CC 1995 11 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting ,,vas opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, and Bob Generous
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilxvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda modified to delete number 4, the Southern Oaks proposal per the applicant's request. All voted in favor
of the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
ACCEPT DONATION OF S500.00 FROM MOUNT OLIVET ROLLING ACRES IN LIEU OF TAXES.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there someone going to make that presentation?
Don Ashworth: I don't believe so. The check had been received by mail and ! simply put the item in to insure
that the City Council would be a;vare of that if they would want to send some form of personalized note to
them. I don't know if the entire Council would like to sign that or just if the Council would like to have you
Mayor do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think it's up to Council. Does everybody want to sign the letter?
Council: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll all sign it.
Don Ashworth: It will be done.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved~ Councilman Bentuist seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the Ci~' Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution//95-114: Accept Street and Drainage Improvements in Shadow Ridge, Project No. 94-14.
c. Resolution//95-115: Approve No Parking Resolution for Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Boulevard, Project
93-32B.
Approve Consultant Services (Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik) for the Bluff Creek Watershed.
Amendment to Purchase Agreement for Property within the TH 212 Corridor with Rottlund Company.
Approval of Bills.
City Council Minutes dated October 23, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 1995
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated October 12, 1995
g,
m.
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
n. Approve ~Settlement Agreement with Roger and Gay Schmidt, Galpin Boulevard Realignment, Project 93-26.
o. Approve Purchase Agreement, State Bank of Chanhassen Property.
p. Approval of Private Redevelopment Agreement, David L. Obee.
q. Accept Donation from Mount Olivet Rolling Acres.
r. Resolution #95-116: Approve Gambling Permit Application, Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce for the
Februaor Festival Ice Fishing Contest.
s. Resolution #95-117: Resolution Calling for the Sale of $4.5 Million General Obligation Bonds, Series
1995C.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
PII,LSBURY UPDATE.
Rick Serand: I'm Rick Serand, Engineer from Pillsbury.
Mayor Chmiel' Would you like to come up to the microphone please.
Rick Serand: Again at the last meeting Mr. Moore couldn't be here so I believe to, or at least you should all be
in possession of a memo updating the specifics of the expansion out there for Pillsbury. Certainly I think the
item of biggest concern to us all is the truck parking associated with that expansion. Even though we've had,
the weather has really challenged us here in order to get our employee parking lot in and the additional truck
parking on site, we have been able to get at least a preliminary layer of asphalt down for employee parking lot
and we'll be parking on that and we'll finish it off in the spring. Put the finish layer on and the curbing around
but we do xvant to get the trucks off so xve put the preliminary...down rather than risk any further delay. The
guardrail for the trucks to additionally trucks off in our existing parking lot. That showed up today so we don't
see any reason why this week we should be, have all the things that we need to have done to get those trucks
parking in our parking lot and off of the street this xveek. We originally had set a date of the 15th but the
weather, like I say, has posed us some challenge with but xve're confident xve can have all those, everything in
place and maybe get those trucks in our parking lot and off the street, so. And then we're working hard with
our trucking companies now but as you all 'knoxv this is a significant change in operations out there but we've
posted it many, many times. We're telling all the drivers to have, xve're shoxving them where the parking lot is
going to be and we're hoping this will be a smooth transition but there xvill probably be a few rough edges to
smooth out next xveek as well. We should have everything in place by the end of this week so they can start
parking in our parking lot instead of on the street. And as an example, there's typically 10 to 15 trucks can fit
along Audubon Road and our parking area is set up for around I think 21 trucks so we tried to build a buffer in
there too.
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor?
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you expect next week to be particularly heavy with the holiday?
Rick Serand: No. Not any heavier than it has been. In fact we've been doing real good. Today as I left the
plant, unfortunately there xvere a lot of trucks out there.
Council~voman Dockendorf: There were 9 at about 5:00.
Rick Serand: Yeah. And that was back almost to TH 5 with nine of them there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yep.
Rick Serand: We've been trying. We've been scheduling appointments where we can but unfortunately some of
the customer pick-ups we just, we can't schedule all of the pick-ups. That's why we went ahead with this so, it
shouldn't, certainly today it shouldn't be any worse than it was today. Or at least we don't anticipate it being.
Most of our orders for Thanksgiving are really going out this week...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions? If not, thank you and you're just about right on time. We, as a
city, appreciate all the effort that Pillsbury is moving forward with correcting that situation~
Rick Serand: We're glad to do it also because I don't like going in and out of there any more than anybody else
driving by when all those trucks are there so, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a visitor presentation? Seeing none, we'll
move along to the award of bids.
_
AWARD OF BIDS: RESHINGLING OF OLD ST. HUBERT'S CHURCI-L
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor and City Council. Staff has advertised for bids twice in trying to reshingle Old St.
Hubert's. Once this last February and again this last October. The results of our bids in October, we received
txvo bids. One from Kastle Company and we broke out our bid specifications to include cedar shingles and
fiberglass shingles. Kastle Company's bid for cedar shingles was $20,850.00. Fiberglass shingles was
$14,325.00. If we xvere to reshingle the church with fiberglass shingles, we would have to add decking
underneath the fiberglass because of the separation between the boards in using cedar shingles. So with the
fiberglass you have to put nexv decking. So that's an additional $4,000.00 to their bid of $14,325.00. And their
hourly rate for additional repairs is $32.00. Cody Construction bid $39,971.00 for cedar shingles and the
fiberglass shingle bid xvas $24,342.00 with the decking of $4,600.00. And an hourly rate of $55.00 per hour.
Based on these bids, staff would recommend going with the cedar shingles. They last approximately anywhere
from 20 to 30 years longer than the fiberglass shingles. It stays with the character of the building as it exists
today and based on the different cost between the two bids, it's not that much more expensive in buying for that
additional time. Staff would recommend that the City Council award bids to Kastle Company using the cedar
shingle alternative and also direct staff to work out a new lease agreement with St. Hubert's based on our 5 year
renexvable lease with them. That if they should option to take the facility back, that they would reimburse us a
pro-rated cost of those improvements made to the church. This roof. Staff worked really hard with the two
bidders. We sent out special ads to a variety of roofers to encourage people to bid on it. We advertised in the
Construction Bulletin and we still only received the two bids so this is a difficult project and I think Kastle
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Companies are a reputable company. We went and looked at one of their projects today. We talked to the
owner and he was very pleased with the work that they've done.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Any questions?
Councilman Berquist: Where's Kastle Company?
Todd Gerhardt: They're out of Richfield, Minnesota.
Councilman Berquist: How come...?
Todd Gerhardt: I have no idea. I've asked the Construction Bulletin. I talked to another advertisement agency
today and he tvas surprised because there are so many roofers out there and they may have missed it. Their
work load may have been at the point where they couldn't take it. Typically it is why I delayed bidding this out
since February. It's the best time to bid these things is the January-February, November-December time frame
when people are trying to take on new projects when summer and fall just are difficult times to find people.
And maybe because it's, we're into that fall time where people are busy. That's all the answers I could come up
xvith.
Councilman Berquist: What's the time frame to get this completed?
Todd Gerhardt: We've opened it up to have the work done by spring so they would have all winter. From what
tve've found from the roofers, they say that this is a good winter project to work on. That this isn't a project
you have to work on in the summertime to get a seal, if you xvent with the asphalt shingles too.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why the difference in bids? I mean that's remarkable.
Todd Gerhardt: Well I think Cody, they weren't going to. They were asking, they specialize in doing flat roofs.
They do, very rarely do they do what I will call the lap shingle type tvork.
Counciltvoman Dockendorf: So they tveren't excited about it?
Todd Gerhardt: You know I asked them, I said not a lot of people it seems like bidding on this project. I think
they just threxv out a number to be honest.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we anticipate additional repair?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. There xvill probably be some additional repair. The facility has leaked for some time.
We think there might be some rafter repair, is xvhy xve put the hourly rate in there.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: So do you have any ballpark as to what that...?
Todd Gerhardt: Not at this time. We don't 'knoxv the extent of it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Have we inspected it at all?
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Todd Gerhardt: It's a difficult area to get into. It's, there is a trap door but I can't get anybody to go up into the
thing to look up there. It's a tough project for somebody to take on. It's a steep roof and there's going to need
some scaffolding with it and you've got to be careful in an old facility like that. It was built in the late 1800's.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is the roof going to outlast the building?
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know. I would hope that it will stay there forever. The foundation seems sound. You
just don't knoxv xvhat you're going to get until you get underneath those shingles and start ripping them off.
You know at $32.00 an hour, I think that's a reasonable price. We've got them locked in on that. We do have
to replace some decking. We've got some costs in that too so. From other projects, I think this was bid out a
long time ago that were left in the files before I was here and there ~vas like three bids in there and they all
ranged in the above $30,000.00. And that was over 8 years ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Todd, it wasn't in the write up here but I think in your presentation you referenced proration
if the church takes the property back. What proration?
Todd Gerhardt: Right noxv, first draft which St. Hubert's has it's saying is 5% reduction each year from
xvhatever cost that xve stick into the roof. So if it's $25,000.00 or $20,000.00, each year after that there would
be a 5% reduction.
Councilman Senn: So over 20 years basically is the formula?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Who pays the utilities and the other operating costs in the facility now?
Todd Gerhardt: Colonial Church.
Councilman Senn: They pay all of them?
Todd Gerhardt: They pay all of the heating that goes along with the church. The lights. Everything.
Councilman Senn: And they do the snow removal? They do minor repairs and all that sort of thing? We're
just doing this as a major repair?
Todd Gerhardt: We're doing this as a major repair. They will do minor repairs around the building. And then
there are certain projects where xve xvill go in and make code updates. Three outer doors. Exit signs.
Handicapped access. Window repairs. Things of those sorts are our responsibility.
