: Is that a fact?
Councilman Senn: I honestly don't think it has anything to do with '98 budget process. So that's, to me
that's not really a big reason to hold off on it. I think the biggest reason for us to hold off on it is we need
to do two things. Complete our strategic planning process and our long range capital improvement
discussion so we can throw this and public works facilities and all these other needs into a hopper and set
some priorities and set some realistic expectations. Some discussion. You know public works, we don't
have a whole lot of for example luxury in talking about who's going to deliver that service, because if we
don't, nobody's going to. But there are some discussions I think as it relates to libraries and some of the
other capital needs or services we're talking about where you know I think there needs to be some
discussion about okay, who and what level of government's going to perform that service and to what
extent and other things like that. But again, that comes back to the whole issue of completing that strategic
planning and long range capital improvement process that we're into but, and not completed yet. So in my
mind I would be not supportive of forming a task force until we do that because when we do that we will
set the direction at that point for the task force to prematurely form a tax force without that type of.
Mayor Mancino: Knowledge.
Councilman Senn: Yes, or even direction. Effectively what we're doing is we're just creating the advocacy
group to go sell something we don't know whether we can even buy and I just think we need to kind of get
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
our own knowledge base you know in order, as well as not only the information but again, realistic
approaches to how we can deal with this issue as well as a number of other issues and go from there.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: In listening to Mark, Councilman Senn talk, my initial thought was that the task
force would serve a useful purpose working in parallel with the City Council and.., strategic plans. But the
later part of his comments I began to see a little clearer where he was going and I have a tendency to agree.
However what I would like to do, if that work on our part is going to dictate the creation of, having
anything to do with a library task force, then I think we need to commit to the people that are energetic in
their involvment towards making this a goal, as to when we will have our act together and be able to allow
them to proceed. So I think it could work either way. Either this task force working in parallel with us.
But I think Mark makes a good point. But I would like to see us set a date for the creation.
Mayor Mancino: By the end of the year?
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: End of the year to start in the beginning of '98. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yes, to the extent that we're not making any financial commitment at this point. I
don't have a problem with letting them talk. I just don't know where they're going to go because we
haven't really given them any guidance. So I'd leave that up to them. But we're not making any
commitments...
Mayor Mancino: Well I think that's why it's very important to give good guidance and clear direction. Go
ahead Michael.
Councilman Mason: But Mark raises some good points. Why, I guess, and I'm just kind of oddly enough
shooting from the hip. Why is it we're necessarily dictating, why would City Council be dictating anything
necessarily to a task force? Guidance, yes. But if we assume, I'm assuming we need a better, a different
library facility in this area. And I guess I'm not sure, I guess I'm not, what do you mean by that Mark?
I mean I believe you said earlier something about we need to dictate to the task force the direction.
Councilman Senn: No, I didn't.
Councilman Mason: Oh okay. Yeah, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. I want to make sure I
understand what you're saying.
Councilman Senn: What I had said is, we need to effectively provide a framework, a vision or something.
I mean again, a library, any way you look at it is a large capital improvement, okay. So yes, there's issues
about who provides that capital improvement, okay. But there's also issues about, it's only one capital
improvement in a list of many that this city needs to consider at this point. I mean the week doesn't go by
that we don't hear about another one. Okay. And we have not taken the time, I mean we've tried to but
again it's difficult in the midst of everything else but we need to take the time to establish that framework
through the strategic planning process and look at effectively long term capital improvement program that
will put that into a framework that is realistic. I think it's a bad move on our part at this point to take the
energy and channel that energy towards say a library project when we may decide two months from now
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
there's no way we have the ability to commit the resources to do it. So I mean to me we need to go
through more fundamental steps at this point in getting to that. And again, this isn't focusing purely on the
issue of a library. This is as much focusing on the issue of our new public works facility, of everything
from skating parks to you know come on, everything. I mean and we need to take the time, again I can't
say it enough, to do it. And we keep doing things like this and this becomes, come on. When we create a
task force it gives it a life of it's own.
Mayor Mancino: Which is good.
Councilman Senn: Which is good, but again not creating false expectations is bad. Okay. So what I'm
saying is you need to draw a line there somewhere and I don't think we've gone far enough you know
towards that to kind of turn over the ball and say, here let's go with it. And I think there's a lot of issues
we need to, whether it's a library. Whether it's other capital improvements. We need to get those out on
the table, establish some sense of priorities and go.
Mayor Mancino: And have a commitment from us.
Councilman Senn: I mean you said the commitment's not necessarily financial. I agree 100%, okay. But
part of that commitment is how can we make a commitment to be behind anything like that at this point
when we don't even know what the menu is. Okay. And we need to take that menu and we need to put it
into relative terms that we can commit to it and then get off and running.
Mayor Mancino: I would suggest that we commit to it in forming a task force and having made some
strategic plans on capital improvements by the beginning of 1998.
Councilman Senn: Is that realistic given the fact that you're now talking about most of the work sessions
being budget between now and then?
Mayor Mancino: Don, what do you think? As far as doing strategic capital planning for the next, looking
out 5 to 10 years.
