CC 1995 08 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting ~vas opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf and
Councilman Senn
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Bob
Generous, Sharmin Al-Jarl, John Rask, Todd Hoffman, and Carol Dunsmore
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
agenda amended to delete item l(a) from the agenda per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councihnan Benluist moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following Consent Agemla items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Autumn Ridge Addition, Southwest Comer of the Intersection o£ Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5, Joe
Miller Homes:
1) Final Plat Approval and Final Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning the Property.
2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract.
c. Transfer of Rural Service District Parcels.
Apl)rove Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes, Amendment to City Code Regarding Horses.
Reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19), Phase II (Timberwood Drive to Lyman Boulevard),
Carver County Project File No. PW026E:
1) Approve Cooperative Agreement xvith Carver County
2) Resolution #95-79: Approve Plans & Specifications.
3) Resolution #95-80: Establishing a "No On Street Parking Zone" on Galpin Boulevard from TH 5
South to Lyman Boulevard.
h.
Resolution #95-81: Accept Street & Drainage Improvements in Bluff Creek 1st & 2nd Additions, Project
92-10.
k. Approval of Accounts.
m.
City Council Minutes dated Jul5' 24, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated July 19, 1995
Preliminar3~ and Final Plat Approval Subdividing Lot 3, Block 1, sunridge Addition into One Lot and
One Outlot, 8950 Audubon Road, Marlin Edwards.
Cit.,,, Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Wetland Alteration Permit to Fill 0.66 Acres of Wetland Basins near the Intersection of Highway 5 and
Galpin Boulevard as a part of the Construction of Southern Highway 5 Frontage Road and Multi-Family
Residential Development.
o. Consider Appeal to Delay Connection to City Sanitary Sewer and Water, Morgan/Scott, 4031 Kings Road.
All voted in favor and the motion canicd unanimously.
Item l(f), Court Settlmnent Agreement, Beddor et al, Extension of Nez Perce Drive, was pulled from approval
of the Consent Agenda as no action was required.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF STABLE PERMITS:
A._.:. 1641 WEST 63RD STREET~ ANN & TOM NYE.
B.~. 1611 WEST 63RD STREET~ RUSSELL STODDART.
Carol Dunsmore: Carol Dunsmore, Public Safety Department employee...Stable Inspector. I did receive a
complaint concerning two stables on West 63rd Street and the complaint stated that he felt that these horse
pastures were causing the pollution of Clauson Pond... Diane Desotelle and I went out to both of the properties,
the Nye property and the Stoddart property and inspected both. We concluded that Mr. Stoddart keeps a very,
very clean pasture. He was out, I believe he's out there on a daily basis raking up the horse droppings and we
watched him part time as we were parked along side Yosemite there and he just had a little, small little pile but
he was raking it up and putting it in his wheel barrow and carting it away. We walked into the Nye pasture and
Diane and I both looked around for road apples and couldn't find any at all in that pasture so. We also looked
at the pond and the drainage and the culvert and that type of thing and we both concluded that these two stables
and pastures are not contributing to the pollution of that pond and these two stable owners keep a very, very
neat and clean pasture and as it states in my report and Diane's report, that the pollution from that pond is other
causes and not from those pastures.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Carol. Is there anyone wishing to address either of those two stable permits?
Seeing none, an}, discussion by Council? Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councihnan Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendoff seconded to approve the Stable Permits for 1641 West
63~fl Street and at 1611 West 63nl Street, All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C/ty Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
FIRST ANNUAL REVIEW~ USE OF SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ROUTE AS A
SNOWMOBILE TRA IL.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. If you recall, last 5;ear about this time,
during mid summer we were talking about snowmobiling and specifically the use of the Southwest Regional
Light Rail Transit route as a snowmobile route. It was approved, that use was approved by the City Council
last fall and then came winter and not a whole lot of snow fell. The trail did see some use over the winter. I
did not receive any calls of concern from property owners in the area. I, on the other side, did not receive any
calls of great exhilaration over the use of that trail. However, at the time the use ~vas approved by the City
Council, it was contingent upon an annual review, at least until such time when either the use was banned
altogether, or a longer term lease, if you will, was approved by the City Council for that use. So on July 27th
the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this issue in order to make a recommendation to City Council.
Upon concluding their discussion on July 27th, the commission made the following motion. That motion xvas
made by Commissioner Andrews and seconded by Commissioner Roeser to recommend the City Council
approve the use of the Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit Route from Eden Prairie to Chaska as a
snowmobile trail for the 1995 snow season. 1995-96. This use to be governed by a 30 mph speed limit and a
11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., seven day a week curfexv. It would be my recommendation that the City Council
confirm that motion and allow this use to continue for at least another year.
Mayor Chmiel' Okay, thank you Todd. Is there anyone wishing to address this specific issue? Do you want to
make a motion?
Councihnan Senn: Couple questions, if I could. Was the 11:00 p.m. what we had on the previous ruling?
Todd Hofflnan: Correct.
Councihnan Senn: And then what we're doing is approving it basically for another year's look see basically?
Todd Hoffinan: Correct, for another year unless you'd like to extend that further. I should note that all the
property owners in the vicinity were notified and the Snoxvmobile Club was notified as well of this hearing.
Councihnan Senn: What, have we heard any, what has happened in relationship to the rest of the trail?
Todd Hofflnan: Eden Prairie, to my knowledge, has not approved use.
Councilman Senn' No change there. It's still not allowed.
Todd Hofflnan: Still not allowed.
Councilman Senn: And the 30 mph speed limit, is that a city wide speed limit so to speak?
Todd Hoffman: Not necessarily, no. It was, if you recall, the motion xvas made by the City Council without a
curfew or a speed limit. The Park Commission reviewed those two issues at a subsequent meeting and set them
at 30 mph for that. They talked about 40 mph and 30 mph seemed to be fairly reasonable, as far as the speed.
Councilman Senn' Being more specific. Do we have a speed limit elsewhere?
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Todd Hofflnan: Scott's not available. Scott Harr.
Leroy Biteler: I'm Leroy Biteler, 910 Penamint Court and I have been a member of the Chanhassen
Snowmobile Club for a number of .,,'ears. In the city, the city proper of Chanhassen, going to and from the trail
system. Maneuvering on the streets to get to the designated trail, there's a 10 mph speed limit. Once you get to
the trail, the State of Minnesota has jurisdiction unless the city says otherwise, there's a 50 mph on the trail
system in the State of Minnesota. We have designated the trail system on the railroad bed as 30 mph.
Councilman Senn: Okay. No other questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions'?. If not, is there a motion?
Councih-nan Senn: Move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councihnan Senn moved, Councilwonnm Dockcndoff seconded to al)prove the use of the Southwest Regional
Light Rail Transit Route as a snowmobile troll for the 1995/96 snow season. This use to be governed by a 30
mph speed limit and ,m 11:00 p.m, to 7:00 a.n~, seven day a week curfew. All voted in favor and the motion
canied ummimously.
REPORT FROM PARKS TASK FORCE, CHAIRPERSON KRONICK AND TASK FORCE MEMBERS.
Jay Kronick: I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you to present our findings this evening. We've been
meeting since late June and just by way of introduction. We have a package that pretty xvell summarizes our
recommendations, but I think the consensus that xve've developed is that given the rate of development in
Chanhassen for both commercial and residential land, it would be desirable for the city to acquire land noxv for
future open space and park usage. It's not only desirable but it becomes critical because land simply may not be
available in the short term future for intended uses for parkland. At the same time, I think as a group xve
acknowledged the desire among the residents and the community at large in Chanhassen to make some
improvements to existing parkland. There's some improvements that have been on the books for a long time
that simply haven't happened and we sense a need to move forward with some of those as well. As outlined in
the report you have, we recommend acquisition of some parcels for open land. Jane here'has a map and I think
you n'my have it in your packet.
Jane Quilling: ...the green are the existing parks and the yelloxv are the proposed, as xve have processed...
Jay Kronick: So we've broken our recommendations out into several areas. Some areas should be preserved.
Acquired, excuse me, as open land and preserved as such, at least in the foreseeable future as open land and as
wooded land. We have also identified some parcels which you have in there for use as a future community
park. I think the park department has done a good bit of investigation into this with the Park Commission and
foresees the need for more ballfields and higher level of use land and then the other item in there would be the
construction of some trails. There are some trail corridors that have existed for a xvhile and we're
recommending that the referendum support two trails. At the same time Bandimere Community Park was
purchased a number of years ago. The land was and we're recommending as a separate item that, a separate
referendum item that funds be set aside for the development of that park. I will note one change to what you
have in your packet. We recommended in the packet that a votiug date be targeted for October 17th. After the
Cit~.' Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
packet was prepared for you, we've learned that the Minnetonka District has a referendum that may impact on
the timing of our's and I think we, a proposed referendum, and I think we need to re-examine that and certainly
solicit your input on the timing for the referendum, rll address briefly the issue of a budget for completing our
work, if you approve the recommendations made herein and we've drafted an action plan for education and
public support among the voters for the referendum and you have an outline of that and we're ready to go to
implement that upon confirmation or modification of our recommendation to you this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Are there any questions that you may have of Jay at this time?
Mark.
Councihnan Senn: 2(b).
Mayor Chmiel: 8.65 acres.
Councihnan Senn: Okay, that's the one running up.
Jane Quilling: Part of the Bluff Creek.
Councilman Senn: Up the creek, okay.
Jay Kronick: Into the Bluff Creek corridor.
Jane Quilling. There's a little bit of overlap of these parcels.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: YOU didn't have any questions Mark?
Councihnan Senn: Yeah, I have one. In terms of the, I guess I'm curious. Why did the committee feel
comfortable dropping TH 101 when they have absolutely no guarantees or anything in writing that that's going
to go through with the State?
Jay Kronick: Our understanding was although the guarantees are in writing, that's 'about as close as it can be
xvithout it being in writing. But you folks probably have the same, if not greater insight into that than we do.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you took it out on the basis that you were assured in effect it was going to happen
for sure.
Jay Kronick: We...from assurances the City Manager gave us, indirectly. If you're uncomfortable with that, I
gt~ess the trail segment that was substituted was the Bluff Creek segment. We felt the first priorities initially
would be the TH 101 segment and Powers Boulevard and when we learned about the likelihood of funding for
the TH 101 being approved for the County...referendum and support the Bluff Creek trail construction instead.
Mayor Chmiel: It's almost like Ivory soap. 99.9% pure.
Councihnan Senn: Boy have I heard that one before... Okay. No, that's all the questions I have.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.', Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm concerned about the time line. I realize that it's still August but we do
need to get purchase options in place. Have we started that, where's Todd? Have we started, oh there you are.
Have we started that process at all?
Todd Hoffman: We started, well I've had conversations with all these landowners over the years and we have
not entered into the explicit process of entertaining those purchase options.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And do we knoxv what a year would do? I'm concerned about the expense with
the special election.
Todd Hoffinan: It's hard to say. I knoxv other folks are looking at this property as ~vell and there's a lot of
different things which...a lot of things could happen here...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And Jay, are these, are items like parcels all the way up to Bandimere, is that
going to be one vote and then Bandimere a separate vote?
Jay Kronick: Yeah, we discussed that at length, back and forth and we ultimately decided that it would be
better, the trails are a relatively small part of it. If you start breaking it out into too many pieces, we felt it
confused the issue for people and felt that it really is one package, if you will. The Bandimere one was left out
simply because it's a little bit larger in terms of dollars for improvement of existing land and trail segments are
a relatively minor in the scheme of it. The Bandimere parcel's acquired the need...it's probably subject to more
discussion and need for those trail segments to be completed. We felt it had some more urgency.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we have, again, with concern over the time line, do we have time and have xve
done the individual household impact numbers in order to get some good information out, either through the
Villager or special mailing.
Jay Kronick: We're all set to do that. Was that included in the packet that those folks have?
Todd Hoffman: Not that I did, no. They've seen it before. The educational process with the tax impact.
Jay Kronick: Yeah. What we've outlined is, as we go forward from here. If we approve our recommendations.
We feel that we've got 11 committed members on our task force and we're ready to go.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Ready to roll.
Jay Kronick: Yeah. So I think it's the sense of urgency for getting these parcels, not necessarily acquired and
purchased but working toward that end now rather than waiting another year because things can change rapidly
in a year's time. If he tells us to go forxvard and make the commitment here, xve're ready to go.
Jane Quilling: We have designated special tasks for everyone in the task force already...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, good. Well xve certainly appreciate 3, our time.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councihnan Berquist: Well being the Council liaison to the task force, I can tell you there's been a lot of
discussion, a lot of questioning what's going on. I'm a little, the logistics worry me. Mark brought up the TH
101. What it'? Don, what if the TH 101 deal were to fall apart 2 weeks prior to. Will we be able to, or would
the intention be to pull the Bluff Creek instead of the TH 101 extension? Is that practical logistically?
Don Ashworth: As long as the dollar amount stayed the same.' You'd have to watch the form of the question
so that the question posed to the voters provided that option in there. It gave you that flexibility.
Roger Knutson: The developed question typically would never list parcels. Identify parcels. It would identify
the dollar amount. Can X dollars be spent to buy parks, to equip and improve parks?
Councilman Berquist: So the wording would be X number of dollars for trail acquisition and it wouldn't
specifically say Bluff Creek or what have you?
Roger Knutson: No, and we would never recommend you pin yourself down that far. Things could happen that
you couldn't acquire the parcel you wanted to acquire...so you need to maintain some flexibility, even though
your intention is for certain things. Develop questions just with a certain dollar amount.
Councilman Berquist: As a member of the task force, when did the Minnetonka thing come about?
Jay Kronick: I got a call from Todd Hoffman the morning after our last meeting, which was last Thursday...
Councihnan Berquist: So they're shooting to have a school referendum that day?
Todd Hoffman: No, they're not. They're looking at a school board election on November 7th and that impacts
the City of Chanhassen special referendum.
Councilman Berquist: So if not October 17th, then when? We don't know?
Jay Kronick: We haven't had an opportunity to discuss that. If you have some recommendations there for us to
consider...
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't but I'm just cognizant of some of the reasons that we chose the 17th was
because, October 17th is because of the impact fall has and the outdoors aspects. It's election time so if we go,
obviously I don't think from a timeframe point of view we can work it prior to. If we try to get it much past,
then the complaint will be that there's a lot of people that have already left town for the winter and they weren't
participatory in the election. The same song. I don't 'know. I don't have any good input.
Jay Kronick: It could conceivably be delayed until later in the winter or next spring, although I personally
would feel more comfortable trying to work out the details of a joint ballot.
Councilman Berquist: But it's not something we can decide now.
Jay Kronick: Right.
Councihnan Berquist: I'm done.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying basically is that the date is not one that's very good and pick out another
date.
Jay Kronick: Well it may in fact still be the best date.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We do have a split in Chanhassen with the Minnetonka voters and it would definitely
cause a conflict for a portion of those people. Okay. Well, I guess as I look and see what you've gone through,
you've gone through quite a little bit and I thank you and your committee for giving your time and efforts to
pull this together. I know it's not a very easy job. It may look like it right now because everything's on paper
but when you first started, it's rather difficult and we appreciate it.
Jay Kronick: Thanks. There's a lot of work to be done and we appreciate your support.
Councih-rmn Senn: Don?
Mayor Chmiel' Yeah.
Councihnan Senn: I don't know if this is for you guys or Todd but have we landed on any numbers?
Mayor Chmiel: You mean total dollars?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean you had landed on 1.2 for the Bandimere deal but there really xveren't any.
Jay Kronick: I think if the rest of it were considered as a whole, it's probably not worth detailing it at this point
but.
Councihnan Senn: No, and I don't think we want to do that. I'm just saying overall.
Jay Kronick' We're looking at, at this point abstract values for this land. No negotiations have been entered
into so we can only put a $20,000.00 or $30,000.00 price tag per acre on it and a few thousand dollars per acre
over the number of acres can really change it but it would, the first, the referendum aside from Bandimere will
be in the $5 million ballpark, plus or minus a million.
Councihnan Senn: But that's kind of basically in terms of what you'd like to accomplish?
Jay Kronick: Yeah. There were some issues raised with some of the parcels. In fact some of the larger ones
about whether they would continue in their present use and therefore impact on the referendum might not be all
at once. Some of the landowners may wish to hold their land and sell out at a later point or gradually sell out.
So there might be some negotiation on some of the land that's actively being farmed. If it continues to be
farmed, the city would have the right to purchase it somewhere down the road. That may be an option that
would impact significantly on those dollar amounts too and that's nothing really we can ascertain until the
negotiations are done.
Mayor Chmiel: And who knows Jay, maybe someone may like to just donate it and have it as a tax write off.
Councihnan Senn: Todd, but I assume we'll have some details and some breakdowns on that before xve have to.
Cit~.' Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Todd Hofflnan: Certainly will. The task force is scheduled for a second appearance before the City Council in
just about 3 weeks.
Councilman Senn: Okay. It's going well.
Jay Kronick: Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Is there anyone else that may like to address this issue at this time?
Good, thanks. We'll move right along to item number 5.
(The City Council came back to this item and made a motion on page 21.)
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 5.97 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS~ 7530
DOGWOOD ROAD~ GETSCH ADDITION~ GETSCH CORPORATION.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Just a quick background on this application. Sunset Hills on Lake Minne;vashta Addition
contains a total of 17 lots. There's also a 20 foot right-of-way running along the westerly edge, the easterly
edge of this subdivision, which provides access to the lots there. The applicant, which is a corporation, owns
Lots 11 through 17. The zoning ordinance states that if 2 or more contiguous lots are in a single ownership and
it' all or part of those lots do not meet the area requirements of the zoning ordinance, the contiguous lots shall
be considered one undividable lot. There are three existing homes on those 7 parcels. Mr. Ed Getsch who
owns one of the homes out there, which is located on Lot 16, recently discovered that because the land is owned
by a corporation, he is technically leasing the land the house sits on from the corporation. He wishes to clean
the title of the property. Hence ihis application is before you. The total area of the 7 parcels is 5.9 acres. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide it into 5 single family lots. The property is currently zoned Residential
Single Family. Access to this site will be provided via a private street extending from Dogwood. The average
lot size is 52,135 square feet. The gross density is 0.8 units per acre. 'All of the proposed lots meet the
minimum requirements of the ordinance. As part of this application the applicant would have to upgrade an
existing driveway. Currently it has a width of 10 feet to service all the new lots. The zoning ordinance requires
that this private driveway be upgraded to a 20 foot, 7 ton design over a 30 foot ;vide easement. There are trees
that line up this driveway, this existing driveway. The Planning Commission was really concerned that by
widening this driveway we would take out some of those trees and asked staff to investigate alternatives and
options to see if the driveway could remain at the xvidth it's at right now. We went out with the Fire Marshal to
look at the area. Dogwood is an unpaved road. It's approximately 14 feet wide. There aren't any fire hydrants
out there and staff always tries to preserve trees to the extent possible. However, in this case the Fire Marshal
had some serious concerns ox'er trucks and how they would pass one another. At times you might need up to 6
trucks out there, especially ones that are shuttling water. And for that reason staff is recommending that the
driveway be widened to a 20 toot. Overall this will improve the existing non-conforming situation and staff is
recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening?
John Getsch: I'm John Getsch and I'll represent the corporation. Ed was here and he left to get...this soon on
the agenda. We're, in talking with the Planning Commission and the staff planners, trying to get the situation
cleared up. Originally we thought that we had 7 lots out there. Everything that has been done out there was
planned on 7 lots. The homes have been built out there. One home was built in about 1980 and another home
was built in...late '85 through 1989... When we found out that it was being treated as one parcel, we were
·
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
looking at a solution that would satis£y the Git3' Council and the City Planning Commission and the city to meet
the ordinances. '?lie plan has really gone through, I think it lneets everything. The only area that appears to be
a problem is the road and the access in along. And the road right now acts as a driveway that comes oft' of, to
this parcel of land where the fire lots comes off of Dogwood Road. As she mentioned, Dogwood Road comes
in all the way to Camp Tanadoona is about 14 feet wide... The paved driveway really starts at the edge of the
property and goes in. The rest of the road is unpaved coming in and I'll just point out. Right now there's,
starting right up here, this is paved all the way in. Comes down here and continues on this is paved to here.
This paved, this goes along here to this house. This is their cabin right now that's here. This is just a proposed
building lot for this one, this one and this one. And the road is, the other road comes in here and goes, there's a
cul-de-sac here and right in here there's dirt and there's a driveway that goes along here to service the two other
driveways. What we would desire is that, right now that the preliminary plat be approved xvith a section on the
driveway to be upgraded at the time any building permits, before any building permits are granted for any of the
three lots that aren't built on right now. Excuse me, the two lots that aren't built on right no;,,,. And that's
already...trying to get the situation cleared up without a commensurate amount of expense being incurred and to
bring up the, to tr.,,' to bring the road up to standard right now would be, would completely change the structure
of the lots and put in place a road. You know you'd come down a 14 foot wide road and all of a sudden here
you come onto a 20 foot wide, 30 foot wide easement out in the middle of notvhere. There is no potential,
other than these houses to be built in this area because the zoning and everything else... One of the issues
coming up is where should the roads go. And right now, as you may notice, there is showing a drive;vay
con-ting for a house con-ting through from, between I guess you'd call it Lot 4 and Lot 5. It isn't necessarily
practical. We're showing it that way right now because there's an issue of trees along the north side of the lot
that really needs to be... There is a platted easement that I'll shotv you here. What would make more sense?
Ed Oetsch: Put north up.
John Getsch: Put north up. This is actually the 7 lots. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. This is the last lot. This is being
changed into 5 lots. This is a driveway coming down. This is...hard surface. There is a secondary driveway
that conies down this way which meets up and also sits on this lot. This is ;,,'hat is actually platted for a right-
of-way which is, I think this is what, 10 feet in here. No, it's 20 and this is 40 over here. This was added in
when this property over here was subdivided. Right not',' the current cul-de-sac at the end of Dogwood is right
here. There is a power line that runs down here along with a swath of trees that were cleared out by the power
company probably 8 years ago. 7 ,,,'ears ago. And that is where the driveway was put in along here for the
houses built down here. And then there's another house that's been built here off of that driveway. Around here
over is heavily wooded with very mature wide trees. If a 20 foot driveway has to be put in along here, we're
putting out a lot of big trees so there's a lot of issues that need to be resolved past into the lots. And all they're
really trying to do now is get the title cleared up for these lots and resolve the exact right-of-tvay issues. And
that's why we're requesting it be approved and at the time of the building permits, the driveways would have to
be, several things would have to be approved.
MayorChmiel: Sharmin?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Answer a question for me. Normally when a platting comes in, the titles are yet not clear, and
maybe Roger can also answer this. Why are we moving on this now, or we shouldn't move onto it until the
titles are clear'?
10
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Sharmin A1-Jaff: My understanding is that part of the clearing the title is to go through the subdivision
procedure and Roger, correct me if I'm wrong.
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure what the applicant has in mind but I assume you're going to sell it off, so to speak
to yourselves, or to the members of your family or corporation or.
John Getsch: We're just trying to set it up so the property is divided. Right now we have 3 structures on one
piece of property, according to, and that was never our design or our intention. We only found out after the fact
that it had been co-joined or whatever the term is. So building permits had been based, all the building permits
and everything else, all the applications for the building permits, had been based on the original plat itself.
Those had been approved by the city when we built on it. We also found out almost 10 years aftenvards that
no, it's actually one big lot so we're trying to clear up this situation so that the, some of the owners of the
homes can do something with it other than just stay as part of a large compound.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think what they're trying to do is sell it off to family members. Right now you
legally can't homestead it.
Kate Aanenson: Maybe I can add some... It's one PID number. So what he xvants is to get five separate PID
numbers. We don't care if it's owned by a corporation or not. It just has to have five separate identified
parcels.
Roger Knutson: If they want to parcel it out for individual numbers for families, so I own the house I'm in...
They can't do it right now and that's what they're asking. So this will help them. This is the first step in doing
what they want to do...
Councilman Sem~: So they have seven platted lots right now under one ownership.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councihnan Senn: And what this, what you're asking is to change to five platted lots under...
Kate Aanenson: The new ordinances, correct.
Roger Knutson: One of the problem is they have multiple houses on one lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Three on one.
Councihnan Senn: Is there a way we can...I mean is there a way we can simply do that and leave all the other
issues effectively open for resolution before any final approval or whatever would be given?
Roger Knutson: They're asking for final approval tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Preliminal3' and final.
Roger Knutson: Preliminary and final, I believe.
11
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councihnan Senn: Yeah, preliminaU' and final are being requested but that's kind of my question. I mean do
we need to, do they need final approval or can preliminary do it and if we give final approval, can we stick
conditions on it effectively that doesn't allow anything to go ahead under like a normal plat until everything
comes back'.)
Roger Knutson: You theoretically could, you could give just preliminary approval tonight and table final plat
approval and attach conditions to the preliminary approval. We could do that.
Councilman Senn: And would that allow them to effectively get done what they want to get done?
Roger Knutson: No, if they didn't sell off lots. You couldn't homestead. Preliminary approval is just that. It
doesn't mean anything. It's just a step. You need the final plat.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Can we stick the same conditions on the final plat?
Roger Knutson: Yeah. When you have both, you also have the preliminary in front of you so you can attach
conditions.
Cotmcilman Senn: Okay. I had a number of just general questions about the site itself. I've been down there a
number of times. I really like the area. I guess I'd kind of like to leave it the xvay it is, if you people would
like to keep it that way. Except I do share a little bit of the concern about hoxv we deal from a public safety
standpoint. Is there a place close to that xvhere we have water? Do we have xvater coming up from Crimson
Bay Road or anything now?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No.
Courmilmall Senn: So everything's private well and sewer and everything down at Crimson is too?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, :)'es. It's currently, that area is outside of the MUSA but that doesn't mean, one of our
concerns is they may not have intentions now but that area could be further subdivided in the future and I guess
that's part of what we were looking at was the long term. Maybe it doesn't need to be improved now. Maybe
there's a way to get security now to make that happen but we're looking long term if that xvas subdivided in the
future.
Councilman Senn: I mean that whole potential is just all along Tanadoona there really.
John Getsch: At the time if it were subdivided, the whole issue of the road coming in and along that area
would need to get resolved.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, in my mind the easement needs to be in place somewhere. The conditions have to be
in place that once the densities back there get much worse, there's going to have to be some upgrading or at
least a provision for getting water or whatever into the area. If there's a xvay that we can cover that off and still
do this at this time, from my perspective, I don't have a problem with that.
John Getsch: The easement is in place right now. There's a 60 foot wide easement for a road that goes along
the back of all the properties.
12
C/ty Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: I guess the issue is, those five lots will be served via a private driveway rather than the main
road, which is Dogwood. And if we are going to serve those lots by a private drive~vay, it would have to be
upgraded. The conditions of approval that staff has attached to this application will alloxv the final plat to go
through and ensure that the private driveway be upgraded at the time a new building permit is issued for the
fourth or the fifth lot.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So the trigger is the building permit?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councihnan Senn: Okay, so you're saying the trigger is the building permit?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: Correct.
Councihnan Senn: Okay. So by building permit time they could either upgrade the private driveway or resolve
the road issue and get something more permanent in place basically?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: That's what condition number 2 says.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything more?
Ed Getsch: My name is Ed Getsch and I've been involved with this since the beginning and I happened to be
out of the room when this came up.
Mayor Chmiel: You didn't think we were going to go that fast, did you?
Ed Getsch: No. I'm glad it did in a way. The driveway easement is part of what triggered finding out we
didn't have 7 lots. We came to the city and asked them if there was a way that we could build a road, or a
driveway, on the existing road right-of-way, which is 60 feet wide. All three right now, just next to that is a
cleared area which is 40 feet wide which is now power line easements and gas and telephone and there is a
small road on it as well. What we found out was they wouldn't allow this and that started this whole process
that we're in right now. Originally what they posed xve could do is if we were going to have more than one
house accessing a drivexvay, the city ordinance says it must be upgraded to a given standard at the point where
another driveway joins it. We don't have any argument with that. It seemed very simple at the time but what
happened is the whole thing, from 7 lots, how many lots could we have. We've gone through the whole process
of surveying and doing tree densities and you name it, we've done it. We're not developers and caught
inbetween here, we're just trying to straighten out a mess. And what I read has been attached to the application
right now is that money be set aside in escrow or a letter of credit until such time as we do something. We're
not developers. We're just trying to resolve a problem. Not tie up a lot of money until who -knows when. I
happen to own one of the dwellings on the property. I can't even borrow a nickel against it. I've got a piece of
that house sitting on something that I don't own. It's a mess. Everybody tells us it's a mess and we're just
trying to get it cleaned up. So if there's a way that a building permit can trigger, money being put in escrow at
the time, at that time so that the city is assured that a road does go in once the second driveway joins the first
13
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
driveway, we have no argument with that and that's what we would like to see, because we don't know when
this is going to hal)pen.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Ed?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Roger, is that a viable solution? I mean you put, when the building permit comes
in is when the money needs to go into escrow and when the road gets widened?
Roger Knutson: So I'ln clear. The building permit you're talking about is a building permit on one of these
five lots.
Ed Getsch: Anytirne that another structure is being built or another driveway has to be added.
Roger Knutson: To what? To these five lots?
Ed Getsch: Any of the five. As soon as another driveway has to join the driveway that's being added.
Roger Knutson: Make sure I understand. You could viably allow an escrow to be triggered by a building
permit or a driveway outside these five lots, we can't, we don't have any control. If someone next door wants to
add a driveway, we can't do it that way but we can't turn down that person's building permit based upon an
agreement made with this plat. You could condition for the building permits inside the interior to this plat on
coming up with an escrow.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's what we're talking about.
Roger Knutson: And you could record that against the title. You could do that.
Ed Getsch: We're really looking at three lots accessing, possibly accessing a drivexvay that's put in. We're not
looking at 4 or 5. There's two driveways. There's two accesses already to "the road", if you can call it that,
that's there right now. Anything that we would build would be far superior to what's there. And what we're
asking for is something I guess which outside quote, the property limits because it's in easement property or the
right-of-way, road right-of-way property.
Roger Knutson: Agaiu, I'm repeating myself. You have a hard time conditioning someone else's activity
outside the plat based on what happens here.
Councilman Senn: So all we can really do is condition it with that?
Roger Knutson: Right.
Councilman Senn: At their own...
Roger Knutson: You can control what happens within this plat. You can say you can't reshingle your roof...
Ed Getsch: Are you saying that there's no control over xvhat goes on in that easement?
14
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Roger Knutson: I'm saying you can't condition someone else's building permit outside this plat on what happens
in this development. In this plat.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Am I being dense here?
Councilman Senn: No, but I hear what Roger's saying and Roger's saying basically what we need to do is say
conditioned on that these 5 parcels which, effectively from our perspective if there's any intensification of use or
density through a building permit, then this has to be resolved.
Roger Knutson: Right. You cannot trigger an escrow based upon, I mean if someone outside the plat decides
to add a driveway that xvould come onto this easement, you can't go back to people in this plat and say, now's
the time to give us x dollars...
Councihnan Senn: Or if they rip down a cabin and put up a 6 bedroom house, again you're intensifying the use
and the density so again, we want that to trigger effectively the escrow and something to happen. So really
anything that has to do with increasing density or intensity.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Ed Getsch: It can only be done through an escrow?
Councilman Senn: No, that would trigger your escroxv going into place which means that yes, this issue xvould
have to be resolved.
John Getsch: At the time of the building permit.
Councihnan Senn: Yes.
Ed Getsch: So what you're saying is that we're going to have to set aside.
John Getsch: No, no.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: At that time.
Mayor Chmiel: At the time when you get ready. Once the clarification is on those parcels that you have and
you're subdividing those into each separate parcel. Once that's accomplished, then these others get triggered in.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a clarification? I think the question here is, normally when you do a final
plat, surety is in place at the time you record the plat. What he's asking for is relief. He doesn't want to, he
wants to record the plat. Clear up one PID and not have to put the escrow into place until he's ready to pull a
building permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's exactly right.
Councilman Senn: And then what I'm adding to that is, basing in effect that building permit, rather than just
saying building permit which can be...
15
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Kate Aanenson: There is a cabin on one of the structures and if that was to come down...
Councih-nan Senn: But the real issue is density or intensification, then we xvant it triggered and xve want the
escrow and we want the issue to move ahead.
Roger Knutson: How man:)' of these 5 lots have no houses on them? Would have no houses on them.
Ed Getsch: We have one cabin and we have two houses. Two lots have no structures.
Roger Knutson: Two lots have no structures. So you could sa),, if they build on those two lots they'd have to.
Kate Aanenson: How about the cabin?
Councih-nan Senn: Well but see I'm not comfortable with that because I mean.
Roger Knutson: Or intensification.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd really rather tie it to the intensification issue because that's the real issue I think
xve're tl¥ing to deal with. If they're going to go in there and start changing what's there and intensifying the use,
then I think the escrow ought to go in place and we ought to have a remedy to solve it.
Ed Getsch: Well let me give you an example. If I want to take a loan out on my property, I have to have
access and it can't be through other people's property unless there's an easement granted. And xvhat we would
like to do is on what's called Lot 4, which is the next to the bottom lot there, is develop a driveway xvhich goes
up or to the right of that drawing, at an angle and joins the right-of-way to get out. Now that would just be a
single driveway going onto the cul-de-sac. It would go basically from this point right here, come up like this,
join the right-of-way, follow it to the cul-de-sac, which is right in here. That xvould be a single driveway.
Councihnan Senn: Okay. I don't mean to cut you off but what I'm suggesting doesn't affect you one way or the
other. You can put in as many driveways as you want out there but as soon as you go to either intensify the
use or create additional density, that's what's going to trigger it.
Ed Getsch: Okay. That sounds like what we're looking for.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mark, make a motion and let's get over with it.
Ed Getsch: We're not developers so...
Councilman Senn: I mean Kate, is that okay?
Kate Aanenson: Well yeah. He just kind of swung this a little bit from where we were with the discussion. I
mean we were kind of going with the original conditions but we modified the condition saying at the time of
recording fees, that we'd tie it to the building permit. Now he was just saying that he's modifying even the
condition a little bit further as far as how the driveway could be accessed. So I think we need to clarify what
you,
16
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councihnan Senn: What do we care about where the path of the drivexvay goes as long as there's no additional
intensification of use or uses that are there? I mean I'm just asking you. Does it make a difference to us?
Kate Aanenson: As long as he's clear that he understands what you're looking for. I'm not sure, I think there's
a little misunderstanding.
Ed Getsch: Let me put it real clear. I don't care how many driveways you put in as long as we don't add any
more structures or increase the density.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Tear down the cabin...
Ed Getsch: So if another house goes in, or we pull a permit to tear doxvn the cabin and build a 6 bedroom
house, as soon as we have more density, we've got to solve the road problem.
Councilman Berquist: What if, there's a house on the property that's what, a two bedroom house? On Lot 2
now.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: It's a cabin. It's a seasonal cabin.
Councilman Berquist: It's a 2 bedroom cabin.
Councilman Senn: Steve, if they would put, under my proposal if they would put an addition onto either
structure to intensify the use, that would kick in the escrow. Okay? What I'm saying is, leave it the same.
Leave well enough alone as far as the structure and intensity goes. Otherwise we're going to change the rules,
which is put the escrow in place.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: Just a refinement on that so that we're clear. I don't know what this driveway will cost, or
what the street would cost. Just throw out a number.
Kate Aanenson: You'd have to ask Charles.
Roger Knutson: Just throw out a number. $100,000.007 $10,000.007
Charles Folch: To?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: For a private drivexvay.
Charles Folch: Hoxv long a private driveway7 $40,000.00.
Roger Knutson: If they sell off one lot, and that person comes in and the next lot is vacant to them and they
come in and they want a building permit. The owner of that one lot then has to put up $40,000.00.
Councilman Senn: Well, it could end up being that unless these guys get it squared away the way they should
because I have a feeling they xvon't sell their lot on that basis real quick.
17
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But wouldn't that be an agreement between the landowner and the person they sell
it to?
Roger Knutson: And that's what our development contract is going to say. The first building permit that you
pull, xvill have a surcharge so to speak, of $40,000.00.
Councilman Senn: That's between him and the private marketplace as far as I'm concerned, who pays for it.
Roger Knutson: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure we understood what we're saying.
Councilman Berquist: That's his problem.
Councihnan Senn: If that's alright, t'11 move it.
Roger Knutson: I just hope they want to put more than $40,000.00...
Ed Getsch: I would ask that the Council approve this with an amendment...as Mike had laid it out. I'm not
sure exactly how to word that.
Councihnan Senn: That's Mike, I'm Mark.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The motion is as such.
Councilman Senn: The motion is to approve the preliminary plat and the final plat with the condition that, and
the private driveway, with the conditions that should there be any intensification of use or increase in density,
the conditions of the escrow will activate and the upgrade will need to occur.
Roger Knutson: So the first building permit that's pulled for an addition to a house or for a new house, an
escrow for the upgrading of that street equal to 100% of the cost, estimated cost of that upgrade.
Councilwolnan Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you understand that?
Ed Getsch: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwonmn Dockendorf seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for
Subdivision//95-11 for Gctsch Addition for 5 single family lots as shown on the plans dated &me 19, 1995,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Tree Removal Limits will be established 15 feet from building pad and grading limits. The locations of
trees must be shown on site surveys submitted for building permits. Any additional tree removals must
have staff approval.
18
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
.
The private driveway/street shall be upgraded to meet city ordinances at the time building permits are
issued.
The preliminary grading plan should be revised to include the following information:
a. Show primary and secondary septic site locations.
b. Show the revised private driveway including turn around.
c. Final grading plan should be signed by a licensed land surveyor or professional engineer licensed by
the State of Minnesota.
The applicant shall provide a cross access drivexvay easement agreement to preserve access through the
proposed lots and to spell out maintenance responsibilities.
All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood
fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate
otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored xvith sod or seed and wood
fiber blanket.
Building Department conditions:
a. Show the location of two proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval.
b. Demonstrate the existing ISTS's are not failing or non-complying systems.
Show existing and proposed well locations on the proposed five lots, and existing well location on
lots abutting the proposed subdivision. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor
level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved
provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. These plans shall be submitted and approved by
the Fire Marshal.
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
10.
A preservation easement over the xvesterly 150 feet of Lots 1 and 2 shall be dedicated.
The applicant shall post a cash escrow or a letter of credit, as well as enter into a letter of agreement with
the city to guarantee the improvements of the private driveway and turnaround. This shall occur if there
is any intensification of use or increase in density, the conditions of the escroxv for the upgrading of that
street equal to 100% of the estimated cost of that upgrade will activate and the upgrade will need to
occur.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
19
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
RETURN TO PARK AND RECREATION TASK FORCE REPORT.
Mayor Chiniel: Just a second. There was some discussion that we had here prior to going ahead with that.
Back on item 4 for the task force. My understanding was that they were coming back to us within 3 xveeks.
Back to Council. Their position is that within these next 3 weeks they xvould like to move ahead and see if
they can acquiesce these properties. The task force. So we did not motion or get a motion on that particular
recommendation. And they would like to get that recomlnendation for them to proceed regarding the acquisition
of open land.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that xve ask the Park Task Force to go ahead and start the
acquisition process, at least the negotiation process.
Roger Knutson: We were talking about getting options.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. For acquiesce of options.
Councihnan Senn: Well, I mean maybe what we should really authorize effectively is them to start negotiations,
is the intent of bringing an agreement of some sort on an option back to the city. Yeah, because they can't
really go...options. I don't think we want them to make options until we've had a chance to review that number
or anything else.
Mayor Chmiel: Part of my concern is also if you execute that option, you can also lose that option so if they
make it as a dollar, and other considerations, that may be.
Roger Knutson: You'd have to bring it back here because you have to approve the option. You can negotiation
something and bring it back to you for your approval or rejection.
Councihnan Berquist: Are we also concerned with providing funding...process. Something in the neighborhood
of $25,000.00 that comes out of park acquisition funds.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Didn't we already do that as part of the budget though'?.
Mayor Chmiel: No. No. It wasn't considered.
Councilman Senn: So far we've done it without budget, is my understanding.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Todd had $25,000.00 more hiding somewhere.
Todd Hoffman: There's dollars in the CIP in reserve and contingency and there's dollars in the election budget
as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Don?
Don Ashworth: You didn't specifically allocate dollars associated with these activities but what you did put in
the 1995 budget are dollars to carry out the election itself. In fact we're reallocating a portion of those to carry
out the tasks that they're looking for.
2O
C/ty Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay?
Councihnan Senn: Out of curiosity, what's the intended way to proceed on that?
Todd Hofflnan: On the options?
Councihnan Senn: Yeah. I mean how are you going to mechanically do this?
Todd Hofflnan: The Task Force has talked about the land trust and then negotiations between staff and the City
Attorney's office and they've recommended that the City Attorney's office and members of the staff pursue those
options with individual landowners.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I want to make sure of that because I wasn't for the land trust option. Okay.
Mayor Chnfiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councihnan Senn: Sure.
Cotmcihvoman Dockendoff moved, Councihn,'m Senn seconded to establish a working budget, not to exceed
$25,000.00 from funds currently allocated in the park acquisition and development and election budgets, and to
direct staff to pm~uc options for the following parcels of land:
Regarding the acquisition of open iands:
To accomplish preservation of the Bluff Creek Corridor, pursue acquisition of the following parcels:
Pmrel 2A
Size: Greater than 40 acres.
Land Owners: Degler, Degler, Peterson, Chaska Investment Corporation/Wallingford Properties, Jeurissen
and Laurent. '
Pmecl 2B (A newly identified property)
Size: 8.65 acres
Land Owner: Edwards
To accomplish the preservation of wooded lands, pursue acquisition of the following parcels:
Pmeel lA
Size' 30-40 acres
Land Owner: Fox
Pamel lB
Size: 15-20 acres
Land Owner: Chaska Investment Corporation/Wallingford Properties.
To accomplish the acquisition of land for future community park use, pursue acquisition of either the
combination of Parcel 3C and 3D or the combination of Parcels 3E and 3F (newly identified properties).
21
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
P}urels 3C and 3D
Size: Approximately 80 acres each.
Land Owner 3C: Peterson
Lane Owner 3D: Chaska Investment Corporation/Wallingford Properties
Pamels 3E ~mtl 3F
Size Parcel 3E: 67.3 Acres
Land Owners: Dean and Lois Degler
Size Parcel 3F' 80acres
Land Owners: Gayle and Lois Degler
Pamel 3G (newly identified property)
Size: 5+acres
Land Owner: Hanson
2. Regarding the construction of multi-purpose trails'
It is recommended that the following trail segments be pursued:
a. Powers Boulevard north tkom Santa Vera Drive to the City of Shorexvood.
b. Bluff Creek from State Highway 5 to Lyman Boulevard.
3. Regarding the development of Bandimere Community Park:
It is recommended that this item, at a cost of approximately $1.2 million be included as a stand
alone referendum question.
In addition, the following recommendations are being made:
1. The ret~rendum voting day is targeted for Tuesday, October 17, 1995.
2. The city attorney's office be retained to negotiate all purchase options and purchase agreements.
All voted in fiwor anti the motion cm~ed ~mimously.
REZON~G OF 20.25 ACRES ~OM A2~ AGRICUL~L ESTATE TO RSF~ RES~ENTML S~GLE
FAS~Y AND PREL~ARY PLAT TO SUBDW~E 20.25 ACRES ~TO 18 S~GLE FA~Y LOTS
AND ONE OUTLOT~ 7210 GALPIN BOULEVARD~ FOREST MEADOW.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The subject site is located xvest of Galpin Boulevard and approximately 2,500 feet north of
Highway 5. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20.25 acres into 18 lots. Single family lots and one outlot.
The property is currently zoned agricultural estate district and the proposal calls for rezoning it into residential
single family. The average lot size is 33,299 square feet with a resulting gross density of .8 units per acre.
Access to the subdivision will be provided from the north via an extension of Fawn Hill Road. The proposal
shows Fawn Hill Road ending in a cul-de-sac to serve all parcels with the exception of Parcel 18, xvhich will
gain access off of Galpin Boulevard. Staff is recommending that Fawn Hill Road provide another extension to
the south to provide for future access as well as utilities for the property located south of the subject site. All of
22
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Grading is minimal. There is a
bluff along the northwest corner of the site. This area is being preserved. Absolutely no grading is taking place
in that corner. Approximately 5 acres are shown along the southeast corner of the site. This area is proposed
for park. This item appeared bet'ore the Park and Recreation Commission and was recommended for approval.
It also appeared before the Planning Commission. Again it was recommended for approval. In summaI3,, we
believe that a proposed rezoning and subdivision is well designed. We are recommending approval with
conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening?
David Sebold: Hello. I'm David Sebold with JMS Development... I've enjoyed working with city staff and look
forward to this development in Chanhassen. We've reviewed the staff report. The only issue that concerns us,
as stated in a letter to staff, concerning the price of parkland and that has to do really with providing the
additional street access to the south...and we're veiy concerned with that loss of a lot, we cannot accept the
$24,000.00 price for the parkland. If there's any other questions or issues...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, do you have any specific questions at this time?
Councihnan Berquist: Get into that $24,000.00 an acre. Wasn't that, hadn't that been negotiated price from
some time ago'?
David Sebold: That was a price that had been offered to the previous or current landowner, Dave Stockdale.
When we looked at it, when we carne in with our first submittal to the city, we had proposed having 17 lots for
sale plus a lot for Mr. Stockdale and we thought with that proposal we could live with that price. Since, when
we formalized our submittal, staff reviewed the site plan and decided, and again they're doing their job, they
said that the cul-de-sac was tOO long and we needed a southerly access. We lost a lot, and for us it's really just
an economic situation and we feel the situation's changed. We don't have the 17 lots. We've only got 16 lots
for sale. We lose the revenue that absorbs a lot of road costs. The road hasn't changed. The development costs
haven't changed. The land costs haven't changed...
Councilman Berquist: So what you're in effect saying is that if we're unable to come to agreement in terms of
what we pay for the land for the proposed park, the deal as it stands is off and you want to explore Alternate 2?
David Sebold: Well I think staff is asking for direction from Council as to, I guess Todd with Park and Rec
would correct me on that but I think staff is looking for direction from Council as to what they should pay for
the park. We're asking for approval of the development as is right now, with a note that we have not agreed to
a park price. We're not agreeing to the $24,000.00 per acre for parkland. If the city wants to go ahead and
acquire that through other means, that's fine. But we're looking for approval of this development now.
Councihnan Berquist: Okay. This isn't adversarial at this point'?.
David Sebold: No, it is not.
Councihnan Berquist: Todd, what's your thoughts on the park?
Todd Hoffinan: This site has sorne histoIS.' to it. 2-2 1/2 years ago during the approval of the Lundgren, the
Meadows at Longacres and the Woods at Longacres, park acquisition, or the Park and Recreation Commission
23
City Council h4ccting - August 14, 1995
had looked t'or acquisition of public park space in those developments. When they were unsuccessful in that
attempt, they then instructed staff to identify public parkland or open space which could be acquired as public
parkland in adjacent, in the vicinity of those two developments. At that time the Stockdale property was
identified. We had a purchase option written to Mr. Stockdale at $24,000.00 per acre. That was tabled for
quite some time for a variety of reasons on Mr. Stockdale's agenda and then JMS acquired the land and assumed
their option to attempt to come before the City Council to approve a development. When they came in the door
and met with staff, they were anxious to get those lots developed. They were certainly ~villing to work with city
staff and the $24,000.00 per acre lot or price stayed status quo. In attempting to identify the exact purchase
price or option price, it's slightly higher than that. It's, Mr. Stockdale does not care to disclose that but if you
,,','ere to offer JMS $26,000.00 per acre you would be, in his opinion, right on the mark as far as the actual
purchase price of the land. Then when we come back and the development moves on a little further, additional
costs are incurred or discovered that would be incurred if the land was developed, and the price of the park
artificially, in my opinion, artificially raises to $37,000.00 per acre. It was my statement to the applicant that
the city is not interested in buying down the cost of their development based on an escalate, d land price. We
would certainlx' pay what the land is worth. We think it's worth $24,000.00 an acre. If you would like to
entertain a price of $26,000.00 per acre to make this deal work, I offered that to the applicant at least as a
recommendation. That would be my recommendation but they didn't care to take that offer at the point of that
conversation. They chose to come before the City Council and take a look at what >,our opinion xvould be in
that regard.
Councih-nan Berquist: And your reasoning for rejecting the $26,000.00 was because you felt that you lost
another lot'?
David Sebold' That's correct. We have lost a lot. We still have 700 feet of roadway and sewer and water to
put in the development, plus an added 220 feet for the roadway and water to the south. By losing that one lot
we cannot absorb, or we lose the revenue and that revenue offsets and we lose that cost...
Mayor Chmiel: Kate.
Kate Aanenson: When we looked at this, we are obligated to look at servicing of the property so Sharmin let
the Turcott's know that we felt that was important that we look at future subdivision of their property. And
looked at the site and found an appropriate place to provide a stub street. We're of the opinion all those lots are
oversized. They haven't demonstrated they've lost a lot. They've chosen not to replat it. It certainly could be,
alt the lots are well in excess of the minimum standards. They haven't demonstrated that they've lost a lot. I
mean it can be replatted. So in our opinion they haven't lost anything. There's an opportunity to pick up
another lot with tweaking the subdivision a little bit.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: Just to point out from our perspective in negotiating. How much money someone needs is a
refflection of what they ask for it.
Councilman Senn: We're on the wrong end of this discussion.
Cottncilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, right.
24
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Roger Knutson: We don't decide how much property is worth based on someone's needs. We base it upon
what we think the land is worth.
David Sebold: As far as lot size...our original proposal of 17 lots, had lots that were all in excess of the
minimum. The reason why that is is that we're looking at what we're going to have to sell those lots for and the
size of, the size and value and we need a larger lot. We're going through a little bit of this in a subdivision
we're in just to the east of the current site where the minimum...the lot frontages need a little bit wider width for
the size homes we're going to be putting in there. To us it's just plain economics. Now as far as what the land
is worth, it's hard to put a value on that but if we look at the Outlot A or the proposed park subdivision that we
can get somewhere between 9 and 10 lots on a developed basis, that's substantially more than $24,000.00 an
acre. So what we're saying is that under the current format, by losing the one lot that we have, providing the
stub street to the south, we need more dollars for the park. We're more than willing to stand by our agreement
at $24,000.00 an acre if we maintain the original 17 lots and no stub street to the south. I really want to make
that clear.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you know a City Council meeting isn't the place to negotiate this in my
opinion. You have to decide what size lots you need to sell a home and having a park right next door certainly
increases the value of those lots so like you said, it's an economic decision. From our point of view it's also an
economic decision so you know, I don't want to say split the difference. I still think xve need to go back to
negotiations. We need a stub street to the south. I'm not certain what we're working on tonight. I mean we're
not going to come up with a number for you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could suggest.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Roger Knutson: I agree that this is probably not the best, most congenial place to negotiate something as far as
the value. What you would do is you would say, you'd direct us to negotiate something. If we can't negotiate
something we think is fair, we'd come back and tell you that and tell you if you want it, condemn it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So I mean I would move tabling of this until this issue is resolved.
Roger Knutson: You could pass it xvith that as a condition. This is preliminary. This is not a final plat.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So the number of lots could change?
Kate Aanenson: Well yeah. I guess we would say approve it with the conditions that staff have with the stub
street contingent upon us agreeing on a number. As Roger indicated, if we don't agree on a number, then they
come back here because we have to have that recorded as a final plat because there's no concurrence. Or you
could decide to take another course of action.
Councihnan Senn: I mean I'd like to see us go a little bit further than that, honestly. I mean we have a deal at
24. We're willing to go up to 26. I mean I know a couple sales that occurred out there recently. I think that's
very much within line with what the land is worth out there. I think the resolution of the issue lies on the basic
purchase price on the property or like Kate says, tweaking the subdivision to get a little more out of it if you
have to have 17 lots to make it work. I really don't see us becoming the subsidy to turn around and make the
25
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
original land deal work. I mean the original land deal we had included the park. Everybody always knexv it
was there and always knew the price so that can't be changing that much at this point. That's just my opinion.
Jeff Schoenwetter: My name is Jeff Schoenwetter. I'd like to address that so that we can separate these two
issues. Dave Sebold and I didn't come here tonight to negotiate anything. And as a matter of fact, I'd prefer
that we don't. We're here tonight seeking approval for a plat that xve submitted and if that plat meets with your
code and ordinance, we ask that 3'ou approve it. And if staff recommends some changes to that with the
preliminary plat .... that's up to you whether you make them part of 3'our approval or not. To answer the
question about what the future holds as far as a business transaction between our company regarding Outlot A
and the Cit.,,, of Chanhassen, or for that matter anyone else in the entire world, Outlot A is not for sale at
$24,000.00 an acre. Because our cost basis, has nothing to do with profit. The cost of development. The yet
yield per acre has increased and if because we cannot allocate cost recovery to those 17 lots of our basic land
cost and all our development cost either remains the same or increase, that we have to re-evaluate that business
decision. Whether we're selling Outlot A to you or to another developer or if we choose to create the maximum
value by coming back in in the future and asking for a second phase for Forest Meadoxv, which would be
another 9 or 10 lots on Outlot A. We feel that if we develop that outlot, there's an alternative that Councilman
Steven Berquist mentioned earlier. I'm not asking for that to be approved and if we went that route in the
future, if, I would have to replat three of the lots within this plat, xvith that replat because I'd have to change the
road alignment. But that's not an issue for tonight. The issue tonight is the plat that's submitted and if between
now and an.,,' point in the future, be that even 5'ears after that's platted and approved, we sell Outlot A to the
city, that's an issue for that transaction later. We're here to tO' to move forward and there's no reason that we
couldn't all get together and negotiate this later but tonight's not the time. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Did you have anything more Mark?
Councihnan Senn: No. Unless you want a motion.
Mayor Chmiel' Alright. I guess where we're at is to look whether to go with the motion as to what staff has
and whether or not the acceptance is there for the $24,000.00 that's part of it but it's not the entirety of the full
proposal. But it does tweak my ear to spend beyond the total amount of dollars for the city and if we know
what that particular land is going for, then of course we can do that kind of negotiation. So I xvould look to
entertain a n'totion on this regarding first the rezoning and second, the preliminary plat.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the rezoning and the preliminary plat with the conditions as specified
by staff, including the acquisition of the park parcel at a rate of $24,000.00 to $26,000.00 per acre.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: An.',' other discussion?
Councilwomar~ Dockendorf: I'm confused with the fees outlined in 4(d). The condition. We're obviously
waiving the park and trail fees because they're getting land. What's that relationship between the fees waived
and the land value?
26
C/ty Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Todd Hoffman' In essence you could just divide that by 5 and tag that onto the purchase agreement. We're
purchasing it for a unit price. We're waiving the fees simply because of the good nature of the applicant, if you
will.
Councihnan Senn: Or we're leaving the fees on the table so to speak.
Roger Knutson: Also so we're clear, if we're not able to purchase the property, the fees will have to be paid. If
we go to condemnation, you don't do offsets.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With those all in mind, call a question.
Councihnan Senn moved, Councihnan Berquist seconded to approve Rezoning #95-4 of 20.25 acres of properS'
zoned A2 to RSF for Fox,est Meadows as shown on the phms received June 19, 1995 and subject to the
following condltions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this
project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded
against the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision t/95-10.
All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously.
Councihnan Senn moved, Councihnan Benluist seconded to approve the preliminary Plat, Subdivision #95-10,
Forest Meadow tbr 18 single tinnily lots and one outlot as shown on the plans received June 19, 1995, subject
to the following conditions:
The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The
landscaping plan shall include 63 trees to be planted on Lots 1-17. The vegetated areas which will not be
affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide
the city with a legal description of these easements. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location
of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A snow fence shall be
placed along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to grading.
Building Department conditions:
a. Submit soil reports to the Inspection Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building
permits.
b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to shoxv standard designations for dwelling. This should be
done prior to final plat approval.
3. Fire Marshal conditions:
27
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
a. Add one additional fire hydrant. Hydrant maximum spacing is 300 feet. The distance between
hydrants located between Lots 3 and 4 and between Lots 6 and 7 is in excess of 500 feet.
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can
be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance t/9-1.
c. Cul-de-sac inside turning radius must be 45 1/2 feet, not 42 feet as shown.
Park and Recreation conditions:
a. The park be platted as an outlot in the general configuration shown on the proposed plat. The outlot
to include no less than 5 acres.
b. Tile city shall compensate JMS Companies $24,000 to $26,000 per acre for the outlot at the time of
sale. (The same compensation offered to Mr. Stockdale.)
c. Tile city shall do the mass and finish grading for the outlot per the city's plan at unit cost rather than
at developer cost with the option of having it be an in-house project, if it's to the city's advantage.
d. All park and trail fees shall be waived for Forest Meadow. (These fees total $20,400 at current
rates.)
JMS Compal~ies shall administer all work relating to the construction of the park's trail loop, trail
connection to Fawn Hill Road, entry road and parking lot. The city shall pay unit prices for the
materials consumed in this construction. JMS Companies shall assume all "soft" costs associated
with this work.
The trail between Lot 14 and 15 shall be shown as an easement and paved prior to construction of
any buildings. This trail easement would no longer be necessary with the street extension to the
south.
The existing outbuildings and an)' septic system or ,,,,'ells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance
with the City and/or State codes.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The plan shall be submitted to the city for reviexv and formal approval. Type III erosion
control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. A rock construction entrance shall be installed and
maintained on Fawn Hill Road until the street is paved. Construction access to the site other than Fawn
Hill Road is subject to approval by the City.
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. Other than one model home permit, no other building
permit will be issued until the site grading is completed and the site re-seeded and mulched.
28
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
10.
11.
12.
13.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance xvith the latest edition of the City's
Standard' Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be
submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans~ 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 per sign,
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal
water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on
Walker's Pondnet model.
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. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
The algpropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and
ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
14. No berlning or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a
minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10'1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing
upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended.
The house at 7210 Galpin Boulevard shall be connected to city sanitary sewer within 30 days after the
final plat has been recorded. The well may continue to be used until it fails, at which time the property
shall connect to City water.
The proposed single family residential development of 13.3 developable acres is responsible for a water
quantity connection charge of $26,334 and a water quality connection charge of $10,640. These fees will
be fine tuned during the time of final plat since credits may be given if the applicant proposes to assist
with the trunk system. The fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
29
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
19.
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. A drain tile system will
need to be incorporated into the construction plans for those lots which are unable to discharge directly
into either a storm sewer system or pond/wetland.
20.
The applicant shall extend street and utility service to the properties south of this development. A
condition shall be placed in the development contract that the southerly street will be extended in the
future. The applicant shall meet and resolve with the property owners to the south and City staff the
placement of storm sewer facilities and extension of a street prior to final platting.
21.
Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. Individual tree
removal, tree protection fencing, grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for reviexv
and approval by the City prior to issuance of a building permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THREE 8 FT. HIGH ENTRY MONUMENT
SIGNS; GALPIN BOULEVARD AND HUNTER DRIVE~ HIGHWAY 41 AND LONGACRES DRIVE~ AND
LONGACRES DRIVE AND GALPIN BOULEVARD1 LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION.
John Rask: Thank you. The signs are entry monument signs which will be located at the three major entrances
into the Woods at Longacres and the Meadows at Longacres. The two developments together consist of
approximately 225 lots. The entU' monuments would be located in the center medians at the entrances into the
subdivisions. The monuments are part of an overall entrance design consisting of stone columns, a split rail
fence and landscape plantings. The one entry monument sign located at the Highway 41 and Longacres Drive
is an existing sigu. It was erected approximately a year ago. However, no permits were obtained at that time.
The other txvo at this point are proposed. Based on the criteria provided in the ordinance, staff is recommending
denial of the variance. Neither the size, shape or physical surroundings prevent a placement of a sign which
meets the height requiremeuts. The applicant's reasons or justification for requesting a sign variance are based
on aesthetics of the design. The applicants have attempted to create an entrance theme which takes into account
the natural features and scale of the site which includes approximately 225 lots. The applicants indicated in
their appeal that the height variance is needed to enhance the project by providing architectural details such as
an arched top, planter box and natural stone. Should the City Council recommend approval, staff has provided a
motion for consideration by the Council which recommends approval with two conditions. On August 2nd of
'95 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the three variance requests. The commission
recomlnended denial of all three variances with a vote of 5 to 1. The discussion did occur concerning the
height of the, the requirement at the time the one sign was erected on TH 41. There seemed to be some
disagreements on what the ordinance was at that time. As you recall in January we did update the sign
ordinance. Basically what the old ordinance said was, it set a height for the sign but you had to look in the
definition section of the ordinance so it wasn't real clear by looking at signs under residential districts what the
height was, so it is understandable hoxv somebody could look at that and be confused on what the requirement
,,',,as there. However, as I pointed out before, we did not have a chance to review the sign before it went in.
Thus, it was erected at approximately about, well 8 feet if you measure from the back side of the planter.
Again, staff is recommending denial of the variance. I'd be happy to ansxver any questions at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, arty questions'?
30
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councihnan Berquist: Oh I don't know if I have any real questions. I went over and looked at the sign today
and tried to figure out how this, after reading the report, figuring out what all happened and imagined it shorter
and imagined it taller and I just sketched it out, what it would look like if it was 5 feet. I know from an
architectural point of x'iew, the gentleman that designed it, I'm sure toyed with the height and elected to go with
the height that they chose for aesthetic reasons. I don't really have any questions now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't either.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess one thing I'd like to understand. You just made a statement that we had no
opportunity to review the sign before it went in?
John Rask: No. We did not have an)' details at the time of plat approval. They simply showed where a sign
would be located and then no permit was ever obtained so we never did see the sign details and the sign was
erected approximately a year ago. The one.
Councihnan Senn: Okay, and the sign that was erected a year ago met the old requirements.
John Rask: No it didn't. The old ordinance also required that the sign not exceed 5 feet.
Councilmau Senn: How did we miss that2
John Rask: Yeah, we missed it. We didn't catch it until this time and as I pointed out, it wasn't real clear. If
you read the ordinance, it's understandable how one could see that there was no height requirement. You had to
go to the definition section and that's something we cleaned up in the new ordinance now to make that clear
what the overall height requirement is.
Councilman Senn: But if I'm understanding your recommendation here, you're expecting them to redo the one
on TH 419.
John Rask: Essentially, yes. That would be the.
Councilman Senn: It seems to me we're the ones that flubbed up. We shouldn't be asking them to redo the one
on TH 41.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you want to save your opinions for later when we come back.
Councilman Senn: We're going to come back to opinions? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel' Is the applicant here?
Mike Pflaum: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: The reason I didn't give you a call, or a call back is I didn't get back into town until 1:30 and I
had from a lot of these residents sitting here, quite a few phone calls.
31
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mike Pflaum: This certainly is not the biggest iteln on 3'our agenda. It's important to us but I fail to see how
anybody else in the room would care. My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm a Vice President of Lundgren Bros
Construction. I'm here tonight, with my associate Dave Hinners. David has taken over the project management
of the Woods at Longacres and Meadows of Longacres from me, because he doesn't forget about things. I have
to accept blame for failing to apply for the sign permit. In the rush of events at the time of the Parade of
Homes last 3'car, it got lost in the shuffle. We did however submit plans to the city, recently submit plans.
They weren't specifically for the sign. They were for the entire entrance treatment and as the Council I'm sure
recalls, we did SOlne fairly innovative things with the Meadows at Longacres. In particular we...configurations
and decided we'd try to put...island for in effect a gateway effect. We put some columns close to the edge of
the right-of-way on either side. The gentleman who formulated those plans is Gene Ernst, and probably most of
the Council is familiar with Gene of Ernst Associates...participated in many landscaping projects in this area.
Gene's here to answer any questions you wish regarding the aesthetic decisions that were made. Gene did
submit the plans for the overall streetscape for review because... But the fact does remain that I forgot to get a
permit and if I had submitted for a permit, I'm sure we xvouldn't be before you tonight... At any rate, all I really
want to say beyond that is, if the Council has a problem with this height, I would hope the Council would deal
separately with the existing monument and the other monuments that are to be constructed on Galpin Boulevard.
That being the case, I could go into some rationale for xvhy I think a variance is justified on Galpin, or rather on
the Highway 41 side but I don't want to waste your tin-te...Galpin Boulevard, we could do less. We probably
should do less. We knox',' what the requirement is. We have struggled over the past 2 weeks to come up xvith
some kind of a compromise that would represent something and maintain the integrity of the entrance treatment
on TH 41, yet scaled down now so that it wouldn't be too disruptive of the zoning ordinance requirements. And
I've got the result of that doodling by Gene Ernst art people and I'd like to shoxv it to you and see if perhaps the
council can accept this as a reasonable alternative. The dotted line that you see at the top are the elevation of
the original design. This particular design is not 5 feet tall. It's 6 toot 3 to the top of the arch. What we did is
we took out the entire planter assembly. There's a stone planter running across...existing monument on TH 41
are aware. We took out a course of block inbetween the planter assembly and the top and we flattened the arch
on top feeling that we could preserve the general shape and appearance without disruption without... At any rate,
that's what we would like to do on the two entrances on Galpin Boulevard. And it still doesn't quite meet the
ordinance but it's better than it was before. And we think that it does preserve the integrity of the overall tree
line. I don't have anything else to say...or Gene Ernst.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Mike. Yeah, if there's any specific questions by Council. Steve.
Councihnan Berquist' You really couldn't get it to 5 feet Mike? Did you do any, I mean you must have done a
lot of different sketches.
Mike Pflaum: Well we did. Rather than have me explain it, I think I'm going to ask Gene and Gene can give
you a better representation of the process.
Mayor Chmiel: Before he gets up here. There's a lot of time that we took within the zoning ordinance on signs
and Chamber of Commerce spearheaded that for Council. There xvere a lot of people that did put in a lot of
time to make sure that everything was acceptable within the community. And as I look at this 6 foot, it still is
against the respective ordinance and I'm not too keen on granting variances because then when somebody else
comes in, we also have a given problem with that too. But let me listen to what he has to say now and we'll
give our opinion afterwards.
32
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Gene Ernst: Okay, thank you. I'm Gene Ernst with Ernst Associates. To answer your question, have we tried
various ideas, 3'es. I think the arch, the concept that we initially started with is the difficult part to this sign.
We thought it was unique. We think we have a good design but there's a limit we feel visually in a design that
you can take...like that down much lower...visually we're talking about design. You could put a flat top on it...
So it's difficult. Obviously it's subjective .... looking at the scale and proportion. We probably looked at, when
we came up with this one...so that's why we're coming... The other idea is to take down a portion. The thing is,
we're looking at one element here and it's difficult when you're sitting here looking at a sign but you have to
look at things in the total context of development...scale and dimensions totally change. We cannot relate...so
that's what determines the size of the sign. As Mike said originally, I think it's unfortunate that we even got this
far into design because I feel we did present design development sketch to the city of xvhat we were doing. I
did have dimensions on it. In fact...approval was given at that point but I'm not sure what was being looked at
at that plan. That was a year ago. That was in May when that was presented...and I want to say that as
delicately as I can so I'm'not stepping on somebody's shoes. I'm really saying it more as a professional. That
when we present these things to various cities, and we're hoping that they're looking at the drawings of
whatever's in front of you which has all the dimensions on it. At that point we really feel it should have been
challenged, even if it wasn't at the final approval stage...But we could have stopped this whole process rather
than spending all .,,,our time, our time...to build it. Noxv we're trying to figure out how we can tear it back down
and get it back to... That's what we feel bad about as professionals... But anyway, we're at this point. Noxv
we're tr3.'ing to figure out how we can carry...So back to what we see up on the screen here. We feel that we
really in fact...also reduce the sign... The lettering is 10% smaller than what you...so just taking proportions
and.l, stand next to the sign itself and I'm 6 foot...so other than that, I can't, yes there are other ways to do it.
Councihnan Berquist: So this is what you're proposing for the sign on TH 41 as well as the other two?
Gene Ernst: No. This would be for the Galpin. The two new entrances. We hope that youwill approve..
knock down and build back up but it means a lot of stuff has to change to do that.
Councihnan Berquist: I don't think I'm prepared to ask you to do that. On the other hand, in looking at that
sign today, not being in your business, but it did seem there was some extra footage that could be cut down.
Just as a for instance. Take the Longacres L and put it on the side of the arch. Change the aesthetics of the
sign as I'm sure you're aware. Go towards accomplishing the task. That's all I've got.
Gene Ernst: The other thing we feel we're low to the ground. We talked about removing the L and putting the
letters down lower, is that what you're. Or just reversing the...
Councilman Berquist: Reversing the arch.
Gene Ernst: ...arch and bringing the letters down. Okay. We looked at that. We think we're right, by the time
we plant anything in front of it. We don't have to but we'd like to have flowers or some other type of plant
material. Right now they're going to come up, just a regular petunia is going to come up right now and go
across the bottom of the loop of the L right now. If we take the letters down, obviously that's the main part of
the sign. We want that to be visible and high. We also think the winter snow pile so...remove snow so we try
to keep those up to a height. And again you look at this; it's going to be about 3 feet off the ground, to the
bottom of this letter. So those things all are taken into account. We can take it down but then it looks to us
like the sign is sagging, when you're talking design. Why would you put the letters down at the bottom... That's
subjective design. There's a lot of givens but there's also a lot of... That is a possibility.
33
Cit.',' Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well first of all, let's leave TIt 41 alone. It's done. It's built. Allow n'te the
opportunity expound on my philosophy on entrance monuments. I grexv up in a neighborhood that was not
named and I don't know when this phenolnena started of nan'ting neighborhoods but there seems to me to be an
unspoken competition with all of our neighborhoods. I'm looking up Galpin and I see Stone Creek, which has a
huge entrance treatment. You go to Trotters Ridge which has a nice, you know, a fairly simple one. What's the
next one'? The Oaks, which is in stone. Timberwood, which is, and then you go up the other side of TH 5 and
you've got a lot of subdivisions starting on each side of the road. And I think the purpose of an entrance
monument, it's true function is to identify a neighborhood. It's not to, and I mean by name only, I live here.
What it has become is a status symbol. Maybe that's just me thinking that way but like I said, there seems to
be this competition among entrance monuments and to me the function is to identify the neighborhood so ~vhen
we get into design, why can't a street sign do the same thing. So that's my...so in my opinion, the ordinance is
in place in order to mitigate any kind of competition between entrance monuments and I don't xvant, I am going
to be hard nosed about this. Meet the ordinance.
Mayor Chh-riel: Mark.
Councihnan Senn: Well I guess I view a little differently the, I viexv the ordinance as good guidelines but I
underline the word guidelines. You knoxv I think guidelines are there in place to set a standard but at the same
time there's reason sometimes to add to them or take from them or whatever but. You know I think entrance
monun'~ents do more than just identify. Okay, they identify a neighborhood but I think it goes beyond that and I
think it helps create, in my mind, a sense of pride where you live. There's lots of levels, and I think there's a
big sense of pride that people live in Chanhassen but I think there's also a sense of pride that they live in some
neighborhoods that they do. At least I know that to be very true in the neighborhood I live in. And I think
that's really good for us and I think that's good for our community. I think that's one of the reasons our
community developed the way it has. And so at TH 41, I look at it and t sa5,, I don't think xve should touch
that one. I guess first thing I thought when I relooked at it again, t kind of xvish everybody was willing to put
that kind of time, eftbrt and money into an entrance monument because I think it's one of the nicer ones we've
got in the city. And one that few people are xvilling to share, put the expense into. I'd like to see the other
ones work with it and I guess that's where it gets a little more muddier to me. I mean I don't want to lose the...
it'or example and stuff because to me that's all part of what makes it and makes it xvork real well. If that can be
scaled down but left in, I'd hate to see you start losing elements like that by saying it's going to be 5 feet versus
6 feet or 6 feet versus 7 feet.
Gene Ernst: Can I respond to that?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Gene Ernst: We have taken the planter box out and there's still...area to plant around the sign but it's at ground
level. It's not raised up. Right now we're at about 16 inches at the one at the Meadows. This proposal actually
will have a planting area...
Councilman Sei'lll: I guess you know, however Council wants to go on that as a majority. If they want to go
that way, I guess either way is fine. My preference would be to see that stay and I don't see a discernable
difference in the sizing either way, and I say that simply because again of the, I mean it's much more than a
sign that we're talking about. I mean we're talking about a rather large island landscaped area that does a lot
34
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
more than present just a sign and I really like what it's done so. I'd like to see that maintained as much as
possible...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Without too much rhetoric, and rll cut it short. What I would see is that we let the
existing standard be there. Utilize that as is without changing that. Grant a variance for that. Double fee it.
Without, because of a permit, and for the proposal of the two additionals that you're talking to be maintained to
what standard is set at within the ordinance at 5 feet. And that's where I would be.
Councilwoman Dockcndorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other discussion?
Mayor Chnfiel moved, Councihvoman Dockendoff seconded to approve a variance for the eight (8) foot high
entry monument at Highway 41 and Longactes Drive and charge a double fee it. The two additional entry
monuments to be located on Gallfin Boulevard shall meet the standards of the ordinance. All voted in favor
and the motion canied ummimously.
CONSIDER REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR OAKS OF MINNEWASHTA~
HARSTAD.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Before you is a request from Harstad Group,
the developer for Oaks of Minnewashta. Basically requesting a work extension for Saturday hours. Instead of
operating under the requested 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. hours, they would like to extend that from 7:00 to 7:00, which
is basically a Monday thru Friday time schedule. All the property oxvners adjacent to this plat, within 500 feet
have been notified of this request at tonight's meeting and staff at this point would be interested in knowing if
there are any property owners here tonight with any concerns raised on the issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any property oxvners in and adjacent to this proposed development? Okay. Yes,
there are. Why don't you come forward and state your cause and xve will listen.
Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I just wanted to clarify the extension
hours is tk)r grading only.
Charles Folch: It's actually for the site improvements. Grading, utilities, and street improvements but not for
the home building themselves.
Sue Morgan: So this will be for the entire length of construction?
Charles Folch: Of the site improvements, that's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Strictly grading, as Charles said, and the sewer and water and the streets.
Sue Morgan: That's 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.?
Charles Folch: That's what they're requesting. Staff is actually recommending a middle ground, an 8:00 to 6:00
p.m. Kind of a medium if you will from their request to what's required by city ordinance.
35
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Sue Morgan: I guess we as homeowners along the road would support that. That compromise of 8:00 to 6:00
rather than 7:00 to 7:0(I as being less of n disruption.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Anyone else? Would you please come to the microphone and just state your name and
your address please.
Gina Mouska: My name is Oina Mouska and I am representing Bussee Construction. We're the contractors for
the job and we put in this request for the extension mainly because of the fact that we've been experiencing
lately a lot of delays due to rain. Weather and we really want to get this project going. We started some tiering
last week and putting up some tree protection fencing and stuff like that. Well we've got uninterrupted we've
got about 4 weeks of work ahead of us and so that's just the main reason that we want to get in there to get the
project done. A lot of times if we lose a couple of days during the week, we have a Saturday to work, it'd be
nice to get as man5' hours in a week as we could. That's why we made the request.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure you're aware that when you live next to a site with something nexv coming in, it's very
disruptix'e.
Gina Mouska: Yeah, and we're the grading contractor.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Is there anyone else? Okay. If not.
Councilman Senn: Did we get any calls or letters?
Charles Folch: Not that we've received.
Councilman Berquist: When did the letters go out?
Charles Folch: The date on them was...I don't know the exact date but tsrpically we try to give at least a weeks
notice before the Council meeting so they at least some time to prepare.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'll move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: For the 8:00 to 6:00?
MayorChmiel: For 8:00 to 6:00.
Councilman Berquist: 8:00 to 6:00 on Saturdays.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councihnan Senn: Second.
Councihnan Benluist moved, Councihnan Senn seconded to approve granting an extension to the work hours to
8:00 ,tm, to 6:00 p.m. on Satunlays for the Oaks of Minnewashta for site grading, utilities and street
construction l)hases nnd not during the home buihllng phnse. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
36
Cit.,,' Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONING FROM A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF~ SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENT~ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 59 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO
OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON 46.27 ACRES AND WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT TO FILL WETLANDS ON SITE; 8470 GALPIN BOULEVARD~ SOUTHERN OAKS, SCHERBER
PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. The proposal before you tonight is in four parts.
The primary issue that the city has to resolve is a policy decision regarding the land use amendment of this
property. The property is currently guided for office/industrial uses. This is designated for office/industrial as
part of the 1991 comprehensive plan. The designation was partially a result of the encroaching industrial
development coming from Chaska on the west and south, and the use, excellent access to the facility provided
by two minor arterial roadways, Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard. And the ability to buffer this
development t¥om the adjacent residential developments through the large wetland complexes on the east and
the north. And finally a~ a result of this property not being used for, being used for non-residential and non-
agricultural uses. The adjacent uses to the north are Trotters Ridge, a single family subdivision. To the east
Galpin Boulevard and Stone Creek. An additional single family subdivision. To the south Lyman Boulevard
and Holasak Nursery, an industrial use. And to the west an industrial development in Chaska. In the policy
decision and the issue that Council needs to decide, falls around the land use map amendment. The
comprehensive plan designates industrial land to tx3~ to provide a balance of land uses within the community.
The policy states that the city will attempt to establish a reasonable amount of industrial land. Currently the
industrial land use is approximately 8.8% of the land area in the city. Secondly, the land use map tries to
preserve the tax base through diversity in land uses. The comprehensive plan also tries to provide employment
opportunities for commercial and industrial development in the city and finally there's an issue that there are
large areas of vacant residential land uses that could be developed at this time. The applicant is proposing a
typical subdivision. We advised them when they began this process that they would have to make a compelling
argument to demonstrate the need for the land use amendment. They could have proposed other types of
development, including planned unit developments that would be able to either cluster units into the open areas
and preserve the natural features to a greater extent, or strict single family multi-family where they'd average the
lot size and again put the larger lots within the wooded areas of the site. They could have come in for a multi-
family development or a mix of land uses. However, they did not propose any of these. They brought forward
this standard subdivision. I do have to make a correction in the staff analysis. On page 20 of the tax revenues
for industrial and the 338,000 square feet, we inadvertently doubled taxed the first $100,000.00 so the ultimate
tax would be a slightly less. The city share would be $148,667.00 at 20% and $371,668.00 with the TIF district
at 50%. Staff did perform a cursory review of the proposed subdivision. There are, as part of the wetland
filling, the wetland conservation act requires that the developer show alternatives for development that avoid
impacts to the wetland. We believe there are some changes in the design of the project that would reduce these
impacts. Some of the lot lines don't meet city standards and would need to be revised. And we'd need to
provide a tree preservation plan and revise the landscaping plan to incorPorate the buffer requirements and the
screening requirements along the north and the east side of the project. Staff is recommending denial of the
land use map amendment and consequently denial of the rest of the requested approvals based on the findings
contained in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any questions of staff at this time9. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No, not at this time.
37
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Serm: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would ask the applicant to come forward and please state your name and your address
and if and who you are representing. And I would like to, because of the time that there is and I can see there's
a lot of people here. I'd like to limit your opening remarks to about 20 minutes. Good, thank you.
Peter Covle: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council...my name is Peter Coyle. I'm an attorney at
the Larkin-Hofflnan law firm in Bloolnington, Minnesota. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicants, Craig
and Gary Scherber, who propose to develop a low density, single family housing project at the northwest
quadrant of Galpin and Lyman in the city of Chanhassen. Craig and Gar3,' Scherber are with me this evening
and would be pleased to answer any questions, if there are any, during any point of this deliberation. I'm also
going to be assisted this evening by Tom Loukes from Loukes and Associates and Scott Moen...try to address
some of the key issues that were raised during the Planning Commission review a couple weeks ago. I think
staff has ably and adequately described the project for you and...perhaps second, I xvant to say thank you to the
staff. I know they're put in a tough position sometimes and I think that they're doing their job and so xvhile we
disagree fundamentally with their conclusions and we'll get into those in a minute, I still want you to knoxv that
we respect them as professionals and we knoxv they're trying to do their job. What I'd like to do is very
briefly...some of the policies in your comprehensive plan which we think support the application that's been
submitted to you this evening. Staff is properly pointing out those aspects of the comprehensive plan to support
their interpretation of what should be done with this property. But we think there are equally compelling, if not
more compelling reasons why this property should be developed as single family. Built as a single family
development so I'd like to walk you through some of those. Then sequentially xvhat we'll do, in response to the
Plalming Commission questions that came up, is we'll take you through the economic impact study that we
completed with the project and we'll contrast that with the industrial development plans that have been sort of
formally and conceptually reviewed with staff so you have a comparison of those two impacts. And then
thirdly, Scott Moen t¥om United Properties will give you his perspective as a commercial/industrial property
specialist about what the marketplace is saying this property should be developed as. It's important to have
plans, hnportant to have guidelines and policies but ultimately we all knoxv that the marketplace is the best
indicator of what certain types of properties should be used for and we want you to have, at least the
perspective that we bring to the table on that point as welt. First of all we should be aware of the fact that on
two previous occasions in the 1980's this City Council was presented by an application to rezone the property to
industrial and on both occasions those applications were rejected by the Council. The comprehensive plan
policies that were approved by the city in 1991 provide thusly, and I'm going to provide a series of quotations
directly out of your plan. First of all the plan provides that the community should strive for planned growth
which can and should be designed to minimize environmental, neighborhood and traffic impacts. The plan
provides that the more incompatible the neighboring uses, the more important the transition zone. Bear in mind
that what is being advocated by staff this evening is that you preserve the opportunity to bring more industrial
up against existing residential as opposed to what the Scherber's are proposing, which is to bring residential up
against residential. The plan further provides that you should avoid running high traffic volumes and/or non-
residential traffic through residential neighborhoods. The plan provides that you should provide adequate land
to protect the housing code. The plan provides that some of Chanhassen's most prominent natural features are
38
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
the areas of extensive tree cover. This plan is specifically designed to tq~ to maximize the tree cover potential
and the city has a very good tree ordinance as you know, so the developer is going to have to add trees to a
piece of property that is already well endowed with trees. And they're happy to do so. They recognize that it is
ordinance. The'plan further provides that trees are an important...city's image and should be preserved xvere
feasible. What staff is advocating is the development of property as industrial use and under the city's
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, what is allowed is a 10% tree cover and in fact what the developer is
proposing would require 25% tree cover. So it's a little bit congruous to be advocating at the same time the
virtues of preservation of trees and environmental protection and the like and at the same time be advocating a
policy that would authorize a developer to remove substantial quantities of the existing tree coverage on the
property, and not be obligated to replace them. The plan further provides that single family attached housing
will continue to be the dominant land use housing type in the city, and that the plan advocates that development
be consistent with the preservation and enhancement of significant natural features and aesthetic amenities and
our site plan we think does that. There's an industrial policy statement which advocates the use of non-
residential property and non-agricultural property but it's interesting to note that in the staff discussion of that
issue, there really is very little discussion about the practical implications of bringing an industrial development
plan up against industrial property. We've heard some discussion about the use of berming and we've heard
some discussion about the...noise ordinance and the traffic ordinance and the lighting ordinance, but we've all
been in situations where when those projects actually come to fruition, the berming doesn't work like people say
it's going to work and there's always lighting and there's ab,rays noise and there's always traffic impacts that
even the best plans can't always account for and we think that there's a v6ry high likelihood that that would be
the case here if industrial was allowed to move forward. Permitted uses of property are going to be warehouse,
body shops, or light manufacturing if the property stays industrial. Conditional uses are motor...terminals,
contractor yards, and outdoor storage. Not exactly high tax generating uses on the property. The tree
preservatio]~ ordinance that I've eluded to, it's the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas and as
I've indicated, you have a very...tree ordinance which you have to comply with. At this point what I would like
to do is ask T~m Loukes from Loukes and Associates to take you through the economic impact analysis that
we've completed in response to the Planning Commission's request because xve understand that's an important
issue for you and we want you to have...perspective on what those impacts will be.
Toni Loukes: Thank you Peter. Tom Loukes. I'm the President and principle planner of Loukes and
Associates. We're located at 7200 Hemlock Lane North in Maple Grove, Minnesota. My sense of it was at the
Planning Commission meeting that a large issue for the commission was the economic impact or tax generation
potential of the various uses that were being proposed for this site. We did have an opportunity to meet with
staff after the Planning Commission meeting to talk about alternatives and tax generation issues and in...it has
been included in your staff report what the staff objections are for the various types of either the residential or
industrial uses for this property. So my intention here is not to...or whatever the staff report has to say other
than the fact that I've prepared for the Scherber Brothers Partnership an analysis of taxes that would be
generated based upon several scenarios. And at the outset I'd like to say that there is some difficulty in
quantifying what you can actually put on the site for industrial purposes and the reason is that there's a wide
range or a variety of uses that could be applied. For example, if you're going to apply entirely office square
footage to this site, it has a certain amount of parking requirements and spatial relationships versus say a
warehouse facility. So I'm saying it's difficult to quantify so the analysis that we've done is that 50% of the
square footage will be allocated to office use...laid out with the parking requirements there and 50% to a
warehouse use. We don't have a user. We don't have a clue as to what really might happen on this site but in
order to try to quantify this, that is the scenario that I bring forward to the City Council this evening. We
prepared a concept, and I'll emphasis it is a concept development plan that you see on the lower, to my right
here. A design that indicated approximately 140,000 square foot of industrial use. We agree with the staffs
39
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
projection that industrial uses would...$35.00 a square foot and if you just follow the numbers through, you'll
see that the city would generate approximately $61,000.00 annually in property tax revenue. There has been,
and I suggested this and I think the staff has suggested this that this might be on the loxv side in terms of the
amount of penetration rate you could get for an industrial site on this piece of property. So we're marketing
200,000 square foot scenario, which is quite frankly, is ahnost precisely the amount of square footage of a
building that is contained within the Chnska Industrial Park that is located to the xvest of this site. That guess, if
there's 6 buildings, the Chaska Industrial Park are located on 30 acres of land. This site has approximately 37
acres net buildable. We ran our numbers and we feel confident that you could put 200,000 square feet of...
office/industrial use on this site. For con'q)arison purposes, what we look at is 200,000 square foot scenario
which would generate a tax base of approximately $7 million, which would generate approximately $86,000.00
or $87,000.00 per year anuually with tax revenues to the city of Chanhassen. It's interesting to note that we did
take a look at the Chaska Industrial Park property located just to the ,,,,'est. The valuation on those properties is
approximately $6 million. About a million dollars per property. I think the low is about $600 and some
thousand to a high of $1.4 million. So what we're projecting here is approximately the same square footage on
40 acres but a million dollars more valuation just to be on the safe and conservative side. We also looked at a
layout of 240,000 square feet on this 37 acres and quite frankly, we'd really be pushing it. Everybody can have
a different opinion as to how we should lay the site out but it is basically our finding that you couldn't put
240,000 square feet on this site, even though...might be able to do 240,000 square feet...simply doesn't work and
this was to'ing to comply with all the requirements in the ordinance in regards to setbacks, non-disturbance of
wetlands and buffer areas that are required...north and east of this site. That particular scenario we felt was
rather generous. That site would generate approximately $102,000.00 a year annually. The 338,000 square foot
scenario simply did not work. You cannot, we are absolutely unable to place that much...on that particular site.
Now, I don't want to dismiss it because I do know that staff worked very hard to come up xvith the FAR's and
indicated that just on a gross basis, >'es you should be able to come up with 338,000 square foot layout. It just
doesn't work. We couldn't make it work. We tried diligently to make it work so we're kind of throwing that
particular end out. As far as residential property values xvere concerned, we ran the same numbers that staff
utilized on the $200,000.00, value of the $200,000.00 single family residential site, a $300,000.00 and a
$370,000.00 average value. The $200,000.00 per unit is on the low side. Essentially we do not feel, based
upon our specific knowledge of what the land cost is going to be, what the development costs are going to be
for this property, then the Scherbers would be unable to market any $200,000.00 house. They couldn't make
any money doing it. We don't think that's a possibility. We knoxv it's not a possibility. On the far end of the
range, the $370,000.00 per unit scenario, based upon recent experience of the Scherber Bros Partnership's
developments located in other communities in the northwest suburbs. We have factual information that lve can
show you of what the sales were on these properties and the latest one creates the average sale at this
$370,000.00 unit. But we said again, let's work on the conservative side. Throw that $370,000.00 unit value
out so what it really gets down to is the $300,000.00 unit, which is a practical number for us to deal xvith, and I
don't know if Craig and Gar3., would really like me to admit this. They don't know hoxv to do the low end
properties. They've never done low end developments and $300,000.00 is easily achievable given the economics
of this site, and what their track record has been in the past, under their development. So comparing the
200,000 square toot industrial facility which the average unit value is $300,000.00, what you're looking at from
a tax generation standpoint is nearly a push. In one case it's $85,000.00 plus some change and in the industrial
developmeut side of it, it's about $87,000.00 so give or take a few dollars annually that seem to be realistically
achievable types of development. The one thing that is not addressed in this report that I've prepared for the
Scherber Brothers, and have provided the City Council and staff, is the issue of whether or not, if it ,,','ere
industrial property, if it would be put into a TIF district, what kind of return the city of Chanhassen might
secure. I looked at the staff report. I've been involved in tax increlnent financing projects in my other life
when I represent cities and I sit on that side of the table and advise them and the thing to keep in mind is if this
40
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
property were to go into an economic development TIF, the city would not be securing the amount of dollars
that were projected in the staff report. As a matter of fact, probably for the first 10 years the city xvill be
securing zero dollars in terms of tax revenue which would be used for city...and I think there was a projection of
a return of $160,000.00 a year for a 338,000 square foot scenario so if you multiple that by 10, that's a $1.5
million that the city would not be receiving in taxes simply because TIF funds are being used to retire debt for
either land acquisition, write down and/or putting in infrastructure to encourage economic development in the
city. And would amortize that out. I think the first time you might see a return on your investment is
somewhere 20 years down the road...$300,000.00 average price of development, the city would be losing about
$850,000.00 in tax revenues and if we did an industrial park development using TIF funds, your return xvould be
somewhat, a small amount. You wouldn't lose the entire amount of money through TIF because there is an
existing value but I'm sure the Council members are aware of that...but I think just to quickly summarize. A
realistic and kind of a pragmatic approach if you xvill, is to make a comparative analysis between the...unit of
$300,000.00 development and a 200,000 square foot industrial development. That's very similar in nature to the
existing industrial development located within Chaska just directly to the west. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Peter Coyle: At this point I'd like Mr. Moen to come up and offer just a couple of comments and that really
will conclude our presentation as to the subject project. The land use issue is the issue. The specifics as to the
site plan design...we can deal with as a second stage if you need to but we'll wrap up with land use questions
first. Scott.
Scott Moen: I'm Scott Moen. I'm a commercial real estate broker with a firm called United Properties. United
Properties is a 80 plus 3'ear old property. We're one of the larger commercial real estate organizations in
Minnesota and I come here...through United Properties but my thoughts are from a corporate environmental
issues so to speak. United Properties is a developer, property manager and I'm in a sales and leasing division. I
specialize in representing companies who take a look at land sites and buildings and what have you and so I
have been asked to speak a little bit on what the marketplace, how they would view a site like this and how
they evaluate property. Prior to...I used to work for...a major industrial developer and for that company called
Hoyt. I helped them xvith some land acquisition, marketing of properties of vacant land and buildings as well.
I've been in commercial real estate industry for about 9 years now. Most of the research that I did is just from
being in the business. Specifically what I did for tonight's assignment was to talk to a lot of the brokers that do
business out here. Some of the names would be familiar to you. Probably have been in my place before. I
talked to some city people in Chaska to get a, take their temperature on their land issues over there. Talk to
Mr. Gerhardt on your staff and...do an inventory of the land that's available in industrial in the marketplace.
The first thing I'd like to talk about, and I'm just going to take a couple of minutes on each category and then
I'll wrap it up, is a corp user's perspective on a site, like that's in question tonight. And I'll go through a list of
criteria and just briefly give you my perspective on how it matches up in the marketplace. Before I get started,
I'd like to explain that real estate isn't, it isn't science and it isn't match. There is no divine answer. I'm only
offering lny perspective on the marketplace but what we're trying to do here tonight in some capacity is clear up
what the odds are. What are the percentages and help the Council and staff and owners and sellers and what
have you, kind of hedge their bet in how to achieve the ultimate goal so when I speak about that, I'm speaking
from what I think the odds are and the percentages might be. Corporate users, one of the things they look for is
visibility in some cases. However, industrial users don't put a lot of weight and generally visibility is something
they can, they like it if they don't have to pay for it. But they put most of their emphasis or a lot of their's on
accessibility. Now the second question is...accessible, however when you compare it to a significant land
inventory on Highway 5, it's accessibility is not as...to most corporate users as...quite a bit of other options that
41
Cit.,,' Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
they have available. You have over 200,000 acres of industrial property on the proximity on Highway 5 or
close to it, so there's a pretty good supply of land inventory right on Highway 5. In fact if you look at your
own color coded map, you notice most of your property is located on Highway 5 because it only makes sense.
To distributiou companies and industrial users, they put a premium on access. One other thing that corporate
users like to look at is a controlled business park. They tend to prioritize those because it's kind of a herd
mentality among corporate users. They like to be where other like industries are, versus the property in
question. There isn't a lot of corporate neighbors out there. The park itself, if you're going to try to create that
climate, isn't big enough to generally attract most developers to come and create their corporate park. To start
the...of a developer that tackles a corporate...usually talking about 100+ acres. Now you can do them smaller.
There's exceptions to every rule. There's exceptions that somebody knoxvs a 30 acre corporate park but again,
we're talking about percentages. Next issue we look at is neighborhood compatibility. If I'm representing a
major corporation and I'm working with the real estate person, the first thing that they're going to notice is that
they're going to have a room full of neighbors when they come to Council to talk about their project because
you have some yeU' nice holnes abutting on two sides and so it's not going to be a reason not to explore but
when they compare it to other sites, they'll abut up against other industrial, it won't be a deterrent because I
represent a lot of companies and a room filled with all the neighbors and the first thing they talk about is the
traffic and...I'm not looking down on top of that 2 acres of roof because it xvill go from 40,000 feet to 2 acres
when they're at the podium. And I don't want to look down on the rooftop units and all those kinds of issues
and so that's one of the things that they're going to look at when they analyze this site. Municipal compatibility
is what it is. Municipal incentives. Right now it's not in a TIF district but I've been told it might be considered
for TIF, but that takes time and when you compare it to another site that already has it, it's just a strike against
it. It's not...on that site but it's criteria. Site feasibility and that brings in a lot of the issues here. You've got
some wetland issues have been changed. The topography, which will be a deterrent in some cases. Pricing.
The pricing on the site would be good. That would be the thing in favor of the site compared with other
options. Environmental restrictions would be a consideration. Governmental issues. You've got tree ordinances
and things like that. And then the big issue is time schedule. So when you analyze it all up, corporate
users...it'd be very much a needle in the haystack scenario. I'd say at any given time in the 7 county area,
maybe a half a dozen companies looking for corporate campus type sites. Well maybe out of those 6, one of
theln wants to be in the southwest. And then you take the ones in the southwest and then you take all the
options they have just in Chanhassen, then you had Chaska and Eden Prairie and so on and so on, you really are
really looking for the needle in the haystack to get somebody to come in as a corporate campus type user. A
needle as I say. It could happen tOlnorrow but the probabilities would be many years away. Developers, and I
don't have to duplicate this. They're looking at a lot of the same things but I'll separate a couple of things that
will be different about a developer's criteria. I used to work for a developer and I currently xvork for a
developer so I can give some perspective on that. First, there's carrying costs. The developer is not likely to
buy this site at this time because it's going to be a lot of...but there's also a market that probably gets attracted
to that site in comparison to some of the competition that they have. So there'd be some fairly significant
carrying costs. And then the other issue is, and the big issue is how do you maximize the site. A residential
developer...aesthetics and an industrial user is trying to put 10 pounds into a 5 pound sack. Noxv we know that
staff and there are issues written to try to deter from that but the reality is that you're going to put a lot of
pressure on the site and reduce things like trees and trying to maximize the square footage your building's on
the site. So if they can do it, they're going to. If you won't let them do it, it xvill be a deterrent to them
wanting to go on the site to begin with. Again, making it a difficult opportunity to market the industrial
developer type... One of the other issues would...time scheduling issues as you go through tree ordinances and
zoning issues and wetland issues and then the neighborhood conflict is I think obviously going to happen.., very
challenging site for an industrial developer. In summary, you've got a great community out here and an area to
be proud of and I think .,,'our time is coming...and it's a good time for industrial development but you're not,
42
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
from an ordinance standpoint, you're not Edina and Eden Prairie. The market isn't that strong that you
take...first site like that and tn.' to market it to either the corporate users or to the development community, it's
going to be a tough sale. So it could probably be, and the percentage would probably be many years before you
can develop an industrial tax base there I think on the marketplace. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess not. Thank you.
Peter Coyle: That completes our presentation.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. A little longer than 20 minutes but. By 30 but yet it isn't an hour. Any specific
questions that you may have of any of the people that were up? Okay.
Councihnan Berquist: Yeah, I do have one question that I'd like to touch on. You were talking about tax
revenues. Has anybody got the wherewithal to speak to the costs involved ~vith the differing types of
developments such as water, schools, those types of things. And there's...put on a community. No? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll entertain a few of the people that are here this evening I'm sure to discuss some of
their proposals and I:d like to lin-fit that too to just a couple of minutes, if you could. We have received a lot of
the correspondence by mail. We've also received quite a few phone calls but I'd like you to come forward and
state your name and your address and your position. Anyone like to come forward to the podium?
Vernelle Cia,eton: My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle. I also work in Chanhassen.
I'm a realtor'with Brad Johnson at Lotus Realty, who would have very much liked to have been here tonight but
he had to be before the Chaska Council. Because of his passionate concern for this topic that we prepared a, he
actually prepared a land use analysis and I believe it was to be distributed or...talk about it a little bit. I'm not
here to' address just item number 9. In fact we were, have been real involved with this project and... However,
rather the proposal, it should be taken, we think in a context of a growing concern that several of us have.
That concern stems frown what we and others and see as a tendency toward and perhaps a precedent setting
tendency towards down zoning in Chanhassen. Some folks recognized the potential for a problem long before
xve did and brought it to our attention. For a xvhile we did nothing, but certainly it's still timely and there still is
time to ward off the problem. Though perhaps not a lot of time. We recently learned for example of a pending
sale of a part of the southwest corner of TH 5 and TH 41, what we all call the Opus site. That area has been
planned for commercial/industrial development since Henry McKnight first conceived the Jonathan concept in
the late 60's and now to our dismay, we understand the proposed purchaser intends to use the property for
residential development. Businessmen, school administrators, city managers, and ordinary taxpayers throughout
the metropolitan area recognize the value and in fact the need for commercial/industrial tax base for a city to
succeed. What has been less easy to recognize is the precise impact that commercial/industrial has on a
community. What is hardly ever defined is the impact on property values, particularly single family properties.
To that end we undertook to do an analysis which compares the tax dollars generated by various users in one
acre increments. The study is Chanhassen oriented and the values arrived at took into consideration
Chanhassen°s parking requirements, setback requirements and so forth. All buildings were assumed to be newly
constructed. The homestead credit was assumed to be recaptured through HACA, the number of pupils per type
of residential was based on national averages and/or our experience and the net cost to the taxpayers per pupil
of $1725. was based on information supplied to us of $5000 plus cost per pupil and a state aid contribution of
$3325. The net results is that one acre of office provides 7.8 times as many tax dollars as does 1 acre of
residential with tWO homes each valued at $250,000. One acre of retail or office warehouse or market rate
apartments, all within the 32 to 39 thousand dollar rate of taxes paid per year provide between 5 and 5 1/2 times
43
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
as many tax dollars as do those two homes. Project that scenario to 50 acres over 5 :)'ears and the offices
contribute 11.5 n.tillion more while the other three would each contribute 7.3 million more. The assumed
answer to the question of how commercial/industrial affects holneowners usually is that they simply have lower
taxes with greater con.tmercial/industrial, but it does go a bit farther. Perhaps the greatest impact is on resale
value. Witl.tout a strong commercial/industrial tax base there is less money to support schools and a greater
percentage is passed onto homeowners. The tendency is toward poorer schools. Now, good schools and a
reasonable tax structure are two of the most important things homebuyers seek. When these are lacking, buyers
are willing to pa33' less and property values suffer. Two examples are Prior Lake and Edina. Both beautiful
communities but Prior Lake 1.tas yep,., little commercial/industrial development and they have poor schools, high
taxes, and lower resale values. Edina has a wonderful commercial/industrial tax base. It has great schools, low
taxes and one of the best resale values in the metropolitan area. Edina planned. Prior Lake just let it happen.
Eden Prairie and Bloomington planned as well. Thus, the issue of down zoning and the need to preserve a
sound commercial/industrial tax base, can't be taken lightly. It affects us all in more ways than is often
assumed. What is done now, while few decisions come easily, will be a lot easier than rectifying the problem
later. The Council needs to send a clear signal that it intends to make the tough decisions and provide the
leadership that we wl-to work and live in Chanhassen expect. Lest you think I mean by that that you will be
prevailed upon from tin.te to time to case a vote that may go against the wishes of certain segments of our
conm.tunity, I really mean, closely evaluating the plans we have in place; rigidly enforcing those that prove to be
sound and n.todil3'ing those that are not. Establish a 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020 vision and guide plan of a 50-
50 division of tax sources. For every stud33, that is done, whether visionaD, or real, when it relates to land use,
attach an economic iml-mCt analysis. Learn why an owner of commercial/industrial land xvould even consider
selling at residential rates (about 3 times less). What obstacles have been placed in his path. How can they be
removed and replaced b33' incentives. What can be done to encourage commercial/industrial before the
residential neighbors here to object, before the business go to neighboring cities, and most importantly to ensure
low taxes, good scl-tools and high resale values. Thank you.
Mayor Chrniel: Thank you. An33, one else?
Denise Stills: Hi. My name is Denise Stills and I live at 8426 Stone Creek Court. We just moved here
recently t¥om Illinois and we had to live somewhere surrounding Bloomington where my husband was going to
work. We looked in Lakeville. We looked at Eagan. We looked at Apple Valley. We looked everywhere and
every city had a strip mall on eyeD, corner...industrial development and we didn't xvant that. And then we
looked here and I fell in love with Chanhassen. I had to live in this city. So we came to toxvn and...we talked
a little bit before about the signs. You know outside of the subdivisions and stuff and right outside my
subdivision was what, an attto body repair place. A warehouse. That's where my gates are xvhere it says Stone
Creek. I'm going to look at what? A warehouse. All the flowers in the world can't help that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Jim Larranaga' Jim Larranga at 2813 Boulder Road. You made a comment about sewer going in and then
power and water, won't that add to the open area... You can't forget you're putting in a school just down the
street. I think you've made an emotional commitment to families and children too. I think it's a money pit if
you go ahead and put less than a n.tile away, an office park. Any kid that's beyond the lot has to be bussed.
There's 59 families that have to put their kids on a bus to go off to school so it's sort of an eclectic pattern
going on of the neighborhood here. Okay. Office park. Well, if you look at that whole corner, that's perfect
for you know, more families so I think we have to live up to the commitment you've made off of TH 5 there.
TH 5 and Oalpin Road...corridor all the way down and why drop in a whole other office park. It doesn't fit the
44
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
pattern. So I think you've already made the commitment to the school...in Bloomington and people here in
Eden Prairie, they're surrounded by neighborhoods. They're not surrounded by, none of them have office parks
built by that school. It's a waste of space. So I think you've made the commitment. I think you should stick to
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Gene?: My name is Gene...I live at 2030 Boulder Road and I should speak after this gentleman because I agree
that the beaut.,,' of the school that you put in at Bluff Creek is only as beautiful as the neighborhood that's
surrounding it. I teach at a school in another suburb that is flanked by a road that is not nearly a busy as
Highway 5 so you might as well build a wall across there as far as the neighborhoods that will be north of
Highway 5 to Bluff Creek Elementary School. So if you were to take any sections of land in which children
and families can move up and move towards Bluff Creek to be part of a true neighborhood community, which is
one of the reasons we moved to Chanhassen, and put in industrial park area, I believe you're taking axvay from
what is >'our, what is in the best interest of Bluff Creek and the neighborhoods of Chanhassen. I think it's a
beautiful school and they should stay a beautiful neighborhood. Thank you.
Nina Wallestad: I'm Nina Wallestad. My husband, Craig and I own a lot at 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. We hope
to break ground before the snow flies. I think keeping this, or zoning this part of land as office industrial is
creating a sore thumb and if you'll alloxv me to mix metaphors, it's almost like the farmer who after the...the
barn, not only closes the door, but punishes the horses that stayed within the corral and I feel like you've gone
in one direction in the surrounding neighborhood and we just ask you not to punish our neighborhoods because
of a lack of foresight upon the city's part but that the land be zoned residential in keeping with the...surrounding.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Rene Schroeder: I'm Rene Schroeder. I live at 2337 Boulder Road. I'm a structural engineer. I moved here
from the south and I too just built a new home. I also work in Bloomington. I work with Harmon Contract
who deals in commercial construction. High rise office towers and the application that I see this...is just
absolutely absurd because of the surrounding community that has already been allowed to be developed there
and I don't see how you're going to put an industrial park on that piece of property. There's only 30 foot
change in elevation. How are you going to maintain the wetlands that are there? The planning, engineering
have questioned what is being proposed in terms of wetland areas and things such as that, and an industrial site
will not even do that. It will take out all the trees. It will take out a lot of beauty and where that site sits, all
the homes are going to look right down on top of all the asphalt roofs and HVAC systems. No berm is going
to keep that out.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Jennifer: My name is Jennifer...Boulder Road. I'm speaking as a homeowner and also a mother. As the
gentleman here talked about...coming to this site off Lyman and Galpin Road and as it is currently...I'm a
mother of two small children who will be going to school. This school...and the fact that I'm going to have
trucks coming and they already speed off of Lyman Boulevard... I'm very concerned that my child, you 'know at
an elementary school children don't have the ability to always do things...that there are going to be many, many
children that will be walking that road and...
45
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
MavorChmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Curt Jensen: My name is Curt Jensen. I live at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail on Trotters Ridge. We just moved in
from Eden Prairie. We left Eden Prairie, a fairly nice neighborhood in Eden Prairie to get away from...area.
Chanhassen was very appealing with the trees and wildlife. We have wild turkeys coming into our patio.
There's deer and all sorts of extra wildlife that you don't see in Eden Prairie or in some of these other areas.
We have the new school just up the road. We have two small children, an 8 and a 6 year old. They're going to
be in 3rd grade and 1st grade. Why would we want to live there and have all these big trucks coming in,
warehousing and whatever else, and have them out playing and having to worry about all this other traffic
coming down this road. So this is ,,'eD, upsetting to us because we didn't knoxv about this to begin with and
now we sit here and see this, all these trees that could possibly go out with the industrial and maybe maintain
trees or add more trees with the residential. And ;vhen we built our house, the forest report, ho~v stringent you
were about how many trees we had to keep on our lot. Well it doesn't make sense to pull up all the trees that
are out there now. So that's my piece.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Jeff Olson: Hi. My name is Jeff Olson and I'm in Trotters Ridge and I've talked to some of the Council
members and...some of the others. I see three issues regarding rezoning and then the Scherber Brothers
development plan. What I've asked is that you reguide or rezone the property and if Scherber Brothers isn't
willing to do the dex'elopment in a manner that's appropriate, and isn't willing to cooperate with the city, then
they can, then they're probably not the right developers. By day I'm an attorney and I deal with cities. City
staff, Council members fairly often. It's a little bit easier to deal with them because it's not quite as emotional
an issue. There's not the direct impact and so I'm sure you're probably seeing some of the emotions come out in
the phone calls, in the letters and please realize that it is a very frustrating and emotional issue for a lot of the
homeowners out there and keep that in mind when you read some of those letters and hear some of the
comments. One of the things, well there's a couple things that I don't think we want to do tonight. We don't
want to ignore the changes that have occurred in that area since 1991. We don't xvant to ignore the new
residential developments. We don't want to ignore the school going in there. I don't think we want to oppose
each other for the sake of opposition. I think we should look for alternatives that work for everyone and try to
keep the communication channels open. And also, I don't think we want to ignore two of the primary concerns
that you're fi~ced with when you do a zoning, or make zoning decisions. It's laid out fairly vaguely in some of
the case law. It talks about health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. The way I read the case law, it
looks at health and safety as two paramount concerns and I've heard a lot of talk about the welfare and taxes,
etc, etc, but don't forget about those two main paramount concerns, the health and the safety of the citizens as
well. Someday I hope to have some kids and I'd like to see them walk to school or ride their bike to school and
anything we put in there with more and more traffic, I'm certainly opposed to. And I would encourage, from
my discussions with the Council people I've talked to, I got the impression that people still have open minds
and are willing to consider some options and I was encouraged by that and hope that continues.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Mike Minear: Good evening. My name is Mike Minear. I and my family live at 2421 Bridle Creek and my
back yard literally adjoins the Southern Oaks Addition. It is my understanding, and I don't knox',, if this is a
fact, that the 1991 comprehensive industrial plan did not include the school. Is that a true statement?
Kate Aanenson: No. It was alw%'s...for a school.
46
Cit.,,' Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mike Minear: All the residents got this map from the County in the last few days and the County I think has
done a very good job in keeping us up to date on the Galpin construction and on this map, everything on this
map is either residential or a school except for this addition we're talking about tonight. And if you call this the
Galpin corridor between Highway 5 and Lyman, it seems like everything on here is residential so let's keep it
that way. I respect the issue of having to meet budgets. I'm a business executive. I respect the woman who
spoke first of all in trying to make sure we have an adequate tax base. We're all taxpayers and we are
concerned about that too but I guess we'd ask you, as our representatives on the City Council to realize that we
have an economic impact here. My house abuts this property. What xvill happen to my economic impact xvhen
my value of my house goes way down? We've only been there a few months. We've put a lot of money into
it, as all these other people. Some of these houses, the paint is hardly dry on, and if we put an industrial park
in there, who's going to reimburse us for the decrease in property2 Secondly, xvhen our houses go doxvn in
value, won't that hurt the tax base too? I would ask that you factor that into your decision. The Cit'3' Council,
as we've heard tonight, has twice denied an application for this land to be industrial and I ask you and my
family asks you to do it for a third time. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Bonnie Mulkowsky: My name is Bonnie Mulkowski and I'm at 2051 Renaissance Court in the Timberwood
Estates and I would just like Council to know that whatever happens to this, I'd like the natural wetlands
preserved and as many trees as possible preserved. That's what I wanted to say. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Cynthia Olson: My name is Cynthia Olson. I live at 2520 Bridle Creek Trail and like most of the people in
this room, I'm opposed to industrial development at the northwest comer of Galpin and Lyman. It's my hope
that the City Council will vote to change the designation from industrial to single family residential. I attended
the planning committee meeting a couple of weeks ago and one of the things that I came away with xvas, well
one of the members talked about change and how our community needs to accept change and that the
designation of industrial is a part of that change. I think that the committee member misunderstood. I don't see
that an.5' one resident expects the pasture area to remain. Change is eminent. However, those of us who live
with 3'our decision, would like our input seriously considered before those changes are made. Our neighborhood
has undergone, I can't believe how nervous I am...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's because it affects you personally, that's why.
Cynthia Olson: My head's bobbing. I don't know if you can see that. I think that.
Mayor Chmiel' We're sitting at a kitchen table.
Cynthia Olson: And nobody has any clothes on.
Mayor Chmiel:
Cynthia Olson:
You should not
and project 5, 1
the time they're
That wasn't the intent.
...in recent years with the new subdivision and elementary school and the community center.
ignore these changes. I'm a financial analyst with the Federal Reserve Bank. We plan budgets
0, 15 years into the future. I can tell you that those original plans are nearly unrecognizable by
execti'ted. Plans are developed merely as a foundation to build upon and improve. A lot of
47
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
you, or some of you may be unhappy with the economy. I can't imagine how you'd feel if the Federal Reserve
rigidly ibllowed those plans without change. Likewise, I ask you to review :)'our plans with a flexible attitude
and make changes that we've recommended. The second issue that I've noticed is a concern to everyone is the
tax base. I guess my major question is, why does an industrial area have to be in my back yard. I would think
that we could work together as a community and find other alternatives that are mutually acceptable to
evers'one. I know that I would be willing to work on a task force to reach some kind of alternative. I have a
background in financial analysis, as I said, and also marketing research. I don't believe that you guys are the
enemy. I think that because you're elected officials, I have confidence in you that you will make everybody
happy and I think that we can do that. I also have a petition. I made a copy for ever), one. There were a lot of
people that weren't home lvhen we did that. Out of all the houses that we stopped at, there were probably only
I think 4 or 5 people that declined to sign this.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else'?
Rodney Melton: I guess I get to bring up the rear here. I'm Rodney Melton, 2413 Bridle Creek and moved up
I guess about a year ago. Came from an area that obviously couldn't spell zoning. I came from Houston.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And couldn't pronounce it either.
Rodney Melton: And so that was obviously a concern for us and we happen to live just north of the property as
well. So certainly one of the first questions that we had was, what ',','as going to be located behind us. At the
time we were intbrmed that it was indeed going to be residential, a residential development. Certainly...coming
from Texas, we trust people. I didn't go to City Hall to look up records or anything and we proceeded to
purchase and it's really rough even being in this position. We have a 6 year son who's taking a nap right now,
who will be attending Bluff Creek and with construction that's taking place now, we've obviously been taking
alternate routes. Going down Audubon and Pillsbury I think is the name of the company there...if that's what
we have to look forward to, I'm really concerned. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if eveu'one has had the opportunity, I would like to bring it back to Council.
Peter Coylc: Yeah, I just have 30 seconds.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, I'll take your 30 seconds. And you're on.
Peter Coyle: We've heard a lot of discussion about the availability of industrial land for development and
there's two references in the staff report about one of the reasons that you need to hang onto this property for
industrial is because there's a parks commission that's out there trying to find land right noxv that could be
developed for industrial but the desire is to hang onto that for open space. No tax bases. We also heard in the
staff report, that the Arboretum is buying some additional land which is noxv guided for industrial development
and that's going to be taken in the Arboretum, no tax base. So we're proposing a development that generates tax
base and we think it will be a better tax base than the industrial...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Okay. Now comes the bewitching hour. Or we're getting there. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I've got lots of thoughts on this and there's a number of things that I'm curious about, not
the least of which is the question that people have said that when they've purchased, they've gone to purchase
their property, that the people that they have spoken with have all said, well that's going to be residential single
48
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
family. I mean that's obviously misinformation. Since 1991 that land has been comprehensively planned as
being commercial/industrial. It has not been residential single family since that time. So any information that
was given to you by realtors or builders or developers was in error, or an outright lie. That's item number one.
Item number ~wo is, I'm vex3' taken by the almost hysteria that's presented itself. The number of letters and
phone calls that I have gotten have been extraordinary, and they've all, the majority of them have all been of a
tone that NSP is coming in and going to start grading tomorrow and the coal train will be by Christmas. That
they're going to build a Black Dog plant and that's certainly not the kind of commercial/industrial development
that would go there. The gentleman that works for United Properties specifically stated, if I can find it in my
notes somewhere here. That that land will, if it doesn't go residential, that land will probably remain as it is for
many years. I'm paraphrasing but that was his point. Given that I'm going to read, I'm just going to read some
comments that I had typed out earlier today. Do I have 20 minutes9.
Mayor Chmiel: Take all the time you want.
Councilman Berquist: This isn't going to, in my opinion this is not going to be done tonight. This is too
complex an issue to be solved in one little Council meeting. The letters and phone, like I said, the letters and
phone calls I've received have all been of a nature that decries an industrial development next to residential
areas. There are a number of issues before us in determining what occurs with this land. The statement by one
homeowner on my answering machine that her realtor told her it xvould be housing, it doesn't carry any weight.
Lewis Engineering, duplication factoring, D & D Concrete bakex3' and Purer Humidifiers are four companies that
were there long before any work at all was done on Trotters Ridge or Stone Creek. There are two thoroughfares
that intersect at that property that would serve either use vex3' well. Generally major intersections are considered
preferably for commercial usage. The land to the south of Stone Creek is comp planned as commercial/
industrial as well. Will this parcel be challenged when and if, or if and xvhen, it comes up for platting on a
commercial/industrial levelg. The land that Holasek Nursery sits on is also comp planned as commercial/
industrial. What about this parcelg. Currently the comprehensive plan...a lot of this stuff. The point of this
whole thing is, I think leadership often times requires decisions that are not necessarily popular. Proper
stewardship of the community must be the determining factor in a decision. I am not in favor of amending the
comp plan to alloxv residential development on the site. If that means that the site remains undeveloped for 10
years, so be it. If that means that the site goes through 4 or 5 different planning procedures, so be it. On the
other hand. If there is a parcel of land within the city that is currently zoned residential and we are able to look
at changing the comp planning to commercial/industrial. In effect making a trade, I would certainly be
amendable to looking at that. There's residential property that has been preliminary platted that is on the market
for developers that hasn't been sold. Why this particular piece is of such paramount importance is unclear to
me. I can surmise a few things about the piece of land. I don't think I should do it in public hoxvever. In the
future I advocate that any comprehensive plan change that would result in a lowering of tax revenues and
increase of tax expenditures be explored if, only if there would be a trade-off. I think for the benefit of
Chanhassen as a whole, this type of a policy needs to be implemented. My notes as the gentlemen were talking,
if you looked at that piece of land as a buffer from one industrial park to the neighborhoods, and you didn't
want to do it with another IOP, industrial office park, we could look at doing it xvith a higher density residential.
I don't know what the average lot size is on that particular plat, but normally from, for single family, we'll zone
it, we'll try and put a higher density usage on the adjoining piece of land. Let's see. No one has yet spoken to
the costs involved with residential versus commercial/industrial. Everybody's alxvays talked about the taxes.
The revenues but no one has spoken to the costs. I think the developers have orchestrated a purchase agreement
contingent on approval of the comprehensive plan change and quite frankly I wonder if some of the hysteria
doesn't come from that avenue. The owner knows full, here's some of my other notes. The owner knows full
well that commercial on this plot will not be developable for 10 years or so given the rest of the land available.
49
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Someone said something about contractors yards. Body shops. Possibly. Both of those particular uses 'are
conditional use permits and would have to be granted on an individual basis by the Council. Probably not
likely to happen, given the location. More than likely businesses, if businesses were to go in here, when
businesses do go in there, it'd be similar to businesses that we recently approved for use in the industrial park
just outside of town. Clean, non-polluting,'industrial commercial users. I can't really speak to the market
pricing but the number of units that are shown on that plat seems to be an inordinate number for the land.
There's a lot of wetlands on that. I don't knox'.' if they're looking at tilling a tremendous amount of that wetland.
When I crawled uD on that 1-fill behind Lewis Engineering on Saturday, and there's a lot of grading that would
have to take place. A lot of deforestation. It seems like an expensive site to develop. And the last thing that
some, that one of the gentlemen said was that keep it residential because the children will use that school. Well
one thing you need to kcep in mind is that office parks, industrial users, commercial, retail, businesses in
general, they support the schools. The)' rnay not' use them but they support them and that's an important angle
to remember, I think. With tllat I'll pass on.
Mayorrhmiel: Collccn.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it was Mr. Olson that pointed out we really have 3 issues here. The land
use change, which is kind of, in laymen's terms, looking at '.'.'hat generally should this area look like. The
rezoning issue, which is more specific, and then the plat in front of us. And I think to make sense, we have to
deal with tile land use change first. Being on Council we really have the responsibility to look at three
segments of the population when we look at any piece of land and that's Chanhassen as a whole. The neighbors
surrounding any given piece, at'rd the future peol)le, occupiers of that land, whether that be business people or
residential. So I guess I need to speak to, a lot's been said about balance in the city in terms of xvhat we're
trying to achieve betwecn residential and commercial and industrial, etc. Tax base is a very, very important
concern. However, it's hard to pin numbers on because we're not comparing two pieces. We're not saying this
proposal versus this one so what potentially could de'.'elop there in an IOP, we don't know what tax revenue that
could create. And I think Steve brings up a good point about the burden to the city that residential imposes.
Those type of costs impose to an industrial office park. So anyway, I'll leave the tax base issue alone.' But a
more important issue that I think peol)le overlook is balance in tile city, just for the sake of a viable community.
I certainly do not envision Chanhassen being a bedroom community. I don't see it that way. I see a very viable
downtown. I see a very good business and industrial development and I see residents. And I think it's that
balance that's important, just as equal or even more so, than tile tax base considerations. Moving on from that
larger issue of Chanhassen as a whole to the surrounding area, what I'm going to say next I'm not going to make
any friends, I know that. But I say it becattse I know there's a lot of frustration on the residents' part but there's
an equal amount of frustratiort on the Council's part when we hear people come in and say, completely aghast
that we would consider this in )'our backyard, and )'et you made a huge financial decision ,,,,'hen you purchased
your propert3' and I would have thought it would have behooved you '.,,'hat's planned for the surrounding areas.
No'.'.' I know that you've got a lot of other considerations going on ,,'.'hen you purchase a home but we find it
frustrating that we hear this argument all the time. It's the old NIMBY. Not in my back yard. How can you
do this? Nobody told me. People specifically told me it would be residential single family. I think it's fairly
short sighted to think that it would be a cow pasture forever, and I'm not saying this to be condescending or
shake my finger. I'm just simply saying it's frustrating for Council. To deal with some of the other issues that
were brought up in terms of traffic. I know traffic on Gall)in. I drive it a couple times a day and it is heavy
and hol)efully the widening will certainly improve things. However, I question whether 59 lots times 2 cars
times 3 trips a day is worse than what an 8:00 to 5:00 industrial park might produce. I don't knox',', that might
be a push. I have no idea how that would turn out but I'd just encourage you to look at the other side of the
coin. And as I said before, it's frustrating because we don't knox'.' what an office park. I mean you really have
5O
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
to take this proposed office park with a grain of salt. You know given our stipulations for tree preservation and
grading ordinance and the whole thing, it wouldn't look like that. But we don't know xvhat it may look like. So
that's part of the hard part here is we're not comparing two ideas. We're comparing a proposal against a vision
of what it could be. Anyway, to get to the real crux of what I look at in a piece of land. If it were a cornfield,
this would be a completely different discussion but this is a unique piece of land so my primary concern is tree
preservation and wetland preservation. And to talk about, to jump from land use change to the specific
proposal, this doesn't do it at all. Honestly I find your arguments to keep it residential because you're going to
save the trees and preserve the topography and the wetlands, I'm trying to find the right adjective, really
surprising. Let me use that innocuous word. Because this plan has a lot of mass grading and a lot of tree
removal and a lot of mitigation of the wetland. I guess I'm going to harp so hard on this issue because I've seen
what's developed and what this Council, and even when I sat on this Council, has developed. Excuse me, has
approved in terms of our tree preservation. I think to bring it to examples that everyone's familiar with, when
we look at Stone Creek. If you could have s,een it before. There were beautiful trees on the northern piece of
the property and agriculturai on the southwestern 'part of it. And we plowed through them and left some 200
foot, 3 inch caliper trees, which are ugly. And we took down some beautiful 30 inch caliper trees to push a
road through, or we paved driveways 5 feet from them, and one of two things are going to happen. The
driveway's going to get ruined from the root system but more likely the driveway is going to ruin the root
system and kill the tree. So we blew it there. Really, we did. We did a better job with Trotters Ridge. But to
get to my point about this parcel. This isn't what I see for it. And the bottom isn't what I see for it. I think the
current topography really serves a compromise and not a compromise for the sake of compromise but if we do a
mixed use on the land, we achieve several objectives. One of them, and I wish I could point out what the
current trees and wetlands is. All we have are these drawings, which are hard to read, but in looking at it, do
you have something?
Kate Aanenson: I was just saying we may have an overhead.
Bob Generous: Not an existing one. I mean it's too small.
Councihvoman Dockendorf: Not a good one. Yeah, it is hard to see. You've got a natural break, which I think
would serve a good function for PUD to have residential abutting Trotters Ridge. And whether that be clustered
development to preserve more of the wetlands and the trees, or a simple subdivision with larger lots, either one.
And then you have a break in the trees to the south, which I understand Mr. Fisher is looking to put something
there currently, and I talked to Kate this afternoon. To have some type of industrial, the southern portion
abutting Lyman. And as I said, it achieves, or could achieve what I'm seeing in my mind, a couple of
objectives of keeping the topography as much as possible as it is now, and at the same time one of our concerns
is that the domino effect, if this goes $370,000.00 residential, what are we going to hear from those residents
when we want to develop commercial or industrial to the south of that on Holasek's property? So I'm very open
to a land use amendment change and I think it's warranted here but I don't -know what that land use change
should be until we can get in a proposal that would achieve what I just described. A mixed use on this
property xvith residential to the north and industrial to the south, taking advantage of some of those natural
barriers. So let's see what else I wrote down. Not much so, I guess that's where I'm coming from right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councihnan Senn: Let's see. I don't want to be repetitive to many of the things that Steve and Colleen have
said because there's a lot of them I agree with so I'll try to just talk about different things. One thing I would
like to do though before I get started, and I heard a lot of, one thing I heard a lot about too was the action of
51
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
tile Planning Commission and you know personally, and I think all of Council would probably echo this
sentiment but I think from our perspective we apl)laud their action. Not because it's not what you want but it's
because what they're supposed to do. They're charged with taking the guide plan and looking at the proposal in
relationship to the guide plan and evaluating it. And that's what the>' did and I think they did their job and I
think they did a good job on it. And ultimately the decision gets passed to Council and Council has to make it
and you know, that's where we're at and that's where we can also consider a lot of other elements. I think xve
all have separate visions and I think that's good. I think that creates diversity and I also think it creates a lot of
varying degrees of lots of things but to me varying degrees of thought. I, you knoxv with all the calls and
letters we've been getting on this for a couple weeks now, at least as far as I can remember, it's probably my
most often visited site for quite a while. But the more and more time that I spend doxvn there looking at this
site I guess, that's kind of led me to a vision and the vision I see is, you knoxv I first look at the general area
and I see the geueral area as being what I'm going to say is predominantly residential. I look at the corridor I
think as the gentlemen earlier described it, and I see the corridor as predominantly being the school and
residential. I look at the site more specifically, and I see the mature trees and I see the dramatic landforms and
changes in elevation. I see the extensive wetlands and I ask myself how could these best be preserved and I
think the answer to that is through residential development. Now I'm not going to say that's necessarily through
tile plan that's on the table. I get to the south and I also kind of look at the elements that are outside of
Chanhassen, which we have no control over but at the same time I look at Lyman Road and at least in my mind
Lyman Road becomes a great natural barrier to a lot of things. And at least in my mind that's xvhere the barrier
is and that's where tile barrier should be. At the same time I see the tax differential, you know kind of stepping
away froln the area or the site, and I don't want to give up the tax base and at the same time I also want a
COmlnunitv that we can all have a look at as one that we live, work and play in which includes all the elements.
Where that all leads me I guess it leads to where my thoughts are right now is I'd like to see, or would support
a residential reguiding and rezoning. Due to the other things that have happened in the last 5 years so at the
same time I feel there's other better, more viable industrial commercial sites that are now guided residential. I'd
like to see staff go br, ck and work with the developer to create a better plan as it would relate to residential
utilization here. I'd also like to see us as a city look at other parcels, given changes and proposed changes that
would be better guided I think for commercial/industrial property with no net loss effectively. One other thing I
would like to see though is it' this does go ahead as a residential project, I would like to see some language put
in every deed in this new project which is going to attest to the fact that the guiding next step over is industrial
in zoning so we can please get away from this hopscotch affect that we're facing in this city of everybody told
me it was going to be this or told me it was going to be that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Nobody reads their deed either.
Councih-nan Senn: But that was basically my comments.
Mayor Chmiel' Okay, thank you. Rather than be repetitious of what everyone is saying, or what they've said,
and I agree with Steve and Colleen. This also is going to take a 4/5 majority vote because of the rezoning. So
my suggestion would be at this particular time to table this and have it be brought back when we have a full
Council here. And that would be my motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well the only problem I have with ti-mt is that nothing will have changed and I
mean I don't know which way you're leaning Mr. Mayor but will we have a 4/5 at that time.'? It doesn't sound
like it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would be open then to a motion from Council.
52
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councihvoman Dockendorf: Unless the applicant wants to withdraw.
Tom Loukes: I approach Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: We're at discussion right now.
Councihnan Senn: Well I mean I'll be happy to do that. I mean I would like to see it residentially reguided
and rezoned with the caveats that I mentioned in terms of going back and really working more on a better plan.
And a commim~ent on the city's part to look at other parcels so there's no net loss. And also the indicator as it
would relate to any development guarantees.
Councilwonmn Dockendorf: Are you leaving open the possibility Mark, are you talking about a land use
change or specific rezoning to RSF? What I'm getting at is opening up the possibility of a mixed use or PUD
on this parcel.
Councihnan Senn: Well my understanding from, I operate under a handicap here. Everybody puts things up
and I can never see through the stand. Is that the most recent?
Kate Aanenson' The one on the top? That's the original submittal.
Councilman Senn: That's the original submittal on the residential?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councihnan Senn: Wasn't in the original submittal, wasn't the south section there outlet?.
Bob Generous: Well it is. It's bermed.
Councilman Senn: Okay, .just for berming purposes.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Storm water ponds, correct.
Councihnan Senn' Okay. That's put it in a perspective better vdth this scale. Okay. You know Colleen, as far
as something happening right along Lyman, you know I'd say yes, I'm open to that. And I agree with you in
terms of landforms that there's a way probably to do that but I don't, my real problem there is I'm not sure it's
industrial as much as it may be.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Neighborhood.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, neighborhood commercial or office. If there were some office neighborhood
commercial. And stuff but something that's much more directly orientated towards the neighborhood and also
I'ln going to say to the size or scope of that southern area that you're talking about.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's fine. I'm looking for a buffer from residential to what we hope to be
industrial south of Lyman.
53
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I support that concept totally. I just think Lyman itself, xvith proper treatments on
both sides, can be that buffer. But at the same tilne there's two ways to accomplish that and we can probably
solve our tax base differential by dealing with it that way so I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, you wanted to sa5' something.
Roger Knutson: One possibility you may want to consider. If you like the idea of residential here but you
don't like, and I don't like to t0ut words in your mouths, but I'm trying to paraphrase...
Councihnan Senn: Why not? You're nn attorney, right.
Roger Knutson: You like the idea of residential. You don't like this plat. If that's a fair statement, the way to
keep your options open would be to table the matter and give them that kind of direction. Don't approve the
comp plan amendment. Don't approve the rezoning until the5' bring back the plan you want.
Kate Aanenson: That's what I thought the motion was. To look at mixed use also. The possibility.
Roger Knutson: But you wouldn't actually al)prove the rezoning or the comp plan.
Councilman Senn: No, I didn't think we were because again, I was asking staff to go back and work to do that
because I'm assuming we can't do both otherwise we lose the leverage to go back and do that.
Roger Knutson: And if you wanted to do that, I'd also recommend you get the applicant's approval of that
process so we don't run atbul of any time line.
Kate Aanenson: We believe that we've got until October 4th.
RogerKnutson: Okay...
Mayor Chmiel: With the motion to table.
.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second that.
Councih-nan Berquist: Can we discuss?
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion.
Councihnan Berquist: Discussion. I still, I think we're going to end up shooting, I'm worried that xve're going
to end up shooting ourselves in the foot. When they get out of control, we're going to approve something
without having kept our comp plan tax base. I still would like to explore a trade off.
Kate Aanenson: That was one of his. The three things that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I said I want a comn~itment from the city that we're going to examine that and look
at it, I mean x'eo' diligently. I mean we have other actions we've taken noxv in the last 5 years, or even more
recently to create some changes, so we ought to look at those.
54
City Council Mecting - August 14, 1995
Councihnan Berquist: I was sleeping.
Councihnan Senn: Sorry to wake you up.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion is to table with the language that was put in. And we have enough time lines as such.
Councihnan Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the comprehensive plan land
use amemhncnt and the rezoning fi~m A2 to RSF and direct staff to work with the applicant to create a better
phm, to make a comnfitment on the city's pm( to look at other parcels of residential land as a trade off so there's
no net loss to the industdal/eonunereial tax base, and also the indicator as it would relate to any development
guanmtees. All voted in favor ami the motion cmvied.
Peter Covle: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. Could we take another 2 minutes to just ask for a little bit of specific
guidance' from Council as to the kinds of uses you're comfortable with so we don't waste your time or stat'Ps
time looking at site designs that are really not of interest to you? ...that our frustration at this point is not really
knowing where that line was and wasn't.
Mayor Chmiel: Well my suggestion would be to contact staff. Have discussion xvith them and we'll get our
input back to them. Okay.
SELECT NAME FOR SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT.
Kate Aanenson: The Senior Commission directed staff to solicit names and an advertisement was put in the
paper to come up with some names and the Senior Commission had recommended some names. Staff also put
some additional ones as noted on the staff report. I guess one of their favorite choices is something with
Centennial and tying in with the city's centennial celebration. They put Centennial Hill but some other choices
would be Centm~nial Heights, Centennial Place, Centennial Residence, Centennial Oaks, you know. The oaks
on the hill. So I think what we'd like to do is the Senior Commission would like to have a name. We
understand from the Carver County, having a name and kind of giving it a sense, a place for marketing, helps in
that whole process so they'd like to have you select a name. If you're uncomfortable with any of the selections,
the Senior Commission is meeting again on Friday if you want to remand something back. But as indicated,
their first choice would be like.
Mayor Chmiel: I have one quick change. I like Centennial Hill but I don't want it to give the hill being they're
over the hill. Or we are over the hill.
Kate Aanenson: No, they like Centennial. No, they also didn't xvant..
Mayor Chmiel: I like Centennial Heights or Centennial Ridge.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or oaks or something like that, sure. There are members of the Senior Commission here.
Councihnan Senn: I think there are two of them have sat here this long, I think they ought to...
Mayor Chmiel: Tell us which one you like.
Councihnan Senn: Centennial Hill, is that xvhat you both want?
55
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Sherol Howard: We like thc idea of Centennial used. We really don't care which way. The first choice of the
majority was Maple Leal' Heights until we heard on TH 101 there's Maple Leaf Acres in the same area. And
we also like Chandler used. The idea of Chan with elders in it so Chandler Terrace. We are just
recommending. Us two personally like Centennial used. But we're only 2 of the 7...
Bernice Billison: And the building will be situation on a hill.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like Centennial Ridge?
Sherol Howard: Unless you like Saddlebrook Overlook.
Kate Aanenson: tleights, Hill, Ridge, View.
Councilman Berquist: I like Hill.
Councilman Senn: Here you've got the chance.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I circled number two last night.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You don't mind being over the hill.
Sherol Howard: No, we're going to be up on the hill.
MayorChmicl: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Do you need a motion for Centennial Hill?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, let's get one.
Councilman Senn: Okay, move it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councihnan Senn moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf secomled to select and approve the name of Centennial
Hill for the Senior Housing building. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can take item 11 and I think we can maybe work 12, 13 and 14 at our next xvork
session. Next Monday night.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF EXTRAORDINARY COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OR
SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN
BOULEVARD.
Don Aslaworth: I had this on consent and Mark had asked that I have item pulled. Hopefully it's fairly clear. I
mean I really don't see any other interpretation on hoxv these extraordinary costs would be paid. Both attorneys
agree. The worst thing we can do is get into a situation where we go into an arbitration and the School District
is saying, well it's the city's fault and the city's turning around saying, it's the school district's fault. In that
56
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
situation, I don't want to say we'll lose but we definitely have divided ourselves and make it much easier to be
conquered. So thc recommendation is approval of the resolution as jointly drafted between the school district's
attorney and our own.
Councilman Berquist: And the amount in contention is 200 and what?
Don Ashworth: I heard 150.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't think it's been finalized yet. It hasn't been finalized yet. It keeps going up.
Councilman Senn: Where is the latest number?
Todd Gerhardt: I think it's in the 200's.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And who's the 76 and who's the 24?
Don Ashworth: The school is 76.
Councilman Berquist: Aud the sentence that refers to, I believe the cost, the city believes the cost of such
would be less than the amount established in the contingency account. The contingency account as I remember
has already been pretty much dissolved.
Councilman Senn: It's gone. Yeah, that was kind of why I asked. That was my question. Hoxv are we going to
pay for this?
Don Ashworth: That was not the comment that Clough gave back to me. There xvere dollars left in the
contingency.
Councilman Senn: Last time we had this before us we okayed I believe...I'm saying over half was spent at that
consideration and the rest was earmarked. That was gone.
Don Ashworth: If you would like to table until Monday night, I'll try to get those answers but that's.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well what affect would that have on our decision?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean I agree with your approach. I mean that's not the question Don. I just would
like to know kind of before you agree to go into a negotiation, you've got to be willing to pay the bill and I just
think Council would, or at least I'd like to know where the money is supposed to come from.
Mayor Chmiel: He's got a deep sock and a couple cans in the back.
Councilman Senn: Well, we have a lot of deep needs too.
Don Ashworth: Could we do this'?. Could I ask for your approval contingent upon me providing a reasonable
response to that question Monday night? So I'll tx3' to find out what the current amount is and why is in
contingency.
City Council Meeting- August 14, 1995
Cour~cilman Senn: And if the contingency's gone, which was only $100,000.00 in the first place, where is the
rest going to come from and what has to be set aside as a result if that happens?
Don Ashworth: It was 5% of the total so I mean it should have been far more than $100,000.00. Unless you
meant our portion. Just our portion.
Councilman Senn: Our portion of the contingency was 100 but like I say...
Todd Gerhardt: Well, we only have 25% of the $200,000.00, or $250,000.00, xvhatever the claim is. That's if
they award the entire amount.
Councih'nan Senn: How much longer can that keep building?
Todd Gerhardt: Well they've been taking depositions so they've got to finalize their numbers. I mean originally
it started off in the $16(I,(100.00 range. When you get into the arbitration case, they always try to build it up to
hope that the arbitrator will cut it in half. So you want to submit as much as you can.
Councilman Berquist: And this came to the floor because Bor-Son was saying that construction permits and
what not were withheld, or were not issued in a timely fashion, is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, that there was a delay in issuing the permit in the beginning was one. That's the only
thing they have a basis for. And there was miscolnmunication betxveen HGA and the school district and Bor-
Son, because it's Bor-Son's responsibility to get the permit.
Don Ashworth: But there was also issues of access to the site. We had in our contract basically said that the
road would be in by the first of the year. It wasn't. That can lead to potential contentions as to losses by the
contractor because he really could not get into the area that they had thought xvould be where he xvould store
stuff and work out of. We continue to believe that most of the delays were created by himself, and just site
conditions. I mean they were out there pumping and pumping and.
Todd Gerhardt: Poor construction methods. Decisions. He had two options. He could have went ahead and
opted to wait until next spring to do brick work, which he gambled and said no. We're going to do the brick
work this t~ll and he gambled and he lost. He couldn't get the brick work done in time. So, all his claims are
for winter construction and heating and making the little looms for the, that need to be heated to put the brick
on.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So on our point it xvas self imposed charges?
Todd Gerhardt: That's the way we feel.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what are our odds?
MayorChmiel: 50/50.
Roger Knutson: I'm a little bit uncomfortable about having a flank open discussion of this subject.
Mayor Chmiel: With that, is there an approval with what Don has indicated?
58
Cit.5' Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, I would move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
COUl~¢ilman Berquist: I'll second.
Resolution #95-82: Councihvonum Dockendoff moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the attached
Resolution as dnffted by both the attorney's for the school district and the city, authorizing allocation of
extmonlinmy costs of construction for the Elemental' School site at Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard, with the
condition that the CiD' Manager repotI back to the Ci0' Council fl~e amount of money in the contingency fund.
All voted in favor ~md the motion canied unanimously.
Don Ashworth: My notes have us meeting Monday night at 5:30.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we have a motion for adjournment?
Councihnan Senn: I'm sorry, what's the issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, why?
Don Ashworth: The audit report. 1994 Audit Report. Would you like us to try to get public safety as well'?.
Councihnan Bcrquist: ...budget concerns.
Don Ashworth: Well the original calendar had us meeting on August 7th with Public Safety and...and I think
the 21 st with two of the other departments.
Councilman Senn: Have they got them prepared?
Don Ashworth: Budget requests went out a little over a week ago and I'll have to check with Pam tomorrow
but, if we put the push on them, I'm sure they could be ready.
Councihmm Benluist lnoved, Couneihmm Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
nmtlon canicd. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
59