Councilman Senn: But they're doing the snoxv removal and taking care of landscaping, all that stuff?.
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Todd Gerhardt: We do the snow removal and then assess that back against them. So they do pay for the snow
removal.
Councilman Senn: Through what, special assessment or something or does the downtown district pay for it?
Todd Gerhardt: The downtown parking lot maintenance agreements that we have with the businesses
downtown. Through the public parking lots. Pauly's gets assessed. A1 Klingelhutz and Jack Bonds gets
assessed for the snow removal, striping, lighting and sanding and salting that we do in those parking lots.
Councilman Senn: How much of that $5,700.00 do we turn around and spend on the facility each year?
Todd Gerhardt: Well it depends. If the heating unit is xvorking fine, I xvould say that we spend anywhere from
$3,000.00 to $4,000.00 back into the building each year.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, looking at the last several years we've kept very little of the rent.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Why aren't we raising the rent to help pay for the improvements?
Todd Gerhardt: Colonial Church just can't afford it. It's a 30 member body, is what I've been told. And the
heating of the facility can run up as much as $1,200.00 a month and you 'know trying to justify increasing the
rent to cover that, just doesn't seem to be justified. We could lose the tenant, then xve'd have to go out looking
for another one if they couldn't afford the rent. Staff has held it's ground to the repairs that we don't go in the
hole in the thing. But we don't want to see the church deteriorate either. And there's been water problems in
the church that we've had to take care of. Having them in there I think has extended the life. Always having
somebody in a facility~always extends the life because they do take heart in that facility. That is their
congregation home. And we do have a lease agreement xvith them. So I don't think there's anything in the
lease that would allow us to up it.
Councilman Senn: But I thought that lease was a short term.
Todd Gerhardt: I think it renews every 5 years also.
Councilman Senn: Well, the amount of money we're keeping out of this each year after we pay the expenses
isn't enough to even amortize and pay the roof. So I guess the question is, why should the taxpayers being
paying for the church? Why aren't we raising the rent or increasing the operating costs to pay for it?
Todd Gerhardt: That's a good question. The only come back I can come xvith is that it is a historical building
in the community. It's an icon for the communit3,. Previous Council decided that when St. Hubert's was
considering selling the facility, opted to take the facility back over and keeping it in the community. I think at
the time they were considering moving it down to Murphy's Landing and that City Council thought it was
important that this historical marker stay in Chanhassen and thus taken over the operations of it. And when the
city takes over the operations, we are in that line of liability to make sure we meet ADA. That we meet fire
codes. And that we keep the facility up. And I'm here tonight telling you that the roof leaks so bad that you're
going to have substantial damage to the interior of that facility. And if you've been in that place you know that
the ceilings and the walls have a special paint job to them and there's delicate ribbing painting throughout the
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
facility. And it's getting to the point xvhere xve may have to come in and repaint or replaster those areas and
then we are going to have to put more capital dollars out to make sure to repair that.
Councilman Senn: Well I've been in it and I can't disagree with you I guess. The primary question I get in my
mind is, if the city's determined that it is a landmark that it wants to keep, why hasn't it simply been deeded to
the city so the city can fix it up.'? Do it right and get out of this endless game of getting killed with, you know
big fix up expenses.
Todd Gerhardt: That's up to the City Council to decide. I mean if they want to.
Councilman Senn: I mean xvhy xvasn't it deeded to the city in the first place? Why is it set up on a lease?
Todd Gerhardt: I think St. Hubert's probably didn't want to lose out on an option that they may need that
facility back for some type of operation. This keeps their options open.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, Don.
Don Ashxvorth: Todd is correct. When that was first xvent back to the city that, first of all the church really
didn't know xvhat it xvas the city, how well we would treat the facility and they questioned, you know at some
point in the future xve may want that facility back. That's the reason it was set up on continuous 5 year leases.
As to your other question, you 'know there have been time frames xvhere xve have not had a tenant in there and
then it has come back on the city to pay those costs that's averaged, I would say $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 per
year when xve weren't able to get a tenant in there. And I also agree with Todd. With the small congregation, it
is really tough to get money out of them. I mean I did that before I kind of turned it over to Todd and the last
one I really congratulated him for in terms of the amount of money' that he is getting out of that facility. The
third item is the repairs are going to be paid for out of historic trust. Sb they are not going to be part of a
general tax levy that would be made to Carver County or against all of the citizens. It is to come out of that
specially dedicated trust fund set up for repairs within the downtown so.
Councilman Senn: I guess the question is, if we're going to start sticking this kind of money in it, why don't we
deal with the issue of either owning it or not owning it and what public use should be in it, if any, or whatever.
Don Ashworth: I see A1 Klingelhutz in the audience. I know that Al wore two hats for many years. One
representing the city and also on the church board and I think that A1 was a part of a lot of those negotiations
during that '76 through '78 timeframe. '78, '80. Somewhere in there. Do you have any insight A1 as to, you
know would the church consider a long term or literally deeding that to the city?
A1 Klingelhutz: I don't believe they would. I think that.
Mayor Chmiel: Al, could you come up to the mic so we can pick that up please.
Al Klingelhutz: I believe that the deal was made after I was out of office here and I probably wasn't on the
church board at the time and the negotiations xvere with the Mayor and City Council, and I believe...Hobbs was
the Mayor at the time. It xvas a 5 year lease at $1.00 a year. The City would pay the church. .. St. Hubert's,
actually four churches have started there. I think it ~vas declared a historical site by the Federal government and
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
I think Don described it. There is the historical trust fund has been set up to help maintain some of the
historical buildings in Chanhassen. The old City Hall was another one of them. There's been quite a few
dollars spent on that to...that. If we can keep some of our history intact...same thing to maintain some of the
history in their community. Actually we have to remember that the City of Chanhassen was started by the
church. I don't know how many of you recall when all the streets in Chanhassen xvere named after saints. And
they've all been changed but main street was St. Hubert's. There was St. Claire's and all the different names.
The church actually laid out the city of, the village of Chanhassen in the first place so there's a lot of
background with the church in Chanhassen. I remember when Al Smith ran for President and Chanhassen xvas
the only precinct in the State of Minnesota that voted all for A1 Smith, because everybody in the city that was
living here was Catholic. There's some of the history that I'm bringing up but...I can still remember that on the
radio. When the vote came in, they called the village of Chanhassen Little Rome because... I'm not sure what I
can say about what Mark has been saying. The rent should be raised on the church that's starting. I believe...
Christianity and I think churches are good for a community. It doesn't have to be a catholic church. The
catholic church was the only church in Chanhassen for many years. Even Chanhassen township and look at all
the denominations we have here now and a lot of people have a little different views on Christianity and they
should, I feel...place for a new religion in Chanhassen it's a good place in a building like St. Hubert's. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree Al. I think basically xvhat you're saying is true and it's either pay now or pay
later, and if we don't have anyone in there the costs are going to be exorbitant as well and this way at least
some of those costs are being absorbed.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, don't get me wrong. Nothing I said said let's kick the tenant out, okay.
Mayor Chmiel: No, by raising the rent you just might do that.
Councilman Senn: But the real issue in my mind is, if the city's going to start sticking in this kind of money, I
agree. It's a historic structure worth keeping and maintaining, okay. But if xve're going to do this, I think ~ve
ought to look at ownership, especially given the fact that St. Hubert's is looking at selling their old church here
in the next 2 to 3 years. I mean this is an issue xve should deal with now before we stick $20,000.00 into this.
Into capital improvement and if it's something we're going to make a decision to maintain, I think that decision
ought to be...otherwise we're going to be adding this negotiation in a couple years anyway. Or within a couple
years anyway if they go ahead with their plans to sell the existing church. So it seems to me it's a lot more
prudent doing it before we spend the 20 grand than after.
Mayor Chmiel: Well too, as Todd mentioned the fact that if we don't take care of the problems existing now,
we may be paying a lot more by redoing the inside as well.
Councilman Senn: I have no problems with that. What I'm saying let's deal with the issue and talk to the
church. I don't think that has to delay the repair.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, what I'd like to do.
Don Ashworth: If I can. I thought Todd's commenting in here is excellent. That we try to work something out
with St. Hubert's. If they ti3, to take that facility back, and you pick out some timeframe within the next 7
years, 10 years, whatever. They would have to pay us the amortized cost that would be remaining over that
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
period. So if you xvant to take it over 10 years at xvhatever. After 10 years they want to take it back, it'd cost
them $10,000.00.
Councilman Senn: Well that's assuming the cost is 20 and not 30 by the time the whole job gets done.
Don Ashxvorth: Well, I think that they xvould be amenable to.
Todd Gerhardt: We'd have to prove xvhat dollars we put into it. I mean right now in the lease agreement I
think it's just a blank line to be filled in once we 'know~
Councilman Senn: But is that just the roof repairs or is it going to include the interior repairs you're talking
about following through with afterwards? I mean where does it start? Where does it end?
Todd Gerhardt: I guess I would leave that up to City Council to make that list for us. Right now I was
considering any capital cost that were up and above the $5,000.00 cost figure. I was using the roof. If the
boiler should go bad in the thing. Unless xve can find Merit Heating and Cooling that would donate it. You
know large capital costs. Not the maintenance dollars. I consider re-roofing the thing a major capital cost.
And I'm trying to live off the budget and the Colonial people have been good to try to adhere to that budget at
each year and over the last 6 months we've...where we might even come up with a budget each year of things
that they feel are important. But I'm trying to live off of the rent money and sticking it back into the facility.
So up and above that, you 'knoxv the windows would be probably a large capital cost. Those stained glass
windoxvs are a maintenance headache. The crosses on the top of the church. We should really have somebody
come in and inspect those and see xvhat we can do to maybe firm those up. There looks like there may be a
rust spot on one side of them that I'd hate to see that thing come tumbling down and land on anything. Those
are things just off the top of the head which I would think are large capital costs. Windows, cross.and roof.
Mayor Chmiel: A1 did you, you wanted to say something there for a quick instance.
A1 Klingelhutz: Well I was going to say, if I remember correctly, and I haven't seen a contract with the city or
the lease agreement but I believe that lease agreement did state that the city would maintain the building so it
wouldn't deteriorate and if the roof has been leaking, and if it should cave in and.e.the building, I think the city
xvould be obligated to a much bigger expense than just put a new roof on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Yes.
Larry Schrader: My name's Larry Schrader. I'm from Colonial here... I agree ;vith Councilman Mark Senn. Is
that how you pronounce your name? This has been going on for a long time back and forth. I think one
objection that maybe St. Hubert's has and probably I guess as a person...too, that is a church and some day it's
not rendered a church, it's a public...it might be, have a new perspective... We try to maintain it. We paint
downstairs. We try to stay on top of things. Clean things up. Outside we do all of the cutting of the grass... In
the wintertime the snow and we try to maintain it the best we possibly can. It's a big chore. The roof is a big
problem. Ownership, I've been saying for years, has got to be... Somebody's got to take the final say. This is
our's and that's a real problem so someone ~vanting to get, if the city does put the money into the roof, either
they work out something with St. Hubert's. I don't think they ever want it back. If they do want it back, I
mean tonight the Boy Scout's are there. We let the Boy Scouts use it. They have the whole basement...so it is
being used as a public facility but still at the same time you've got to figure out who's on first. Who's going to
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
take the final ownership for it. We're doing our best trying to maintain it the best we can so that's really all I
have to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Larry. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Is there a
motion?
Councilman Mason: I will move that the City Council award bids to Kastle Company in the cedar shingle
alternative xvith a bid amount of $20,850.00. I'd also like the motion to include what it says about, in the staff
report about staff being directed to work with St. Hubert's in arranging a new lease agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Resolution #95-118: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist moved to mvanl the bid for remofing of
Old St. Hubert's Church to Kastle Company in the amount of S20,850.00 for cedar shingles alternative and to
direct staff to work with St. Hubert's in entering into a new lease agreement. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
RURAL/URBAN TAX DISTRICT, FINALIZE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
Don Ashworth: Following our last City Council meeting on this item, the Mayor did select a citizens committee
that was also composed of Councilman Berquist. During the meetings of that citizens committee, Councilman
Mark Senn also attended those meetings. The task force xvas really given two primary duties. First of all, how
should the definition be changed for the rural service district to represent that. They made quick order of that
task basically coming back saying it should solely be farmed. The City Attorney has prepared a redraft of the
ordinance and the City Council does have a copy of that ordinance which xvould limit qualifying parcels to
farms. Second issue was one of looking through the existing list of approximately 82 parcels and trying to
make a decision as to which of those parcels qualify under the new definition and which ones don't. The final
report as completed today and I believe copies have been presented to the City Council showing the task force's
recommendations as to which parcels should be taken off. The third item that ,,vas taken on by the task force,
although I'm not quite sure why, was how to consider potential rebates. I had a number of concerns with those
discussions because of the fact that one, this was a technical error as to how a distribution would occur. So the
city, county, school district did not receive one penny more than they would have received if it had been set at
75% versus 90%. At issue is a certain group of oxvners paid more and a certain group of owners paid less. But
as far as the city physically having that money, putting it in the bank, that never occurred. Two is, I question
what error was made. I think a lot of time xvas spent on talking about 75% versus 90% but the fact is that I
think that if any one of us would have been the list that showed Gedney as qualifying, Prince, Mills Fleet Farm,
I think everyone of us xvould have said whoa. This isn't really right. I consider a more major error ``vas in
allowing a number of these parcels to be on this list for as many years as they were. Third issue is really State
law and that is, if you're going to consider an abatement, there's a specific procedure set out in State law under
which that is to be considered. Four, I had to believe that the committee might be considering well let's just go
ahead and do it anyway, and where there is a procedure set out in State law, I really cannot recommend that
type of a process. Finally, staff has a problem with the rebate thing as far as who's going to get the check.
Let's assume we do the calculation as it would apply for 1991, and by the way I did not get the list back from
the Carver Count.,,, Auditor's office that the committee had been talking to the auditor about. I left a message
but they did not, I don't know, Maybe Laurie was not there. But the question's really who gets the check. You
10
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
do the calculation for 1991. Are you going to send that check to the National Weather Service and Jehovah's
Witness? Are you going to send it to the, I think they were called Highway 5 Partnership, xvhich is primarily
Betty O'Shaughnessy and a number of those oxvners. They had the property before the National Weather
Service. And then there xvas a true farmer who had the property sometime before that. The same thing would
be true of really any of those parcels. I mean you've got 10 subdivisions that have occurred since 1991, Is this
check going to go back to somebody who now lives in Trotter's Ridge, Windmill Run, Royal Estates, etc.'? Is
there a solution? I really think that there is. I think that the City Council should consider adopting this
ordinance as recommended by the conu'nittee. That putting in the definition of farms. I would recommend that
the City Council follow that by adopting the committee's recommended list of what parcels should fall out of
there. After you've carried out those two actions, xve now can talk about xvho it is that rightly should have
gotten a loxver tax rate in the last 4 years. If it was set at 90 and it should have been 75, that means a 15%
error was made per year for 4 years. Or 5 years. Simply set the rate at 60% for 1996, '97, '98 and '99. I don't
knoxv what happens to 2000, and give those owners that loxver amount. If they sell it, if somebody else is
farming, fine. That next person gets the loxver rate. If they sell it and somebody develops it, the list comes
back to the Council each year. You'll simply -knock that parcel out. In fact I would recommend that we keep
the committee intact for the next 4 years and each year when xve get into this time of the year, we ask the
committee to look at all these parcels. Figure out who should continue at 60% and who shouldn't. I really
believe that that would be one way that Mr. Degler, I believe will be farming for the next 5 years. He should
get the tax break in the amount that he overpaid for the last 4. But surely do not take and give that rebate back
to Prince, to Gedney, to Mills Fleet Farm. I don't think any of us could support that. End of report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I concur xvith your analogy that you just went through. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: The biggest reason that I asked to be named to the citizens group was so that I could
attempt to be convinced that there was some actual benefits gained by the actual lack of service if you will
garnered by the rural parties. However, in looking at all the different tax ramifications that affect someone who
owns acreage in the city of Chanhassen, primarily green acres, it's obvious to me that there really should not be
an urban/rural district delineation. I don't knoxv that I'm going to be able to convince the other members that
are affected that that's necessarily the case. But I'd like to talk about a couple of your issues in your report,
specifically the let's do it any~vay. I want to 'know what the, you refer to some ramifications if we start to
deviate from a statutory process.
Don Ashxvorth: I would prefer to take and have the City Attorney respond to that. You and I talked about this
shortly and I think I put in wordage similar to what he gave me but I guess I would defer to him in terms of
what happens if we decide that we're just going to kind of ignore statute and go ahead and do our own thing.
Councilman Berquist: Do it quickly. I mean you don't have to get into a lot of details. I mean what can of
worms do we open?
Roger Knutson: Don set it up... The legislature just said, if there's a problem. Here's how the problem should
be corrected. It's a statute. You should follow it. We have no authority to do elsewise. If we ignore the
statute, deviating from the laws as set forth by the legislature in violation of...and as Don said, as your attorney
I can't ever advise you to violate the law.
Councilman Berquist: The 5 members of the task, the 3 members of the task force that are not either on the
Council or city staff really put a lot of work into this. There's a lot of hours sitting in the Council, or in the
conference room going through the different parcels and A1 drove around and looked at the different parcels. I
11
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
suspect maybe Willard and Gayle may have done the same thing to try to determine xvhether or not they in fact
were being farmed or whether they were simply sitting dormant or whether there were horses on them or what
exactly was going on. After going through the list, I think we finally came up xvith 41 xvas it? Was that the
total number of parcels that qualified? That xve considered xvere qualifying as ag. If I buy into all of the rest of
this, which I do, in the report. I'm perfectly content I think in going ahead xvith the ordinance approval and then
going for the 60% tax rate for the years 1996 through 2000, or 1999. Whatever works out to be commensurate
with the over tax. And I think that will alleviate the problem and get us back where we need to be and then in
1999 we can get rid of this stupid thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Well put. Thanks.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't think it's a stupid thing. I think there's a good reason for it, and I also
think this is a very creative solution. I agree xvith it totally. Do xve have a sunset on this ordinance or are we
just going to look at it annually?
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Roger go ahead.
Roger Knutson: There is no sunset on it as drafted. If you xvanted to propose a sunset for example on the
entire urban/rural service district distinction class for taxes...we certainly can do that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just don't want it to get lost. I mean I think when we look at the parcels
annually, we should also look at is it still applicable to still be there.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. The only problem, it sounds like an easy solution by just putting it in the ordinance
when in fact we have ~o remember it anyway because if someone doesn't catch it and bring it to the county
auditor's attention, it still will go on. But you can put the sunset in there.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well I'm not interested in doing that now but I just don't want us to forget about it
I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I think solutions that, yeah I agree with Colleen. I think that...doing. I understand that
some people on the committee however xvould like to see this tabled and some more work can get done on it.
A1 Klingelhutz: There was quite a bit of discussion on that. I guess I should come up here and talk.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, would you Al. Get your exercise tonight.
A1 Klingelhutz: I left the cane over there...it's getting a little better now. Looking back, the assessor went over
this list and he found 42 parcels that should stay on and Willard and Gayle and I. Gayle drove the southern
part of Chanhassen. I drove up along Highway 5 and xve checked each one of these parcels to see if they were
growing crops or not because we wanted to make sure we were pretty right on that because I can still remember
when the city was taken to court xvhen we first adopted this ordinance. We took a couple of people out and the
city lost the case in court, which cost the city quite a little money in court and attorney fees...and I didn't want
12
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
to see that happen again. I think one of the reasons, and I probably shouldn't mention Gayle's name but he's
still outside the MUSA line. He don't knoxv exactly when he's going to be in. He kind of hates the idea of
putting a deadline of say like 1990 or the year 2000. They're having to drop it out of there altogether.. I can
understand the concerns there because you never 'know xvhat the Metro Council's going to do as far as extending
the Metro Urban Service line... I think one of the things that we did pretty much want to see is actually how
much it would cost the city to repay those dollars that ~vere expended by the people in the rural service district
through these years and that's one of the reasons that...should be delayed to actually get all the information
possible before we actually settle on this. I know, I'm not taking on the City Council. I know the position most
of you are in. I know the position Don is in. Where are your dollars going to come from if we pay it back?
But it was a mistake. It shouldn't have happened...several people paid more dollars in taxes every year than
they should have. I guess that's one of the reasons we would like to see an evaluation to see how many dollars
actually were taken from these people. Probably...MUSA line, I think by the year 2000 I'I1 be out of there.
Councilman Berquist: Correct me if I'm xvrong. What we're dealing with tonight is strictly hoxv the taxation for
the coming year is going to look at this, these properties in terms of the percentage. We're not dealing with
who got taxed xvhat. What errors xvere made in the past. We can still deal with that issue at our next get
together after the auditor brings that information back to us. But from a timeliness issue, this needs to be
addressed. Is that correct?
Don Ashxvorth: Well Al, I had a discussion with both Mark and Laurie, at which time they told me that if the
City Council could get this adopted by the next Council meeting, that they could have this effective for tax year
1996. Now Councilman Senn informed me that Orlin Shafer had told you that '96 is out of the way. The first
time it can be effective is '97.
A1 Klingelhutz: That's exactly what Orlin, and I think Willard xvill vouch for that. That's what Orlin Shafer
told us. That it xvas too late for taxes payable in '96 but it could be adopted for taxes payable in '97. I don't
know xvhere the two of them got mixed up. Other than what Orlin told us that first meeting we met.
Don Ashworth: Why, I didn't understand why Orlin Shafer, as assessor, would be attending a meeting that's
talking about taxes and taxation xvhich is really the responsibility of Mark Lundgren. I didn't quite understand
that.
A1 Klingelhutz: Actually Orlin Shafer I think is the one, in fact from 1967 on there's a lot more peopIe than
100 and some...and each year as some of these properties developed and he automatically took them off. I
know there were some that xvere on it last year that aren't on this year. Mark Stein was on last year. He isn't
on this year. So he has been doing some of it, but he hasn't been watching it. I guess it's really up to the city's
responsibility to take these off but he has been taking quite a few of them off as they develop and for some of
the 10 acre ones that something else is happening...In fact I asked Orlin to be at that meeting because I didn't
want us to make any mistakes on xvhat could happen if we made a mistake as far as explaining rural agricultural
land. And he came up xvith 42 parcels and Gayle and I and we went over some of them last week...because we
checked on the map and some of them we hadn't even looked at yet. We thought we could check those off and
see if they were actually going agricultural or not and we came up with 41.
Don Ashworth: I would still, Mark's office is the one that actually sends out the property tax statement. Laurie
is the one who puts everything through the computer. Those two stated that if we could adopt that this evening,
they could have it effective for 1996. I still believe that those statements are correct.
13
CiD' Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilman Mason: Well is not the issue, if we don't change this those wrong tax figures are still going to be
in place.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Mason: If we don't make this amendment tonight.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And it just becomes part of the same abatement problem.
Councilman Mason: Right. So it would seem to me we should act on this tonight then and continue the
process that these fine gentlemen are involved in. I mean if we can change the tax rates now, I think we should
do it.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well I think we've got a good solution here. I don't see, and to be perfectly
honest, that wasn't the charge that we gave the task force. Discuss the abatement procedures so I mean I think
this is a great solution. I don't see the need to go back and try to figure out xvhat any kind of rebates could be
SO.
Councilman Senn: You know the Council did specifically request a list of the properties and the dollars
involved before we made our decision at the time that we tabled it and we still don't have that information. We
don't 'know the extent or the scope of xvhat we're even talking about. Steve's point that what he's assuming as in
let's just abolish the district. I may very well agree with that but I don't know how I can agree or disagree with
it until I knoxv the extent of the problem and I don't agree that what's in the staff report is necessarily a good
solution. I mean you read number 3, it says let's ignore all the parcels except 30 to 40 that xve're reclassifying
now as being proper. Saying let's ignore them in relationship to any future treatment or past treatment that
relates to what we're paying. I don't know, there's some real problems with it since we had an ordinance in
place saying that we were acting improperly. I think xve're...I think we ought to take the time to assess that and
find out what those property owners think. I don't think we can just randomly say we're going to include these
30 or 40, back dating it to '92 and saying we're going to boot the other, ~vhatever parcels out of there or
something...
Mayor Chmiel' We were just looking at this and seeing what the totals are and the amount of taxes that are for
each of these respective parcels. It shows township and city for the first one on the first page, page one. That
xvould be $234.40 would be the city's portion. That would have a rebate of approximately $34.00.
Don Ashworth: Correct Mr. Mayor. You simply take that line. Multiply it by 15% and that is the amount. In
that particular case the $234.00 would be $34.00. So I mean.
A1 Klingelhutz: Per 3, ear.
Don Ashworth: Per year, correct. Per year. But I mean you've got an awfully good approximation. I mean
when we get the list back from the county, xvhich I said don't hold your breath on but if they don't take and get
it to us, I'll go through there and I'll do it myself and I'll submit it back to you. It's not that difficult...
14
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And would it be a matter of just informing these property owners and if they want
to follow through xvith the abatement process, that's their prerogative?
Don Ashworth: Yeah, I suppose. I think that the Count3, Board, in 'knowing that we were going to take and
reduce the tax rate for them, I think that the County Board would be reluctant to go through the abatement
process but I can't speak for the County Board. And I do know their costs of processing an abatement is a lot
more than $34.00.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but in your solution here Don you're suggesting that we not only
reclassify the parcels tonight, but that you implement the 60% because that's what the auditor needs to -know.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And you're saying implement that only for the 30 to 40 parcels that have now been
classified as being properly.
Don Ashxvorth: 42.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Not all of them that were classified previously under the ordinance.
Don Ashworth: But doesn't that get back to the error? I mean don't you consider that it was an error to allow
Prince to take and continue to be on that list or Mills Fleet Farm or Gedney.
Councilman Senn: I agree but I haven't heard anyone tell me we have no legal exposure for acting outside of
the ordinance and then saying we're going to close our eyes and ignore it. For part of the people. I mean that's
xvhat it really comes down to is for part of the people.
_
Councilman Mason: I don't understand how we've ignored the ordinance. If we've made a mistake, there's an
abatement process that people can go through and xve're no~v trying to rectify the problem. ! don't call that
ignoring anything.
Councilman Senn: No, but you're by-passing the abatement process by saying you're going to implement a
procedure to give them an additional 15% off for the next 4 years.
Councilman Mason: People have the right to go through the abatement process regardless of what we do here.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: I don't, I quite honestly don't see what that issue is at all.
Councilman Senn: The issue is that you've decided, or you're being asked to decide that some of the people
xvho overpaid according to the previous ordinance will get their money back and other people who overpaid
according to previous ordinance don't get their money back. That's what you're saying.
Councilman Mason: And those people can go through an abatement process if they have a problem with that.
Councilman Senn: No, they cannot because the abatement process will not alloxv them to go back to the years
necessary to recover their money. They can only go back txvo years.
15
City Council Meeting - November t 3, 1995
Councilman Mason: That's correct and according to State Statute, that's the xvay it is and I'm not inclined to
violate a State Statute.
Councilman Senn: Except what you're adopting by staff recommendation here is that you're going to go all the
way back to '91 for some people by implementing this 15% deal. Only some.
Don Ashxvorth: I would argue Mark. We're trying to correct two errors. One error was a whole group of
people that shouldn't have been in there for this whole time period. The other error was the 15%. This
ordinance, handling it in this fashion corrects both errors. And I do not see we're going back and trying to give
money back to Gedney corrects the other error that I saw happen, xvhich xvas they Shouldn't have been there.
This way alloxvs you to correct both errors.
Councilman Senn: Well, then I'd like a legal opinion telling us we can do that.
Roger Knutson: You can adopt this ordinance. It's under your discretion to set the amount.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's got to be an ordinance. What I'm saying is dealing with the past. Can we
implement an ordinance for a portion of the people which alloxvs them to get their money back previous to the
abatement process that they can go through and tell the other part that they cannot? Even though we had an
ordinance in place saying here's how they were to be taxed.
Roger Knutson: It's within your discretion to adopt this ordinance. Setting that tax rate.
Councilman Senn: I understand that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It doesn't mean we're, I mean we don't.
Roger Knutson: There's nothing illegal about this.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. We don't say we're trying to rectify. The ordinance doesn't say we're
trying to rectify a past error. All it says is we're going to set it at 60% for these parcels going forward.
Roger Knutson: Your reason for why you think this is a good ordinance or xvhy you think it's a bad ordinance,
is really just...yourself. The courts don't review your personal thinking as to why you think this is a good
ordinance.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, I xvould move that xve approve this ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was just going to call the question. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes, I'll second it and I would, the reason I am going to second it is I know there's still
some concerns about xvhether there are 42 or 41 parcels, this, that and the other thing. I xvould like to see the
tax, the reason I'm seconding it is I would like to see the tax rates fixed where they should be now as opposed
to having them be 90% and having this problem continue further.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the ordinance amendment for the
mini/urban tax district as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion
carded.
16
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned before if there's anyone who's still sitting here for item number 4, that Southern
Oaks proposal has been tabled from this evening's agenda.
CONSIDER SETrLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR NEZ PERCE EXTENSION~ FRANK BEDDOR,
Don Ashworth: I have forwarded to the City Council a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. This is
what has been negotiated by the City Attorney's office with Mr. Beddor and the others as a part of that lawsuit.
The only negative that I have been made aware of is the fact that some owners do not want to see the city
entering into something that says that we'll not extend that street for at least a 3 year period. I would rem/nd
the Council and those people that failing to reach agreement, Mr. Beddor has made it very clear that he will
keep this item in court for at least a 3 year period, and there's no question in my mind but that in fact he can do
that. There are enough work items that are yet to be accomplished that he could easily challenge each one of
those processes and extend this well beyond that 3 year period of time and the only difference is that, in the one
instance you get to pay the City Attorney for 3 years of fighting in court. In the other case, you simply wait the
3 year period of time to put the road in.
Roger Knutson: Don, there's another difference. This...get it for nothing.
Don Ashworth: That's true. I'm sorry. Now you made me forget what I was saying. So anyway, we're
recommending approval. I know not all parties are going to be happy with the solution but I think it is a way
to insure that from a long range planning standpoint, that the roadway is there. That we have made inter
connections throughout the community and I think that we can pretty well hold our heads up in terms of saying
we worked this thing out and basically got what we wanted. Approval is recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone ~vishing to address this this evening2 Okay.
Councilman Mason: I have a question and a comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Mason: My comment Don to what you said. I have had, because that is kind of my neck of the
woods, I have had people calling me frequently to see what's going on and that concern was expressed to me.
However when I did explain to them that it would be at least 2 years until we got it and it'd be in court that
long anyways, as unhappy they may have been, they did also understand the sense of that. One question, and
I'm not sure who to address this to. I guess it's either to you or to Roger, Don. That easement between those
two homes on Lake Lucy Road, that there was at some point. I'll admit going through this I don't understand
all the wording. Is that easement not an issue? I mean this is all done. He can't put a road through there?
Don Ashworth: Well this is silent on that issue.
Roger Knutson: Right. There'd be no reason to put a road through there but the easement hasn't gone away.
Councilman Mason: Right, but because of the way things are platted, that's no longer practical.
Roger Knutson: With this street going on, and people can suggest anything. I can't imagine why that would be
on the table.
17
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilman Mason: Oh, okay. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: It shouldn't be, right.
Councilman Mason: Okay. That's all I have to say. Let's get it done.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's put it to bed. I'm tired of this issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark?
Councilman Senn: No problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Settlement Agreement for Nez Peree
Extension. All x'oted in favor, except Councilman Bertluist who was out of the room at the time, and the
motion carried.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2~ BLOCK 1~ CROSSROADS PLAZA 2ND
ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7~742. SQ. Fr. TIRES PLUS FACII,ITY
LOCATED ON WEST 79TH STREET; AND APPROVE DEVELOPMF~NT CONTRACT AND
CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR CROSSROADS PLAZA 3RD ADDITION~ PROJECT
NO. 95-2.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This is a two part request for this... Housing and
Redevelopment Authority is requesting a preliminary and final plat to replat a lot in the Crossroads Plaza 2nd
Addition. Basically the replatting of the lot creates four lots. The two smaller lots to the rear and two larger
ones on the front. As part of this the city is also developing a master concept for this site that xvould include
the provision of the majority of the parking in the interior of the project with cross parking and cross access
easements between those... We're looking at providing an internal access to the bank parking lot and potentially
in the future another one to the shopping center on the east side of this project. Staff is recommending approval
of the subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report. The second component of the project is the Tires
Plus building, which is located in the northwest corner of the site. We have been working with the applicant
and the cross hatched areas are additional landscaped areas that xve were able to get through redesign of that
project. There have been 400, approximately 400 square feet of the required landscaping, landscape areas for
the site. However, as a condition of the subdivision we are requiring that the entire site meet the 35%
landscaped area rather than the individual one because our concept plan shows a 36% landscaping area, potential
for the entire project. The only issues that was really left at the Planning Commission stage was the type of
roof treatment that the applicant did propose. While one of their concepts is they would provide a short pitched
roof element just over the front portion of the site. That's Alternate A. A second alternative was to continue
this roof treatment across the entire body of the building. Staff and the Planning Commission xvere real
concerned that we'd have this large blank wall area and so this wasn't the preferred choice. The third alternative
was to provide some roof massing along the front of the building and we believe this is the best alternative for
18
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
this site and not only is attractive on the structure but provides the screening for the bo~vling area to the rear
from Highway 5. With that staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff
report. If you have any questions, t'd be happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, were there any questions of Bob?
Councilman Berquist: Provide screening from the bowling alley?
Bob Generous: For the bowling alley. People looking towards the back won't see this...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Applicant: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything that you wish to say in regards to the conditions or your position?
Applicant: What I wanted to say is we worked the last few months developing a plan that with the planning
department and engineering staff to produce a plan that xve hope you'll be happy with. I brought along with me
a color rendering of the site plan and building elevations and...bricks and building materials for your review.
And I brought a photograph of an existing site much like the one that we're proposing for your site. This was
built last year in Apple Valley, and incidentally it won the Minnesota Shopping Center Association's Award for
best building under 10,000 square feet. The Planning Commission added the roof line, which goes along very
nicely with the rest of the plan. There was Some concern on color of the red roofi They wanted a natural red
color and we believe that the color. That's the color of the bricks in the front. This section at the top and this
is the color of the band here and the roof is an extruded aluminum. This would be red, much the same color as
the colors of the American Flag there. And the building...they've also included an added element on the edging.
The roof edging. And we're looking at this kind of a treatment on the edges to give it a little more character...
And I guess we're 'looking at...decide if it's pitched.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any questions?
Councilman Mason: So you're, this is Option C right and you're set to go with that if that be the choice?
Applicant: Right.
Councilman Mason: Good enough. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Where are the dumpsters located?
Applicant: The dumpsters are inside.
Applicant//2: In this space, the showroom. From the front these windows are on this narrow space in front of
the dumpster area. The dumpsters are accessed through this space and they're enclosed space. Showroom but
from the front of the building, this extension is between these two points. The actual showroom runs this
direction.
19
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's great. The reason I ask is because I am concerned about the rear elevations
because we probably will be doing something retailish behind it so, I mean you have a double frontage
basically.
Applicant//2' It will be completely screened from there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's great. That's all the questions I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, do you have any questions?
Councilman Berquist' No sir.
Mayor Chmiel' Mark.
Councilman Senn: Not of the applicant.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks. We will need, if it meets Council's approval, two motions. One regarding the
subdivision and one regarding the site plan.
Councilman Senn: I have a question for Bob, if I could.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn' You reference the green space requirement. If I'm understanding you correctly, your
intention is to make up on one of the other parts of this parcel, the green space requirement that you're not
putting in here?
Bob Generous: Correct. It's really like one site since we're using the cross parking agreement to reduce the
coverage on the other site. Specifically the restaurant.
Councilman Senn: Why don't, I guess are we backing ourselves into a comer2 Why don't we just bury it? I
mean I heard we've already lost one restaurant group because of that. Fuddrucker's?
Todd Gerhardt: The.,,, didn't give any reason why. They still may be interested. I would think that they'll
probably come back. I mean in their comments, they said they'd like to be in a year after Applebee's is open.
So he's kind of gambling hoping that the site will still be there.
Councilman Senn: Well the head of Fuddrucker's said that they were backing off because of the cost of the
land per square foot and the green space requirements on that cost of land per square foot. They couldn't afford
it.
Todd Gerhardt: He never made that comment to me.
Councilman Senn: So you don't think we're backing ourselves into a comer?
Bob Generous: No, I think it's doable. They actually have access. The landscaped area that they could lose
some more.
20
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: This does?
Bob Generous: No, the entire site. If, they're at 36%.
Councilman Senn: Depending on what goes on the site.
Bob Generous: Right. Well and xve have the parameters basically established for the development.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Do xve do these all at once or one at a time?
Mayor Chmiel: Well let's take the subdivision first.
Councilman Mason: Okay. I would move preliminary and final plat approval for Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads
Plaza 2nd Addition for the Tires Plus facility.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason: With staff recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: And a second has been made.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
_
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendoff seconded to approve the preliminary and f'mal plat for
Subdivision #95-13, Crossroads 3rd Addition, plans prepared by Peters, Price & Samson, dated Received
November 7, 1995, replatting Lot 29 Block 1, Crossroads 2nd Addition into 4 lots subject to the following
conditions:
Mylar as-built construction plans will be required upon completion of the public improvements.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant
$20.00 per sign.
21
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed
District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army
Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval.
No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the wetland mitigation areas into
the surroundings is recommended.
Prior to filling the wetlands, the City shall receive all necessary permits to complete the project in
accordance with the WCA and Army Corps of Engineers.
10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction
and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
11. Overall within the subdivision, 65 percent impervious surface coverage xvill not be exceeded.
Councilman Mason moved, and Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to also approve Site Plan #95-10, plans
dated November 7, 1995, prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates for Tires Plus on Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads
Plaza 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building is required to be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13.
2. Ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
.
Submit radius turn dimensions for approval.
Signage will only be permitted on the south elevation and must comply xvith city code requirements. No
panel signs will be permitted. A separate sign permit will be required for signage.
Grading of the site must be consistent with the master development plan that will be required of the plat.
The applicant shall incorporate roof alternate C. In addition, the applicant shall work with staff to
provide a cap treatment on the north, east and xvest elevations.
Revising landscaping plan to locate all proposed trees outside the Minnegasco easement. Staff and the
applicant shall work together to ensure that the landscaping to the north is sufficient to soften the building
view from the north. Existing landscaping along West 79th Street will be in conflict with the proposed
driveway. These trees will need to be relocated.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two xveeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
22
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed
District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army
Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval.
10. The private utilities shall be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder
shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City.
11. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement xvith the city and provide the necessary
security to meet the conditions of approval.
12. Materials samples shall be submitted to City Council for review and approval. The roof awnings and
doors shall be a natural reddish color and not bright red.
13. Backlit axvnings shall be prohibited.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Mason: I would also move approval of Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specs for
Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, Project No. 95-22.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution #95-119: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockcndorf seconded to approve the
construction plans and specifications for Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition dated November 6, 1995, prepared by
Yaggy Colby Associates, and thc development contract dated November 13, 1995 subject to the following
condition:
1. The applicant enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of $109,000.00 and pay an administration fee of $10,986.00.
Ail voted in favor and thc motion carded unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
D. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PHASE H OF TH 5 SOUTH
FRONTAGE ROAD (COULTER BOULEVARD FROM 1600 FT. EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD
TO EXISTING COULTER BOULEVARD), PROJECT NO. 93-26B.
Councilman Berquist: Don, on page 3 on your manager's comments. You listed funding commitments for '96
are already starting to mount and this extension would add to that total dollar amount. The question that came
to mind is, I xvant to knoxv about this $10 million bond limit. Where's limit imposed from?
Don Ashworth: That comes about in terms of xvhat's referred to as bank qualification and so if you exceed that
$10 million, the bonds as they would be sold, do not meet, and again in this bank qualification which means
23
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
that you're taking out a lot of potential bidders on this thing, and as I understand it, it's kind of like the ordinary
people that might typically buy bonds of the city of Chanhassen. So now you're solely limiting yourself to
more corporate type of people.
Councilman Berquist: And therefore a higher interest rate?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Berquist: So it's a self imposed limitation?
Don Ashworth: No, it's a federal limitation. So if we were in Alabama, we'd have this same problem.
Councilman Berquist: So in other Words, you get $10 million a year worth of bonding to go to market to... If
you go over $10 million, all of a sudden you've limited :)'our market.
Don Ashworth: Correct. And you'll be paying about...
Councilman Berquist: Does it affect that bond issue only?
Don Ashworth: No. Only the issues that are sold after you reach the $10 million. So if you did this later in
the year, so let's say we had 3 bond sales and xve had the first two xvent through at a total of $9.8 million and
the third one went through at $5 million. It would only be the $5 million that xvould pay that premium but the
premium is going to be paid on each and every bond )'ear that those bonds are outstanding. So the 15%'s going
to apply to a 15 basis points which is not 15%. It's .15. Only, yeah. It would apply each year for that $5
million issue.
Councilman Berquist: ~Okay. So if in fact you were looking at doing a project that would make economic
sense. In other words it would promote substantial groxvth within the tax base if that project were completed,
and it xvasn't going to be done in the near term by the private sector. Would it make sense to extend your
bonding limits. Pay the premium if you will and get it done so that the tax base can thereby be increased.
Don Ashworth: Potentially. You also have to, an additional concern in terms of your overall amount of debt
and when is Standard and Poor going to say, okay we're going to look to a decrease in rating for this particular
city because now you've moved from a time frame of $10 million per year to noxv it looks like you're starting to
do $15. But you're absolutely right. If the particular sale end of year and xve're selling that for 550, you'd be
paying 565 and it would add that same 15 basis point on for each year. So it xvas a good viable project, that's a
very small price to take and pay. Except it hurts your overall credit rating.
Councilman Berquist: Well the staff, yeah. The staff report makes mention of the four property owners that
adjoin being in favor of having that road through. I suspect because they've got some potential clients that
would like to make use of that land. So I really wonder if maybe with a $10 million bonding limit that...hurt
'96. I xvonder if it would be worth looking at that at the time. I'm in favor. I'm in favor of spending the
$41,000.00 for the feasibility study. I wanted to bring the broader issue to mind...other questions. Would it
also be practical, public money aside, how soon would something like this be done in the private sector by the
people who own the property? Given the pressures of the city of Chanhassen.
Charles Folch: I guess each situation is, can be unique. Have it's own set of circumstances. I do knoxv that
this particular phase of the project, it's been known. It's been a year and a half now since we dropped that
24
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
second half from the original project proposal and that was my suggestion at that time to these 3 or 4 property
oxvners. Get together. Get your ducks in line. If you need it sooner than what the city can provide it on, then
you need to get together and maybe look at putting this in privately. And over the span of a year and a half,
for xvhatever reason, they haven't necessarily discussed that with me but they have been able to all come to the
table, get together and be able to put a package together that they can all agree upon in terms of financing and
so forth. So there's been about a year and a half where this has been considered in terms of doing it on their
own but again when you're dealing with 3 or 4 property owners trying to get them all to come to the table and
agree upon things can be a little challenging. I would guess if it was one single property owner that...the whole
area, they might consider doing it themselves.
Councilman Berquist: So it's possibly not as gung ho an area as they would have us believe?
Charles Folch: Well, I guess if you ask them they're gung ho but I guess if you ask them to take the risk of up-
fronting things, maybe they're not. But I guess all I can say is they have a certain amount of time here to
consider doing this and the pieces haven't come together yet to do something like that.
Councilman Berquist: When was the last, how long ago did they approach you on this?
Charles Folch: In terms of petitioning?
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
Charles Folch: You'll see the latest, the most recent petitions have been included as attachments in your staff
report. Early petitions have come in as early as like 19, late 1992, early '93 they began talking to us about
doing the improvements out there. And again, the original feasibility study did include this portion of the
project but it was dropped at the time that xve ordered plans and specs. Or I should say, it wasn't necessarily
dropped. It xvas basically delayed until, at that point in time we were waiting for development to the south to
kind of complete ii's process and get it's ducks in line so the timing jusf wasn't right to do the second phase
back in the early 1993, or early 1994 I should say. When we let the contract.
Councilman Berquist: Did the school have anything to do with the urging the continuation of this?
Charles Folch: Really this segment of the project, outside of providing secondary access to route buses in and
out of the school, there is some benefit there but none of the school officials have contacted me to necessarily
encourage or discourage the project.
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't knoxv what to do with it. Does anybody have any questions regarding this
besides me?
Councilman Senn: Well I was going to pull it too but I don't have a problem with the feasibility study as an
action in itself. My comments really related more to, given the fact that we're bumping up against our $10
million limit, I think we ought to sit down and set the priorities and not necessarily just say that this is going
ahead and spending $2.2 million of a very limited resource at this point when my own thought is if the private
market were demanding this...would be building this road and I don't think the market's demanding it so the
owners aren't building a road but if xve're willing to go in and do it for them, I guess if I were in their position,
I'd be happy to accept it, and such so, I'd really like to again, no problems with going ahead with the feasibility
25
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
study but I'd really like to see the Council prioritize a number of things. Not just these projects but a number of
other things.
Councilman Berquist' Does this, does the scope of this at all fall xvithin the economic development district
that's out there?
Charles Folch: This project does fall xvithin the economic district that has been created out there.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Well I xvould move approval of the feasibility study and we can go from there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Resolution #95-120: Councilman Bentuist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize the
preparation of Feasibility Study for Phase 11 of TH 5 South Frontage Road (Coulter Boulevard from 1600 ft.
East of Galpin Boulevard to existing Coulter Boulevard), Project No. 93-26B. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
F_ APPROVE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
AMENDMENTS.
Councilman Senn: I see the new survey did bring back that a number of cities do require escrows. I really, you
knoxv given the fact that we're talking about January coming on us fairly quickly, I'd rather see us really deal
with the issue and set it in place once rather than set the ordinance in place now and amend it in 2 months.
Plus standing by itself, quite frankly I'm not in agreement with the $100.00. If you take what xve charge in this
city for a lot of different building fees, and the amount of xvork that involves and compare it to $100.00 for this
and the amount of work that's involved, I think the concept is a little ludicrous myself but. So that's xvhy I
pulled it. I'd like to see us just kind of set it aside and get the xvhole thing together so xve have the entire
framework of charges in place before we.
Mayor Chmiel: What are you looking at Mark?
Councilman Senn: Basically if you take the $100.00 fee on itself and adopt that at this point, that's what goes
into place and if you don't put an escrow and a requirement that city staff time, etc, be reimbursed out of that
escrow, you're effectively creating a fee at this point in the ordinance for $100.00. And like I say, I'm not in
agreement with that. I'd rather see us set a fee and an escrow amount which is really the trend in terms of what
the other cities are doing to recover the true costs of preparation of these amendments.
Councilman Berquist: Well in my opinion. Oh, go ahead.
Councilman Mason: You started. I'll go next. Go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: In my opinion the complexity generated by an escroxv account isn't worth it. I would
rather see an increase in the application fee and get it set. Want to see about $200.00? You xvant to see
$5O0.0O?
26
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: Well that's xvhat I'm saying. I mean we haven't discussed that. I mean ~ve got a first survey
that was in error. We now have a second survey which came back and said that here's the way it is really being
done. First one xvas wrong. Noxv what I'd like to do is look at that issue and Steve, I'm not saying escrows has
to be the xvay to go but I think $100.00 is not the way to go.
Councilman Mason: I guess I xvould concur with Steve. My only concern is I heard a number of cities and the
trend, and Mark I see 7 cities listed here and unless I'm reading this wrong, I see 2 cities that do anything other
than the application fee so I just think we need to.
Councilman Senn: Two of those listed.
Councilman Mason: Right, right. Txvo of those listed. I don't see that as a number. So I just think we need to
be clear here.
Councilman Senn: Well we did go from 0 to 2, right?
Councilman Mason: $100.00 does seem a little small to me but I concur with Steve about the escrow. I think
that would be a major headache.
Councilman Berquist: How was the $100.00 arrived at in discussion... Arbitrary number?
Bob Generous: Basically. Just enough to cover advertising costs basically.
Councilman Mason: So that doesn't cover any of your staff time then?
Bob Generous: Well about maybe 2 hours.
_
Councilman Senn: And then no publication costs, yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Did anybody, did you ask why the dollar amounts were the way they were?
Bob Generous: Not that I'm aware of.
Councilman Berquist: Shakopee for instance. Well $100.00 is cheap.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's set it at $250.00.
Councilman Berquist: You want to go $250.00. We're bidding on it. Well, I don't disagree. I'm inclined to
go xvith, to mirror our sister city in Shakopee.
Councilman Senn: As Mike points out txvo of them have escrows and then it's also interesting to point out that
txvo of them who don't have escrows have fees of $1,000.00 and $500.00 which is quite a considerable
difference over xvhat we're suggesting.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: $500.00 is fine.
Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with $500.00.
27
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean it's unfortunate that it's arbitrary, like this but I mean, you know we can't
cover staff time.
Councilman Mason: I'd dare say the other fees are probably...
Mayor Chmiel' Right, I think with all the things that we have to go through and to really make up for staff's
time, xve have to make this a payable kind of situation so it's not costing the city any money. And I agree with
that $500.00 as well. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second it.
Councilman Mason: To $500.00?
Mayor Chmiel: $500.00.
Resolution #95-121: Councihvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution
establishing fees for zoning onlinance text amendments at S500.00. All voted in favor and the motion carded
unanimously.
Ho
APPROVE CONSULTANT SERVICES (MONTGOMERY WATSON) FOR SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PROJECT ON CURRY FARMS AND THE CHRISTMAS LAKE CREEK
Councilman Senn: On (h) and (i) I was trying to find out earlier today and did not get the information back.
Were these phone bids from a single consultant or did we get numbers from txvo different consultants? As I
understand it on (g) we did. That's why I did not pull (g) but my understanding so far on (h) and (i) was we
simply called a consultant, got a number and axvarded the contract xvhich...
Mayor Chmiel' Under x number of dollars, xvhat the minimum? $25,000.00 before it goes out to bids?
Charles Folch: That's correct Mr. Mayor. Unfortunately Diane Desotelle couldn't be here tonight but I did
speak with her this afternoon and it xvas estimated or assumed, if you will, that the design services xvould be
under that $25,000.00 ceiling and therefore Diane picked consultants who have performed on these types of
projects xvith the city in the past and solicited verbal quotes to complete the work. So we did not go through a
formal selection process with these types of projects.
Councilman Senn: But you don't have to go through, I mean you don't have to go through a formal selection
process. I mean in (g) we called 3 consultants and asked them to give us numbers. I mean that's not a formal
bid process. Why don't xve do the same thing on (h) and (i)? And what you just said about consultants being
used that have been used by the city before, the one on (h) has never been used by the city before. It's a new
one.
Charles Folch: Well they have been consulted on on expertise on some areas before. It may not have been a
specific construction project but I know Diane has had a lot of contact with that consultant in the past getting
the information and getting expertise on certain things so there has been contact, client customer relationship
previously established with this consultant. The other project which xve did go through and solicit quotes if you
will, is going to be a larger project and we knew that, xve anticipated that one xvould be above the $25,000.00
ceiling. A judgment call was made to just solicit or just select a consultant and solicit quotes. As you can see,
28
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
the cost factors for both projects, the design fees are relatively about the same. Being in the $I9,000.00-
$20,000.00 range. I xvould anticipate that both actual contract costs for each project are going to run about the
same also. So you're talking relatively even dollars apples to apples with both proposals. I don't know that we
would have necessarily gained anything. I guess as Diane mentioned also, I think she did speak with a couple
of the Council members. It does take some staff time and it does take some consultant time, if you will, to put
together proposals on these types of things and if ``ye know that there's consultants that are familiar with this
area or have performed in the city before, they certainly have an advantage of 'knowing the city's practices,
policies, their system and such and I guess it's a judgment call but we think we're going to gain something by
soliciting from more than one small type of project and is it really worth our time? Is it worth their time you
know to save, are we going to gain that much? On a larger project, yes. When we've got a much higher design
fee anticipated, certainly we'd xvant to keep everything on a very competitive level to make sure we get the
best...for the city, best consultant for the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Don, I honestly don't think that on two $20,000.00 projects that we can't spend the time to
make three phone calls and get some two page proposals. On the City Hall expansion, the deal that we did
earlier, we didn't do that either the first time and we had a $60,000.00 number from KKE. We went through a
simple request for proposals which resulted in two pages of paper from each submission and it dropped the cost
to $43,000.00 because all of a sudden they were competing against somebody for the job rather than just simply
being handed the job. Here's two 20's right together that's, you 'know I mean I 'know it's under the 25 magic
number but it just seems to me we can do a little extra work to make sure that we're getting the best price.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well I talked with Diane this afternoon about all three of these bids and was
concerned that xve were, actually I talked about the Bonestroo quote because I was most concerned. First of ail
I didn't realize they did that kind of xvork and second of all, I was concerned about their expertise. And I think
Diane really, she's very conscientious of who's capable of doing this kind of work and although I can't disagree
with you Mark, on just the theory of competition drives do~vn prices, I think the fact that we have worked with
these consultants before, whether on a formal basis or on a small time basis, there is significant advantage to
having xvorked, not only in the city but with Diane directly and I guess I would support these recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I too did have discussions with her on some, although I was not quite sure of
Montgomery Watson. I would like to see staff get information from that respective person to find out ~vhat
cities they did work in and the kinds of work that ,,vas completed to their satisfaction or whatever. But I guess I
don't see any given problems but I'd like to do a little more ground work on this.
Charles Folch: We certainly can provide references in the Administrative Section of the next Council if you'd
like on Montgomery Watson.
Councilman Senn: I asked Kate that earlier today and she was going to request that because she has no
information either.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's one of the things that I mentioned to her.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
29
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Roger Knutson: I am somewhat familiar with...enough to tell you I knoxv they represent many watershed
management organizations in the...and I knoxv they also represent another watershed management organization
in...Hennepin County. Those are the two I'm the most familiar with.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No other discussion, is there a motion for (h) and (i)?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will move them both.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I xvill second them both.
Councihvoman Dockendoff moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve consultant services (Montgomery
Watson) for Surface Water Management Project on Curt3, Farms and the Christmas Lake Creek. All voted in
favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councihvoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve consultant services (BRW) for
Storm Water Management Project on Holly Lane. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed,
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
J. APPROVE RESOLUTION ADOPTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
Councilman Senn: The resolution on the Livable Communities Act. I understand the time line and the need to
affectively get the resolution in but in sending the resolution in we're affectively buying off on the total. I know
we have a staff letter l~ack that gives us I guess some level of comfort. I'm not quite sure what it is in
relationship to actually having to meet those goals. But I thought it might be real appropriate for us in
relationship to the resolution, to additionally comment on the Met Council who we're doing the resolution for, to
loosen some of their, I don't know if you'd call it facts or figures or whatever which would make it easier for us
under open market conditions to achieve the goals that they wanted to achieve. That that type of a comment
might be appropriate...talking to Kate.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Kevin Joyce: Would you take comments from the public on this issue2
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. If you'll limit it to 5 minutes.
Kevin Joyce: I'll limit it to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Kevin Joyce: My name is Kevin Joyce. I live at 2042 Brinker Street and I'm not going to get into the
philosophy of this legislation, xvhich I feel is in essence is extortion but we won't get into that. I think...
dictates a question of our community here and I'm glad that Mark kind of set this aside here for a little bit of
discussion. I just like it's government at it's xvorst. We're setting goals in essence saying that we're not going to
30
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
meet. I mean it's fluff. I don't see the purpose. And I mean I see from the last Council meeting here, I had a
lot of questions. You know what happens when you start something like the Oak Ponds thing where you started
at affordable housing and for the rental and whatever, and market prices dictated that it goes up... for the rent
controls at all. Write nexv ordinances. Are you going to say that Chanhassen's not going to allow $300,000.00
houses anymore? That is as discriminatory as not allowing low income housing. If you start listing densities,
are you going to be forced to...certain areas. I just think there's a lot of open endedness in this thing and that
concerns me. So I just wanted to put some input and say that I'd like to see some citizen involvement in these
things. I think you're between a rock and a hard place. I'm not saying that Chanhassen has any fault in this
whatsoever. Okay. Please understand that. But I'm very concerned with the way this is going and I'd like to
get some citizen involvement. Whether it's task force...thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. There probably is some thoughts that there is extortion to this but this was brought
up by one legislator ~vho kept pounding the bush all the way through on this for many, many years and because
of that they came up with the conclusion as to some of the requirements that they're going to put on this. And
that's only because of the fact that, as he had wanted more stringent regulations than basically was there. So a
lot of this has sort of leveled off a little bit. But at the same point the Livable Communities Act is something
that we are almost tied in, have to be tied into. But there should be some limitations that we're looking to have
come back from the Metropolitan Council in lieu of some of the percentages that they indicated that we should
be going. We're asking them for a letter to make that less stringent.
Kevin Joyce: My concern is resolving this thing before, it's like the cart before the horse is my feeling.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. But there is many things that this ties into that if you want to extend your MUSA line,
you don't do that. If you want to get Highway 5 completed from County Road 17 to TH 41, you don't get those
appropriations. There's a lot of things that can really affect the city so I think it's, I don't, ! feel that bringing up
to having a committee of citizens on this, I think it really is a Council decision that we have to come up with.
As much as I like to see committees within the city, but this is something that we have to tussle with and come
up with a conclusion.
Roger Knutson: Mayor if I could just point out what the resolution, what the resolution before you tonight,
you're not agreeing on goals. All you're doing is essentially agreeing to sit down and negotiate. This keeps that
door open. This doesn't say that you're going to agree to them.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's exactly right. So xvith that, any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist: I'd be curious to know if Mark had any input into what type of amendment were you
contemplating inserting? Did you have any wordage picked out?
Councilman Senn: Well essentially if you take the last paragraph that says, now therefore be it resolved that the
City of Chanhassen hereby elects to participate in the local housing incentive program under the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1996, and I would add, and urges the Metropolitan Council
to loosen it's restrictions xvhich are, and maybe there's better xvording but, causing or basically inflating the land
prices by controlling the supply of land in Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So what you're trying to get at is that they are in effect inflating land prices by
holding back on the MUSA line.
31
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: Well that's a fact. So why not comment on it and make that part of a resolution which
keeps us I think out of the position of just simply kind of getting backed into this corner and kind of city, it's
your problem to go meet these goals. I mean it's like all your problem. That's what's been happening up in
Maple Grove.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'm just concerned that's a real...
Mayor Chmiel: Well Maple Grove was...anything when it all started so, in fact I brought back their complete
agreement with Met Council, which I acquired from the city of Maple Grove and they, in talking in discussions
with their planner, they gave me a copy of that and said make sure that you don't fall into the same problem as
we had fallen into. And staff has gone over that and it's some of the things that Kate has pulled out during the
process of reviewing this and I think that we should be more favorable than what most other cities make their
commitments prior to that.
Councilman Berquist: So are you saying you're amenable to language akin to what Mark was talking about?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, if we put in a language as such, I don't want it to be too stringent nor do I want it to be
wishy washy. I want it to, I xvant to see language incorporated in there that still does give us some protection
as we had discussed previously with some of those percentages. But with this particular, we're still not there.
This is just purely, as Roger indicated, not committing us to anything right now other than the fact that xve're
going to participate in it.
Councilman Senn: But it is our first chance to comment.
Mayor Chmiel: True.
Councilman Senn: And I would be perfectly happy with letting Kate take this as a guide and let her draft it.
She's in total agreement with the concept so she could come up with some language that ~vould probably do
both. This is just a real quick.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As long as it was a neutral statement.
Councilman Senn: Well it's pretty neutral. It's just urging them to look at it. I mean that's all I'm asking them
to do.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, yeah. And that's fine.
Councilman Senn: I mean there's a lot more non neutral ways to put this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want to move that? ...Okay, would you like to make that as a motion?
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
32
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Resolution #95-122: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution for the
Livable Communities Act amended by staff to incorporate the statements of Councilman Senn. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AD MINISTRATIVE PRES ENTATIONS:
A. COMPOST SITE UPDATE.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor. This is really we're requesting some Council direction. First
affirmation of the continuatiOn of the recycling program for yard waste. And secondly, direction as to the
preferred alternative for either expansion or continuation of the program within this community. The compost
site at the Bandimere Park has proved very popular over the last few years and it's expanded use. However, that
soon will be developing as a community park and we'll no longer have that facility. Staff looked at possibly
four different alternatives that we can look at for continuing the residential yard waste program. One is to look
at providing a facility down in our industrial park near the public works building on the cul-de-sac just to the
north of there. Another one is to work with the Chaska, Victoria and Carver County in trying to develop a
common site that may not be in the community for composting for residential, residents of each of their
communities. Possibly at the Arboretum but we were looking at one site in Victoria. A third alternative is to
have the city purchase additional property some place in the community and develop a program there. And
finally a fourth one is to have a city ,,vide collection program with their public works program and as I said,
xve'd like to have some direction from Council on how you'd like us to proceed with the yard waste program.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. I had some discussion with John this afternoon or this morning in regards
to some of this and I don't see us at this time going out acquiring some additional properties. I would like us to
try to work out an agreement with the indications of the University Landscape Arboretum with Chaska, Victoria,
as xvell as Chanhassen and come up xvith one specific location. In fact I'd like to even contact the Department
head of the Arboretum to see if his discussions with some of his employees have indicated a location of the site
right on Arboretum property. And I think by combining it, the cost would be just that much less all the way
around. So at least from the position that I look at it, I'd like to see us explore that option with all four to come
up with a conclusion for a site location. And that site location could possibly be at the Arboretum site. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't have a lot of good ideas for you. If staff had to choose a site for the
composting program, what would be the ideal choice as far as staff?.
Bob Generous: Well I think the combined facility at the Arboretum xvill reduce a lot of the administrative time
that xve'd have to put into it if that was the facility that was...
Councilman Berquist: In the event that that's not feasible, then?
Bob Generous: The park place. Down in the industrial park. Because the city does do a lot of it's own
chipping and we use that facility heavily. The parks program and public works.
Councilman Berquist: Frankly, I understand what the Mayor is saying but from a practical point of view, I
think it's going to be much easier to do something long term down there and to get it done than...rather than
spin wheels and try and put some agreement together ~vith another authority. That would be my.
33
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One thing I should have added in. The University has also looked at someone who
xvould like to take those supplies of those chips from them. So there'd be a good outlet for them...to be moved
rather than contained on site. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I want the chips.
Councilman Mason' You want them all?
Councilman Senn: You can come over to my yard tomorrow. I have a pile sitting there that's 6 feet high and
about 12 feet wide. You can take as man), as you want.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll be there. No, I think that's a fantastic service for the community to offer free
wood chips.
Councilman Senn: I also have unlimited firexvood...so I mean take firexvood and xvood chips at the same time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm going to take you up on that Mark.
Councilman Senn: Wish you would.
Mayor Chmiel: So long as it isn't more than $5.00. Mike.
Councilman Mason: I feel like I'm kind of in the middle between you and Steve. I knoxv there are hassles
working xvith other groups in the area. I do think hoxvever that any time we do that xve are solidifying any
relationships we have and I think that's good. So I'd like to see what Victoria, Chaska and the Arboretum have
to say about that but I don't xvant to get involved in a long drawn out process for an agreement either. I think
that...so if we can come up with something fairly easy xvith those communities and the Arboretum, I'd like to
see that pursued. But if that turns into an headache, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: On the surface I would say ),our Option B looks like the best. To combine the facilities but
xvhat I'd like to see is I'd like to see the cost prepared on each option. Both set up and ongoing costs so as we
get into more detailed discussion xve understand cost ramifications of the ongoing operation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess you have direction.
Bob Generous: Yes sir, thank you.
B-- NLC CONFERENCE, CLOSING EVENT, CITY MANAGER
Don Ashworth: For those attending the NLC conference, I thought this would be the easiest way for me to get
down xvhat event you would like to take and look at. The Mayor's just handed me his.
Councilman Berquist' What are his.'?
34
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Don Ashworth: North Central Avenue, number 1. Phoenix's Best Jazz, number 2 and Country Western
Headliner number 3. But I don't knoxv, is it really necessary to have everyone attend the same events if you
have different?
Councilman Mason: Not according to Councilman Berquist it isn't.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I have a question. What's Brooks and Durra? Is that like a magic show or what?
Councilman Berquist: Countl-y western.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: X that one off.
Councilman Senn: Very popular one by the way.
Don Ashworth: So if you're not aware this evening what it is you xvould like to do, if you would take and call
me and tell me your preferences.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I can tell you right now Don. 2, 1, 5.
Don Ashxvorth: Number 2 is first.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Number 1 is second and number 5 last.
Don Ashworth: Okay. Mark or Steve?
Councilman Berquist: You don't 'know what the Corona Ranch is by chance? It sounds like a good time but
I'm kind of curious as to where it's at.
Councilman Senn: Steve, it's right by the Corona Beer factory. I was going to ask Berquist if he knows
Phoenix but.
Councilman Berquist: I'll take number 2...
Don Ashworth: Okay, and that's it? You don't want an), others?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I don't want any others.
Don Ashxvorth: Okay, Mark?
Councilman Senn: I had down the Corona.
Don Ashworth: Did you want to do a second and third?
Councilman Senn: I'd just as soon not.
Don Ashworth: Okay next item was the Livable Communities Act, organized collection. We just picked, oh I
guess number 1 was this official depository thing. We handled that the other night deciding not to take and do
35
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
that and so I did put in .,,;our packet though a copy of the RFP as it was delivered to the banks so we will go
through the interview process on Friday. Oh, and as an update, the other interviexv process xvas completed and
the existing agency of record was selected by the committee. To act as our agent of record for insurance
purposes, Cindy Dollop. Livable Communities Act. Bob tells me that we have to do that prior to December
15th.
Bob Generous: Correct.
Don Ashworth' So we've got a big time problem.
Councilman Mason: We sure do.
Don Ashworth: We only have one Council meeting in December. We have the.
Councilman Senn: What about next Monday? We don't have anything, do we? I didn't have anything down at
least.
Councilman Berquist: I have work session with a question mark.
Councilman Senn: I thought xve were going to do something on budget that night.
Don Ashworth: And Mike had mentioned that he has a problem xvith the 20th.
Councilman Mason' Yeah, I've got conferences with my third grade parents that night. I won't be there. That's
until 8:00 or 8:30.
Councilwoman Dockefldorf: I can do it.
Councilman Senn: So should we do budget and Livable Communities that night?
Don Ashworth: Sure. I'I1 provide an update as to where we stand on the budget and hopefully the last
$90,000.00.
MayorChmiel: 5:30?
Don Ashxvorth: 5:30's fine and I'm assuming you want food. Then the organized collection one could actualy
go to the January 29th or February 5th. I don't see a real pressing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd just as soon not do the 5th.
Don Ashworth: Okay. So would you like January 29th?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. A girl only tums 21 once.
Mayor Chmiel' I thought it was 18.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Benluist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.rm
36
City Council Meeting - November 13, 1995
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37