Don Ashworth: I know that Pam is in the process of updating the 5 year capital budget. She is planning
on presenting that as a part of other budget work session. I agree with Councilman Senn's point that it
seems to be real logical to try to identify all of the things that you need to complete out there and so if
putting together a task force, you're kind of telling them yeah there is some opportunity here. That may be
a false expectation.
Councilman Engel: How soon can we have the priority list? Can we take a look at it first half?
Mayor Mancino: Well, that's.., discussing.
Don Ashworth: I'll put a response in on this week's addition of News Alley.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and there's two levels we're talking about here just so that everybody doesn't get
confused. I mean there is our 5 year capital improvement program that pertains to vehicles and all that sort
of thing that stays within effectively you know that budgeted amount that we have available, okay coming
off of a capital improvements. Okay. But then there's also the issue of capital improvements that need to
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
go outside of that process which gets into things that we effectively, you know whether we go to
referendum for them or whatever, but they're major capital purchases.
Councilman Engel: We're talking about the library being included in that.
Councilman Senn: Well, whether it's the library or the public works facility or I mean, other past examples
being you know City Hall addition or whatever, correct. Yes.
Mayor Mancino: And there are different funding options. Well good, Don. Will you get back to us with
our timing and we will get back to Jill in making a decision on that, if that's, if you're comfortable with
that. The next City Council meeting.
Councilman Mason: By the next City Council meeting. Okay. I'm okay with that. Mark brought up
some really good points. I do, I think it's imperative that this city do something about the library facilities
and well, I'll fight for this one because I do think it's really important and I think Mark is right. That
giving the go ahead to a task force right now could be giving a sense of false expectation. However, this
has got to be at the forefront and I think that I would certainly hope that by the first of the year we could
have some kind of indication, and I will, I will keep beating the drum on this one because I just, I look at
what's going on out there and sure, I'm a teacher and all that but the facilities we have for the amount of
people that use downtown Chanhassen, I mean it's just not there. It just isn't there. And again, I'm not
saying that's Carver County's fault. I'm not saying it's Chanhassen's fault, but I think we really got to
grab the bull by the horns on this one.
Mayor Mancino: And let me tell you that the three of us that were at the meeting acknowledged that...
Councilman Mason: I know. I know you did.
Mayor Mancino: Just so you know. Good.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: TRIAX CABLEVISION-UPDATE.
Don Ashworth: In fact I have another piece of correspondence I just received here today from Triax. You
have various pieces included in your .... representative from Triax here this evening. I'm not sure if he is
prepared to state anything to the City Council or not. Let's see what I actually had put in there. So I do
have a complete list of complaints that we've had throughout the community. I think I did put a copy of the
first letter I received from Paul into this packet. Correct. And I have another more detailed response from
the attorney for Triax that I will put into this weeks News Alley. I guess the question that I would have to
the City Council is, you're aware that Nancy and Mark had met with representatives of Triax. I think it's
clear at this point in time that they would like to take and somehow come before you and try to demonstrate
that they in fact are ready to... dollars into the system and to try to eliminate the major problems that we're
currently having. So I guess my question that I was trying to pose is, what does the Council think should
be our next step.., come in to you and talk to them or, where should I be taking this?
Councilman Senn: Have they gotten answers back to us on all the issues, questions and information stuff
that we requested at the first meeting?
Don Ashworth: I am sure that the response that I received today, which again I have not had an
opportunity to read, does answer some of those questions. I think I have it here...
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Mayor Mancino: So next Monday night at our work session, our attorney Brian will be going over with us
their response and giving us an update?
Don Ashworth: You can handle it in that fashion, or put it in the form of, what type of sanctions open to
the City. What are some of your legal remedies .... representative in the audience.
Mayor Mancino: Paul, would you like to come forward.
Paul Pecora: Good evening Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Paul Pecora and I'm the
Regional Manager for Triax out of Waseca, Minnesota. As Don mentioned, Jane Bremmer has recently
sent out a response to our meeting on August 13th that we had with yourself and with Todd. So we have
addressed all the issues in that letter back from Jane for the City Council members to review. I think it is
the intention of Jane and Brian and also myself to come next Monday at your next Council meeting and
address those issues specifically once you've had a chance to review those, line item by line item. I believe
in talking with Jane, that was her intention. I think she wasn't sure if Brian was able to make the meeting
this evening so that that obviously could not occur.
Mayor Mancino: That happened, okay. And other Council members, we will just wait until we are able to
read the response and have the three to answer any questions that we might have. Does that work?
Councilman Berquist: That's fine. I'm not a cable subscriber but...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well that's fine as far as an approach goes.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Then we will see you on the 15th.
Paul Pecora: Next Monday, okay. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA:
{A) APPROVE CHANGE ORDER FOR CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER/BLUFF
CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARKING LOT EXPANSION~ PROJECT 93-26B.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, you pulled I(A). Questions, comments.
Councilman Senn: No. I just pulled it because I don't intend to vote for it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions from Council members? May I have a motion please.
Councilman Mason: Move approval of item 1 (a).
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Resolution #97-75: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve Change
Order for Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School Parking Lot Expansion,
Project 93-26B. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
(J). REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 192 SQ. FT. ENTRY
WAY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 10~000 GREAT PLAINS
BLVD~ HALLA NURSERY~ DON HALLA.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist, you pulled this. Do you have any questions on this?
Councilman Berquist: Well, yeah. Comments. Questions. I'll ask the same question I asked before. I
know the conditions of approval are.., enforceable. Composting taking place only on the nursery site and
others in the city have delineated and then public address system shall be in compliance with the previous
stipulation agreement. The last two items are enforceable only insofar as the applicant really wants to live
by them. It seems as though every 6 months, if not more often, we're getting, there's something, some
other shoe is dropping to make... Now the way I look at it, change begets change. They chose to plat the
significant part of what was the nursery into residential property. That's a fact, right? And now the land
that surrounded the old existing nursery site, platted residential. That changes our, they can't do business
the same way that they were doing business and yet they continue to do business the same way they've
done it for years. They don't want to live within the composting confines. They don't want to buy a
shredder. They don't want to mulch. They don't want to use the landfill. I mean it's frustrating reading
all this. I can't imagine how it is... I doubt that I have. That I do truly appreciate it. I just want, and what
I'd really like. I don't want this confrontational crap every 6 months. I don't want this adversarial stuff
every 6 months. I'd like to get some assurance that they, through attitudes and actions, that they recognize
that they aren't the same as they were. How do we do that?
Mayor Mancino: Roger, how do we do that? I want to add to that and just say that I think it's a fairness
issue for, these are ordinances and stipulations that they have signed and have taken their word, we have
when we signed this agreement. We both. They did. We did as a city negotiated it. We all gave a little bit
on each side so that we could sign a stipulation. And we all did it in good faith. And to see one party not
upholding that is rather frustrating.
Councilman Berquist: It's a respect issue. I mean it really truly is. It's like well we've agreed to this and
now we don't respect you enough to live by them. Therefore we won't acquiesce.
Roger Knutson: This is an issue that's been going on since 10 years at least with me I guess. I mean the
dumping in that ravine, we were out there, Dave Hempel and I and I forget who else was there. It was
before any of you were here I think, and we got into it then and we're still getting into it now. It's hard to
answer your question. I can't change their attitude. I have no way to do that. I don't think that will
happen. We anticipated that there would be some enforcement issues along the way when we signed this I
believe. We talked about that. I guess the only thing we can do is when they violate it, we require them to
correct those violations. We hold tight and civil but firm.
Mayor Mancino: And how do we require them?
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Roger Knutson: Well, when they violate it, we bring them back to Court. Or like now, you have a lever so
to speak. They want this amendment to add an addition onto their building and staff is recommending
approval. If not, no building permit. Nothing. Until all those issues have been taken care of and they're
back in compliance. If they don't get back to compliance, they don't build their addition.
Councilman Berquist: Are they in compliance now?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Berquist: They are not.
Councilman Mason: Well by approving this, the only way they can do it is if they come into compliance.
Kate Aanenson: That was the intent.
Councilman Mason: I mean that's the intent here.
Councilman Berquist: Let me, I hate to even open this can of worms. Alright, I won't.
Councilman Mason: Because it is. It's not even a can. It's a case.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments from Council members? May I have a motion please.
Councilman Mason: I will move approval of item 1 (j) in the opes that all the items will come into
compliance.
Mayor Mancino: I would, could I add to that and be a little more specific? I would like to approve the site
plan review #97-8 as shown on the site plan dated received June 13, 1997, subject to the following
conditions. Thank you. Number 1. The applicant shall apply for a building permit. Number 2.
Composting shall take place on the nursery site only. Actually I would like to make sure that we have a
legal description of that nursery site being Outlot D or the legal description please. And 3. The public
address system shall be in compliance with the stipulation agreement. Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan Review #97-8 as shown
on the site plan dated received June 13, 1997, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall apply for a building permit.
Composting shall take place on the nusery site only, described per the legal description.
Public address system shall be in compliance with the stipulation agreement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION:
Mayor Mancino: Any questions on the Admin Section?
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1997
Councilman Senn: On the memo from Todd, which is what, the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. What is that 8? Yeah,
eight one down and stuff. I just wanted to kind of reiterate our direction from last Council meeting which is
not to proceed with inclusion of that in a comp plan for central park and stuff until we've had a chance to
put that into our discussion framework on capital and other improvements and stuff going forward. And to
not spend funds towards planning that until we get more information on it and. I was also intrigued
basically in the history and all the historical stuff that Todd provided. Don, I think it would really be
helpful if we could get more information that would be a little more, how would I say, you know what's the
user group. How many people is this thing going to serve? Where are they going to come from? You
know part of what we're probably going to end up having to do in relationship to capital improvements is
to somewhat look at them on a little bit on the basis of you know, we only have so many resources and not
enough resources to do what everybody wants to do but you know, I think we need to define user groups
and how many people those improvements are going to benefit and that sort of thing so it'd be nice to start
having that information be part of suggestions like this.
Mayor Mancino: I didn't also see a cost related to the skate park either.
Councilman Senn: Well that's part of it, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? Questions? Admin Section. Okay, the meeting is closed.
Adjourned.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim