CC 1995 05 08CHANHASSEN C1TY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 8, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Mason
and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin AI-Jaff, Bob
Generous, Todd Hoffman, and Charles Folch
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda
with the following amendment, deleting item 3Co). All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 21-27 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC
WORKS WEEK.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a proclamation establishing May 21st through May 27th, 1994 as National Public Works
Week, and that's a typo. It should be '95. It must have been a re-copy. Whereas, public works services
provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and Whereas, the support of an
understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and programs
such as xvater, sexvers, streets and highways, public buildings, solid waste collection and snow removal; and
Whereas, the health and safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities and services;
and Whereas, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities as well as their planning, design and construction is
virtually dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works officials; and Whereas, the efficiency of the
qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public works departments is materially influenced by the people's
attitude and understanding of the importance of the work they perform. Now therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel,
Mayor of the City of Chanhassen, do hereby proclaim the week of May 21 through May 27, 1995 as National
Public Works Week in the City of Chanhassen and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint
themselves with the problems involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which
public works officials make every day to our health, safety and comfort and quality of life. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Resolution #95-52: Councilman Mason moved~ Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
Proclamation establishing May 21-279 1995 as National Public Works Week in the City of Chanhassenc All
voted in favor and the motion carfie~L
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items
pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
d. Renewal of Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Ski Club.
g. Acceptance of Donation for Crime Prevention Program from Pillsbury and Disabled American Veterans.
h. Approve Condemnation Appraisals, Galpin Boulevard Widening Project.
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
i. Approval of Bills.
j. City Council Minutes dated April 24, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 19, 1995
m. Consider Renaming McGlynn Drive to Coulter Boulevard.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Those respective items we will move onto the agenda after, as item number 8.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: We do have somebody here from Creekside. If we want to take that one now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mine will be brief.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If it's not going to take too long.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
2(B). CREEKSIDE ADDITION, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting and the discussion on this item was not recorded.)
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the final plat and final reading of
an ordinance Rezoning the property, approve the Development Contract and Plans and Specifications, and
approve Sanitary Sewer Stub Location to Timbenvood Estates Addition for Creekside Addition, Heritage
Development. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF OUTLOT B AND BLOCKS 5~ 6~ AND 7 OF OAK PONDS 2ND
ADDITION INTO LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ OAK PONDS 4TH ADDITION; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 70 UNIT
SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING~ CARVER COUNTY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Mayor Chmiel: Before I'm going to, well. Maybe xvhat I'll do is take stafPs report first and then I'll go back
and do what I was going to bring up afterwards. Sharmin.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. Brief background on this proposal. Approximately
5 years ago the city undertook an open ended study for seniors in general. One of the findings of the study was
that there was a need for senior housing. The City investigated 13 possible locations. After 2 years of
investigation it was narrowed to 3 sites. The site that was selected was actually selected by the Vision 2002
Committee after an in-depth study which took approximately one year. It was also approved by the Senior
Commission. The Vision 2002 process included several public meetings where this issue was discussed.
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Through the past 5 years this project appeared before the City Council in the form of work sessions, joint
sessions with the Senior Commission, presentation to the City Council after a study was completed, and we also
kept the community updated through newsletter articles and local newspaper. The proposal calls for 63 units to
sit on a site that has an area of 2.2 acres located north of Santa Vera Drive, west of Kerber Boulevard and east
of Powers Boulevard. Access will be provided via a driveway off of Santa Vera Drive which will lead into the
lobby area. A second access off of Kerber Boulevard would direct cars into an underground parking area. The
building was designed in 2 and 4 story steps. Wood frame structure. Exterior materials will be a combination
of brick, vinyl siding and asphalt shingle roof. One of the requests that were made were that the applicants
utilizes a brick similar to what is on City Hall currently. The City Hall has two different types of brick, two
tone which is what we see here with this side. The applicant will be using this brick, which is the bottom one.
The same size as the bottom one. This is the color of the vinyl and this is the shingle. The applicant also
prepared 3 different color schemes. The Senior Commission met and looked at those different schemes and they
basically decided to go with the one located top left comer. And that was their recommendation to the City
Council. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on April 19th. At the Planning Commission
meeting one of the changes that was requested was pertaining to landscaping. The ordinance requires 15%
canopy coverage. The Planning Commission made a recommendation that this canopy be doubled to 30%. The
applicant was also asked to provide an average of 9 feet tall coniferous trees and 3 1/2 inch caliper deciduous
trees. These plans have been revised since the Planning Commission meeting providing that required additional
canopy and size. The only exception is there are 10 burr oak trees which will have a 2 inch caliper. Oak trees
are generally available in the smaller caliper sizes. They are more successfully transplanted and tend to
establish themselves better than larger sized oak transplant. Another change since the Planning Commission
meeting was a retaining wall size located to the north of the building. This retaining wall had a height of 11
feet. It currently has a height of 8 feet. The Planning Commission made a recommendation that the applicant
uses natural material to soften the look of it. The applicant is proposing to go a step further and plant ivy along
the retaining xvall to eventually cover it. One of the main issues that the majority of the neighbors have had
with this building is the height. The height of the building is 44 feet. The ordinance, PUD does not have a
height limit. Hoxvever, the underlying zoning, which is R-12, requires a maximum height of 40 feet. That
would be the only thing that. Because it's a PUD, you do not have a limit as to how high you may go and
that's the main objection. We are recommending approval of this application with the height proposed by the
applicant. Since the Planning Commission meeting they did reduce the height by 2 feet by grading the site
further down by 1 foot and reducing the pitch on the roof which pushed the building down another foot so they
lost two feet off of the height of the building. Again we are recommending approval of this application with
conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you,
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Before we open this up for public comment, there's a letter to the Editor in
this past Thursday's paper with some concerns that I had seen in there, and I asked Don to review this and come
back with some clarification as to some of those things that were written and to do a little research on that to
make sure that I understood what was being talked about was true to the fact so with that, I'd like to just turn
that over to Don and have him address those specific issues. Don.
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Again, tonight's meeting really should deal solely with the site plan
and plat but I think that that may be a little optimistic and I'm sure we are going to get other type of questions
as it may deal xvith the financing, which was a major part of that article. I think the following point should
really be brought up. One, this is a market rate project. Two, there is no subsidy to individuals or units.
Three, the $10 million in project costs will be paid by lease revenues from seniors leasing the facility. Four, the
project was bid in accordance with State law. The cost per unit is $58,000.00. Not the $78,000.00 reported.
Five, only minor contingencies are needed because we do have a firm bid per unit. It's like my house. ! got a
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
finn bid. He built the house. I paid the contractor what I stated I would pay to him. It's no different xvith this
facility. Six. The city did not, did not join with Carver County because of our debt capacity. Our debt
capacity is $15 million. Our actual debt is $2 million. So I mean we have $13 million in capacity, so that was
not correct. Seven. Part two. The City joined forces with Carver County for two reasons. One. Over $2
million can be saved if the bonds are sold by the County. And two, the County and the County's HRA Director
have far more expertise in administering these projects than does the City. Eight. The subsidy from the County
and Cit'), are minor. Less than 2% of the project costs. These are only there because of statutory requirements
for reserves. The project is anticipated to cashflow better than projected and it is my belief that the HRA will
be repaid and those dollars will become available for future projects. Nine. Finally, I have not seen one
professional article that advocates grouping of all senior housing on one site. Most planners, senior advisors,
advocate the opposite. With that I would suggest that we, or maybe the Council has questions of me.
Mayor Chmiel: Were there any questions?
Don Ashworth: Or would like to open it.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I guess I just have one comment. On the agenda it says that we're talking about site plan
review and my personal feeling is that's what we're discussing tonight. Not finances. I mean there's obviously
some issues in the community, and some issues that we need to deal with tonight but I see on the agenda site
plan review and that's xvhere I'm planning on addressing my issues tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Anyone else?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I called the City Manager today and contrary to your opinion, I felt the txvo
issues are inexplicitedly linked so I asked for a statement such as discussing the financing because, xve have
gone over it before but with the site plan review we did need to reduce the number of units and that does affect
the financing, and I appreciate the comments.
Councilman Mason: Oh I don't, as the discussion continues tonight, no. I don't, I think the statements made
tonight are well placed. I just want to be able to stay on task with this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What we'll do is, is there anything that the County has to provide at this particular time?
If not, we can wait until, okay. Until later. Good. Okay, what we'll do is we'll open this up for comments
from those who have some concerns in regard to this proposal. And if you'd come forward and please state
your name and address and your position and I'd like to get about 5 minutes per each person and if there seems
to be more to say, I'll watch that as well. So anyone wishing to address this at this particular time, please step
forward and state your name and your address and your position.
Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve. In the Saddlebrook
development directly north of the proposed site. First of all I want to say, and I think I'm speaking for how at
least most of my neighbors, not all of them, that we welcome senior housing on this site. As long as it's an
appropriate size. Appropriate facility for the small lot that it looks like that it's on. I want to kind of make a
clarification to xvhat was said a little earlier about the senior housing study. I have a copy of it here. As I
understand it this site was not selected. It wasn't even within the original senior housing study. This site, as far
as I -know. I keep up with...xvith this fairly closely xvas, somehow selected late last summer and xvas not
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
included in the original study so the study on this site has not been going on for 5 years or how many years it
was stated. My concern generally is for the size of the building. It is, in my opinion, a 5 story building, even
though you hear 4. Maybe somebody can answer this question. If you take the elevators, there's two elevators.
Can you stop at 5 floors? All 5 of these floors have residences in them where people will be living. So from
my perspective, from my house and from my neighborhood, it's going to' look like a 5 story building. I'd like to
ask another question, and I don't 'know if it's a rhetorical question or what but if the project developer came in
and wanted to build an apartment building on this same site as a standard apartment building, would staff or the
Council, would staff recommend or would Council approve this if this was a private developer, not the city
that's going to develop on this same site. The city in the past has set a precedence on the size of the apartment
buildings in Chanhassen. I don't see 4 or 5 story apartment buildings in Chanhassen and the site selected for
this building is on top of a 50 foot hill. It doesn't have any buffer. No opportunity for buffer for at least the
next 50 years until these burr oaks grow. So if you're going to break the precedence, please don't do it on a hill
that's going to make it appear this building is going to be 100 foot high from my neighborhood. The other
thing I want to talk about is, there was 13 original sites in this study that was done by, I believe Arvid Ellness
Architects about 2 years ago. I wasn't involved in the, or very much involved in how these sites were dropped
off to the west to nothing apparently. But to me...at least 2 or 3 sites that seemed to be recommended by the
consultant who did this study and maybe there are some small problems with these sites but I believe the sites
selected or discussed tonight, there is also problems...and how it affects residents living near the site. Thank
yOU.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Tim. Is there anyone else?
Bruce Clausen: My name's Bruce Clausen. I live on Nicholas Way. I'm a new resident. I don't know anybody
but Mike. I just know Mike because he 'knocked on my door and asked for my vote. Here we are on D-Day
and I hope that the seniors here realize the debt that my generation owes to your generation, so this really isn't
about. I'm here tonight because a neighbor of mine called and said that senior housing development was going
to be built up the street and I said great. That's usually good development~ He said it's going to be 5 stories
tall. I said, you've got to be kidding. And I know I've been involved in other Councils that your body does not
want to go back and rehash things year after year and meeting after meeting~ i've heard 13 sites, 5 years. I will
get up to speed on the details but it just seems, based on the turn-out, that there ought to be more discussion on
this. As I can quickly measure before I came over here, that's something around two times the height of the
new townhomes that I live in. That's pretty tall, especially as the gentleman said, on a large hill. So I just
wanted to, as a new resident, say I think you've guys have done an excellent job of controlling the positive way
of developing the city of Chanhassen. That's why my wife and I moved here. I think that's why a lot of our
friends moved here and hopefully you'll continue to do that and understand that we're in favor of this. I think
we just have to come to some agreement on what aesthetically and commercially and development wise is going
to make the most sense and I hope you will take that under consideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else?
Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister and I live at 7540 Canyon Curve and I guess first of ali I'd like to
address Mr .... letter with regards to figures that I received from the County that showed total project cost of
$5,478,812.00. Cost per unit, which includes financing and construction, $78,263.00 so that figure came right
off the proforma that was prepared I believe last spring...for the city. Also, on the second page of the proforma
it indicates Carver County HRA subsidy of $31,000.00 on the first year of operation. Chanhassen pilot rebate,
$4,627.00 and Chanhassen subsidy of $28,594.00, all in the first year. And that was the figure that I used based
on the information I was given. One other issue, and I didn't have time to reach all of Mr. Ashworth's points
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
there but it's a quote from the newspaper from Thursday, April 27th and it says, Ashworth explained that the
only reason the City didn't bond this project, and I repeat the only reason the City didn't bond the project itself
is because they have multiple other projects during 1995 which put them near the $10 million cap. And I guess
I don't know whether that's a misquote or whatever but that's xvhere I got my information from the newspaper
and from the proforma that was done by Springsted. And some of the other points, yes you were most likely...
where I got the information and I think that I need to have accurate information to go by and I think this
proforma...February 8th '95 and I received it maybe 3 weeks ago. I don't -knoxv even if that's the most updated
one because that one says 70 units and I believe we're at 63 units. I guess that would be my first question. Are
we are at 70 or 63?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: 63.
Mayor Chmiel: We're at 63.
Dave Callister: And I also was rather shocked to see on the agenda that we're discussing preliminary and final
plat tonight. Is that correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Dave Callister: Okay, I xvas aware that we were going to be discussing the preliminary plat and I guess that's
part of my concern that this thing is moving along so rapidly that...
Mayor Chmiel: Let's, we'll have a little order.
Dave Callister: As I reviewed the information, there were many questions and concerns that I did come up
xvith. Many of them were contained in the letter to the editor, as was referred to earlier, but I guess I have a
few other questions regarding this and I guess I don't 'knoxv who correctly to answer them but I'll ask them. Has
the city tried to work with a project developer to develop housing and what was the result of that?
Don Ashworth: We did and in fact I xvould say starting again 5 years ago, most of those were discussions that
we had with potential private individuals but we could, they never could put a project together and the
continuing problem has really been one ot', there's no federal incentives anymore as far as tax deductions. So I
guess the answer is yes, ~ve did look at it.
Dave Callister: And another question regarding the proforma. Are there any hidden operating costs in that
proforma such as the city plowing the par'xing lot, mowing the grass? I mean is it all included as, is it all going
to be all contracted out...so the city isn't going to be...part of the regular operation. Is that a fair statement?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Dave Callister: Okay. Who currently owns the property?
Don Ashworth: Just closed on it and I believe it's in the name of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Dave Callister: Okay, so the city has already acquired the property?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Dave Callister: If that's the case, what would, if this project is not approved, what would the city do with that
property?
Don Ashworth: The HRA believes that the terms under which they acquired that property are very favorable
and that was one of the reasons they made the decision to go ahead and close in advance. Originally when we
entered into the purchase agreement last August-September, we were sure that we would have made a decision
as to the senior housing by I believe May 1st of 1995 and when that date quickly approached, or slowly
approached, whichever, the HRA made a decision that it would go ahead and close on that property even if a
final decision had not been made regarding senior housing. Potentially looking toward affordable housing. I
don't 'know.
Dave Callister: This project is usually one that is ,,veil thought out and is planned out. Planned out carefully
and obviously it takes time to insure that if that's available, site options and financing options are available.
And for those, from some of the comments I've heard, some of those people are saying that we may, they're
saying we must have senior housing immediately and they're also saying that if this proposal doesn't work, then
senior housing is basically done with. I guess I ~vould like to point to an example that I'm aware of that
addresses that. I recently obtained a copy of a City of Plymouth Newsletter and Plymouth has been working on
senior housing for many, many years. 20 years in fact. And they have spent a lot of time doing this. They
have gotten 99 units that opened in October on 5.5 acres of land and they've got the part pretty well, probably
90%-95% occupied so that project is going well. But I just wanted to point out an example that perhaps
Council should take some time to I think look at the issue...other site options and I realize there are concerns
with the seniors that this is never going to be done but I thought maybe we would ask some of the people from
Plymouth about that issue and I've got a quote here that's actually out of their newsletter here from a resident
who has lived there for 54 years and has been working on senior housing for quite some time. She indicated
she was pleased with the results. I'm delighted with what we have now. We have excellent accommodations.
Maybe if we had done it 17 years ago we wouldn't have had such a delightful building. And anybody that
wants to see this and some more information on the Plymouth example is certainly welcome to do that, and
obviously not all projects take 20 years and I would hope that our's wouldn't take 20 years but it's just an
example that it's not something that the city has to act on overnight. I guess in designing this size project on
such a small tract of developable property the only way to make it feasible was to go up and that's, as Mr.
Anderson mentioned earlier, is where the problem in height begins. As a result of having as many units as
possible on the site and so that it exceeds the height requirements. And I realize that the PUD is there for a
reason and there should be some flexibility in zoning requirements to allow for some quality in the construction
and projects but I also don't think you should exceed height requirements or any other requirements on a PUD
when it impacts people who live in the adjacent properties, and that's exactly what this development is doing.
And I would ask if there's ever been a PUD in the years that maybe the staff has been here that has actually
exceeded the height requirements. Is anybody aware of that?
Kate Aanenson: Projects that exceeded the height requirement? Well I'm sure we have. I can't think of...
Dave Callister: Is there a building over 40 feet high in Chanhassen?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sure there's maybe some single family residential that probably excee&
Dave Callister: On...height?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Dave Callister: That are exceeding 42?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Dave Callister: The point is there's no, nobody seems to remember and nobody knows if something's exceeded
that and the point I'm making is there's a possibility in Chanhassen that it will be on top of a big hill and it will
be right in the back of many people's yard and abutting a single family zone. I'll just quickly move through this
here and my 5 minutes is probably up but it appears in this project, along the way, has taken the most expensive
route. Mainly due to limitations on the site. When you have a hard to develop site, your costs increase and
that's pretty obvious. There are increased costs because of the extensive grading and constriction of retaining
xvalls. An increased cost in the...configuration of the underground parking. It doesn't follow the building
footprint exactly so there's extra cost in excavating and establishing increased underground parking. Increased
costs due to constructing 4 stories instead of the usual 3. Increased costs due to non-competitive bidding, and I
guess that's probably one that Don and I will probably have to discuss...but that's one of the issues here...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Dave Callister: ...options that were indicated on the study were kind of pulled from the study and apparently, I
think the studies that the staff requested that they be pulled. Well maybe they ,,',,ere good sites, maybe they
weren't but the point is, they xvere pulled without further discussion and I guess I have a problem with that. In
closing this is obviously a very important issue and it's also a very emotional issue for many, and
understandably so. However, I urge the Council to set aside the emotions and use common sense when making
a decision regarding this project. Please take some time to look at other sites as well as ways to reduce the
financial costs and risk on this particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else?
Matthew Hoffman: My name is Matthew Hoffman. I live at 931 Saddlebrook Trail, also in the Saddlebrook
development just to the north of the property. I just have a few miscellaneous... I'm still coming up to speed on
the whole thing. I've been ignoring it for a little while and it didn't go away so here I am. Basically I am,
they're all in the form of questions. Some of them are questions, some of them aren't. I'll just ask them and
you can deal xvith them as xve go and figure out later. I've got a question for somebody on city staff, I'm
assuming. As far as fire equipment in toxvn. Adequate fire equipment for a 40 foot building...Does the
Planning Department, plant canopy is determined by, on plant material, is that as installed or is that mature
canopy or how is that figured?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: As installed.
Matthew Hoffman: As installed. Elevations of the top of the building. Is there an elevation available for the
top of the building?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: Yes, it's right herb.
Matthexv Hoffman: Okay. As long as it's there and then how does that compare with anything in town in the
future in town in the planning?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Okay, there is also another, what they did is they took the building and they included it on...
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Matthew Hoffman: Okay, but is that elevation available?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes.
Matthew Hoffman: Okay. And as far as elevations to the top. What is the...highest point in town?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: I have no idea.
Matthew Hoffman: That was just a curiosity of mine. One thing that I guess I've thought of, being self
employed in private industry. Private industry usually subs out money making projects based on some help,
some of it don't but why doesn't a project in this case, if it's going to be a cash flow, money making venture...
why does the city feel they need to be the developer, for lack of a better word, for this project? Either on this
site or on any site? Is there an ansxver for that one?
Don Ashworth: The work that we've completed before, again as a non-profit type of a project, it works and you
can develop market rate rents that are affordable for the seniors but if you try to turn it into a private project, it
gets beyond the rent standards that they could reasonably pay.
Matthew Hoffman: So how does the city or county or the HRA reduce their cost compared to private industry?
Don Ashworth: Well two ways. One is that you're not really looking for the city to try to make a profit off of
this facility. And two, as a senior housing project that would operated governmentally, the taxes that it would,
well it's not what it normally would generate but what they call a pilot, a payment in lieu of a tax, literally goes
back into the project and helps reduce the cost of it and that was one of the points that Dave was bringing up.
Matthew Hoffman: Not the same but let's say in general.
Don Ashworth: There is a property tax payment that's figured into the rents but it's a lot less than ~vhat it
would be if it were private and then that tums back and becomes a revenue for the project as wells
Matthew Hoffman: I'm trying to follow it. That's one area I think that...stated that we're not really here for but
it's going to be an issue so I think the public can probably benefit from a little more information on how it all
works. Another finance one that I had a question on, I'm a small contractor. The bid process that the city went
before this. I get the construction...and I never saw anything about it and granted there's other ones out there to
go through that I don't subscribe to or get but I'm just curious. I never heard about it. It looked, what I read,
what the information I saw come past me and I didn't dig, that it was the developer of the townhomes in the
city...that was the first impression I got. It's probably far from true. You stated that the State process was
followed. I'm curious what the State process is and whether it's a long, drawn out one. If we could get a quick
overview...
Don Ashxvorth: Okay. Why don't you finish your questions and then what I would like to do is call on Frank
Dunbar to kind of go through what the State Statute does provide as far as senior housing. Why that has proven
to be the most cost effective way to carry out this type of housing. And also, what bids were taken.
Matthew Hoffman: Okay. One point that I xvas aware of when the townhomes in that area first came through.
I've been involved in that a little bit. There xvas concern about it but not to the point that I was xvild about it or
anything. I xvas just watching the progress of it and what was going on in the city with its This went from a
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
townhome unit development, and I know there was some controversy when the townhomes went in, to noxv a
larger senior unit. How did that come about?
Don Ashxvorth: Kate, could you respond to that one?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. That property was zoned PUD and was given a maximum units per acre. What we did
is we transferred the density. There were rental projects on there. Those were turned into a different type
product and the density that was given for that area, which would be adjacent to Powers, was shifted over to get
the density for x number of units for housing.
Matthexv Hoffman: And what was the driving force for that?
Kate Aanenson: Well right, now we're reviewing a senior housing project but there is x number of units
available.
Matthexv Hoffman: But xvhat drove the senior housing project in there from the townhomes?
Kate Aanenson: Desire to find a location for senior housing.
Matthew Hoffman: Desire by what2 Is that of the city or is it the desire of...
Kate Aanenson: Well that's what the whole discussion has been about. We xvent through a 5 year.
Matthew Hoffman: But this xvasn't even one of the sites that the study included.
Kate Aanenson: Well if you xvanted to take time to give you all the background, ~ve'd be happy to do that. We
could take a few minutes and do that. How we got to that site.
Matthew Hoffman: Yeah. I mean that is a curiosity that I have and...
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well as sites got narroxved down and we can go through the history of why some of the
sites xvere eliminated based on the going property rates in town, which are escalating very fast for commercial
property. Byerly's was given high priority. That area right there xvas based high priority based on the proximity
to City Hall and services that seniors could get to. The Byerly's project happened very fast. They came in and
that was one of the sites and the city couldn't get in a position to go in and buy that piece of property with the
rates going up. So based on the desirability of that area, this became another piece of property that kind
fulfilled that same need as far as proximity to existing services that are being provided by the seniors so the city
was proactive and decided to look at the possible acquisition of that property.
Matthew Hoffman: So the city was...
Kate Aanenson: And also through the Vision 2002. That whole process was, numerous public meetings.
Everyone in the city was mailed a copy of that document. There were surveys taken. As far as that whole
process to talk about this xvas another alternative site for senior housing so that was a whole other year of
process where everybody in the city got mailings on that.
10
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Matthexv Hoffman: The last I was aware it xvas a townhome unit and then I saw in the paper that all of a
sudden it ~vas a senior housing unit.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's been talked about for at least a year in the Vision 2002.
Matthew Hoffman: My last, well I guess not my last. The site options of why was this site identified, or wasn't
in the study. Why is it now the best site?
Kate Aanenson: I think I just answered that.
Don Ashworth: Really repeat Kate's point and that is, we did identify this Vision 2002 process. There were a
number of issues. You 'know should City Hall expand and include library? What should happen with the Post
Office? What should happen with Senior Housing? As we went into those meetings, I'm sure all 13 sites were
identified before those groups. This was a site that was added, I would say at approximately that time and it
emerged as the top one.
Matthew Hoffman: Yeah. I guess here's my last...this process seems like, to me at least, that the residents, I've
lived here for 6 years or better, as far as...I can remember when Eckankar first came to town. It ~vas a fairly
large issue with ~vhat sort of landscaping involved there .... they said 7 years down the road. Well ~ve're at 6
and it doesn't even look close to ~vhat the CAD drawings showed and what you hear. This process is going so
fast. It took me 6 months to get a variance for a 12 x 16 shed on our lot. It seems like this is going a lot
faster. It just seems something that the public...rm concerned about myself and I think there's a lot of people in
the community that are, especially in the area that is directly affected by it. That's all. I just had some
ramblings about it and ! just was curious. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Anyone else?
Jack Thien: My name is Jack Thien and I live at 7570 Canyon Curve. I guess maybe like a lot of us I have a
personal stake in this in the fact that my house is directly, the back of my house is the direction of this project.
I guess my concern is also the height... I was ~vondering, is this the rendition that was supposed to have been
done so that everyone could take a look at...
Sharmin A1-Jaff: This one.
Jack Thien: Okay. Can xve show it on camera?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Jack Thien: Then I'd also like to ask all of you here if you've had a chance to stand on Canyon Curve and look
from that level. Has everyone?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I have.
Jack Thien: Is it inappropriate to ask what you thought about that?
Councilman Berquist: Are you questioning the accuracy of it?
11
City Council Meeting o May 8, 1995
Jack Thien: No, no, not that. I haven't seen it so I don't 'know. It looks pretty small. I don't knoxv, xvhat are
your thoughts about that? Do you think that that's what it really looks like or will look like?
Councilman Berquist: I think the rendition is a little bit skewed. I think it looks like it's further away than it
will bet
Jack Thien: Can I ask maybe to move it to another area here. I'd like to, if any of the senior citizens can get
up...personally I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on a 4 or 5 story building. You 'know, how many of you
want to live on that? I guess that's it for me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jack. Anyone else?
Don Ashworth: Do you want Frank Dunbar to speak on the other issue?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, if you could just one second. If you could just hold for one second in order to have Frank
address some of those specific issues that have been asked.
Frank Dunbar: I'm going to have to have them repeated...
Don Ashworth: Three issues. State Statute as it deals with the process. The recognition of this type of process
itself. Two, the bidding process that we did use and three is the $58,000.00 per unit, is that an accurate
number?
Frank Dunbar: I'm going to let Barbara...speak to the State Statute and then I'll speak for the other two.
Don Ashxvorth: Okay,
Barbara ?: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Barbara...bond counsel on the issue...The general
statutes with respect to...there is exception for...development project such as this. In the event that they will be
on land that will be owned by a...for development purposes and in the event that they...
Mayor Chmiel: Could you bring that mic up just a little bit more. I'm sure some of our members can't hear.
Barbara .9: There is an expressed exception for this kind of financing if the project is financed with funds
issued...The thought of the legislature were, this will be a revenue bond...the ability to work with the contractor
to make sure that the one project...just to tell the contractors that they have to...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Frank Dunbar: The process that we did was xve asked three contractors, Krauss-Anderson from Minneapolis,
Krohn Construction of Eden Prairie and Weiss Construction of Bloomington and Rochester who, three of them I
think have built most of the...family housing in the metropolitan area the last 5 years. The majority. In fact
Krohn is the one xvho built the Plymouth facility that xvas financed and put together under the exact same
program, which was supposed... We put out the bid I think it was in late February. We gave them 4 weeks to
solicit all...Not any of the work physically done on the site is done by those contractors. They sub-bid every
trade throughout the spec and we received multiple bids on ever3, aspect of the development from grading to
sheetrock to drywall, plumbing and heating. They compiled those bids and Weiss came in low at $58,000.00
12
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
per unit. Krohn came in second and Krauss-Anderson came in third. It was selected Weiss was the low bid. It
was a guaranteed maximum contract. 100% bonded with a contractual term of no change orders permitted and
liquidated damages of $1,000.00 a day that it's not delivered on the stated date. Third question.
Don Ashworth: As far as I know that was it but.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
Senior Citizen Representative: I ain't got much to say but.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you please state your name and your address.
Senior Citizen Representative: I'm a senior citizen and I've been working on this project for 5 years. Since !
was out here with this group and we have looked at every place...all different types. From my park, I looked so
much I had a heart attack that I finally couldn't join the group. Now I'm just 83 years old and just a youngster
yet and I think that you've done a good job in the way the unit looks. It's about time they quit asking questions.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Greg Hromatka: My name's Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve. I've either spoken with all of the
Council members or...over the course of time here. I've got a picture we brought here. This is my deck. I
offered to let the person xvho's taking the picture use my deck. I thought he'd get a much better perspective if
he wanted to take a look. I just took a couple of photos and this CAD one taken off the deck. You see a much
different perspective in that picture alone than you would get onto here. We took, a few years ago when rental
proposed in this area and actually I've got a little less than a 10 minute film that some of you have seen before.
We won't go into that but we xvere holding a 30 foot pole just to get perspective of what was planned at that
time. And now you're talking double. I mean it was raised at the time. The issue of transition and etc and
height and... Lastly, I'm not going to...I just picked up my parents from a hotel. They were on the 7th floor
and the fire alarm went off. My parents aren't 82 years old. Closer to 70 but it was the middle of the night. 5
stories in the middle of the night. I don't know ~vho's prepared to truck on down there in their pajama's.
There's a better way to do this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Sherol Howard: My name is Sherol Howard. I'm with the Senior Commission and I just wanted to make one
comment. We on the commission, which was appointed by the Council, have thoroughly investigated all the
sites. We keep hearing about, let's go investigate the sites. They have been investigated. We could compile a
list, if necessary, with reasons why each and every one was rejected and this site came into being through the
2002 project and seemed to fill all of our requirements. And we did not find it that easy to find the other sites
and I don't think there are further ones to investigate.
Councilman Berquist: Excuse me Sherol, may I ask one question?
Sherol Howard: Yes.
13
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilman Berquist: You probably know better than anyone. Hoxv many years before Chanhassen needs
additional senior housing?
Sherol Hoxvard: Oh, I xvould have no idea but we have been told by experts that it is not a good idea to build
two senior properties close to each other. That they are much better receptive. One has it's own identity and
does not want to share it with a newcomer next door to it and so we've been told that it isn't a good idea to
build two so that's why we're not concerned about expansion on it. In later years if they need another one. By
this time we will have sewage farther out and there will be more spots available. We could not go south.
Several spots were eliminated because they were south of Highway 5 and we were told that was a natural barrier
that we did not xvant to have the seniors to have to cross so that eliminated several sites. We stayed within the
area which had a city sewer and in future years that will give us more spots. I'm sure they'll need another one
in future years but we do need one now and I think most of you know, we haven't rushed into this really. It
may seem that xvay in the final process but it's been slow going. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Just a quick one. Sharmin. I keep hearing everybody saying 5 floors. Above
grade, xvhat I see are 4 floors and the fifth floor being the parking area. Is that correct?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: No, it's actually four floors.
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: It is actually four floors.
Mayor Chmiel: Four floors.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. For what ~ve see. The other is doxvn below grade as a parking area that could represent
the fifth floor, as they're saying, but it's not shown from grade level up. Correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Yes.
Barbara Montgomery: My name is Barbara Montgomery and I've been around here for about 35 years and I
guess I've heard the saying...Chanhassen has been a wonderful place to live and I have great respect for the
Council and their staff, as well as the ones that preceded and there was a whole lot of work that went into the
project by the former members and I think ;ve need to respect their decision. Respect the fact that they really
did study this. They didn't just...and I .just want to say that it is rather...to feel that all of a sudden all that great
work is being disregarded. And I think it really needs to be given the respect that it's due. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Barbara.
Dale Larson: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name's Dale Larson. I live at 7590...Trail,
Saddlebrook Addition. My family and I moved here probably 2 years ago in April. We viewed a lot of...and
chose Chanhassen for the feel of the community...the only thing that I would ask is that it be considered xvhat
xve look at. I'm really, I have a concern about the height of the building. My deck faces this property and I
14
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
really...think they'll make excellent neighbors but all I'd ask is that this project be given some consideration in
terms of the enormity that xve'll be looking at. There's got to be some alternatives...as far as making it more
aesthetically acceptable. I know when I built my deck the city was very concerned about what my deck looked
like...
Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Can we make clarification on the height issue here?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We wanted to show an elevation. As you can see there are four stories and just to show, this
is the west elevation. On the south elevation there are four stories only. This is the parking. Underground
parking and here are the apartments. On top of those apartments there are three stories so you have a total of
four stories. That was all. Thank you.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Councilwoman Dockendorf: ...on the option sites there is a list because I have seen a list of all of the different
sites that were looked at and the reasons that they were rejected and I think it gets, again those are also
subjective. Some are subjective. Some are concrete, like the land is gone. I think we're running into more and
more of that where pieces of property, and our objective is to keep it close to downtown which you run into a
lot of commercial sites and those disappear very quickly and they're expensive so we're up against that cost.
But I know that there is a list of all of the original sites and all of the sites that came up after the original ones
were looked at and why they were rejected for whatever reason or another so if anyone is looking for that, it
does exist. At this specific site plan I would be interested in seeing what it would look like and what it would
do to the number to keep it shorter and squatter. But on this specific one, I'm not so concerned about the
additional 4 feet from our standard of 40 feet. I do happen to agree that that computer rendering doesn't seem
accurate to me but that's just an impression. No one has mentioned the landscaping and I just wanted to say
that I think it was thoroughly gone over by the Planning Commission and a lot was added and I think it's more
than adequate. I' don't have any problem with the quality of materials. Again, that becomes a balancing act.
How much do you spend in making it look a quality building and I think we've done a good balancing act with
that. So I guess in summary, I'm not dissatisfied with this building but I guess Steve, along with you, I would
like to see what a difference it would be if we changed the elevation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well we've waited 5 years. Two more weeks probably won't make a whole lot of
difference at this point. I've been on Council almost 5 years now. I have vague memories of when this all
started and to say that this has not been well planned out or well thought out or well conceived, quite honestly
is a misconception. Somewhat understandable because when processus like these get started, they do after a
while develop momentum of their own but this has been going on for 5 years. There have been articles in the
Villager on and off that whole time dealing with the needs of our senior community and because it's needs of
senior community, it's also needs of Chanhassen. As I'm listening to all of the discussion, and I think it's been
very well stated. I think it's been very well placed. I've heard things like, what is the character of the
15
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
community. What is the feel of the community? I don't consider myself an old timer in this community. I've
lived here for 8 years. I've been married to, excuse me. I still am married to a woman, and hopefully still wilt
be after tonight. Depending on what time I get home. To a family that's lived in the community for 22 years.
When I first started coming into this neck of the woods, Saddlebrook wasn't there. And quite honestly, I was
appalled xvhen Saddlebrook went in. And I was appalled when Triple Crown went in, which is right there right
next to where I live. The evolution that this community has gone through in the last 2 years, let alone the last
8, let alone the last 15, let alone the last 22, is phenomenal. And it hasn't stopped yet and it's going to continue
to evolve until everything gets built and hopefully it will evolve after that. I would hope, as a fairly progressive
community, it will continue to evolve. What's the character of the community? What was the character of
Chanhassen 8 years ago? What's the character of Chanhassen today? These are all questions that we're
grappling with. Where this site, in my opinion is extremely appropriate for senior housing. I was at most of
those Vision 2002 meetings. I do kno~v why the other sites weren't chosen. I think it's imperative that senior
housing is close to do~vntown, and I think it's imperative that it's on the side of Highway 5 that it's on. This
Saddlebrook is 2 blocks away, 3 blocks away from downtown Chanhassen. It's not a rural area. I think you
could argue ~vhen you folks first built there, arguably it was. It's not now and it won't be and I think these are
some issues xve all have to grapple with. Who decides what appropriate size is? Well we're charged with that
and hopefully from input xvith you folks and you folks and you folks and everyone here will come up with that
right decision. I certainly xvould like to see what it would look like with 3 stories as opposed to 4 but then we
have to balance the financial issues xvhich are a concern of everyone, to your view. Clearly that has to be done
and if that comes to an either or, those again are some hard decisions that have to be made. I went through
pretty carefully on this one, the Planning Commission Minutes on this. Ladd Conrad, who was one of the
dissenting votes, who has been on the commission a long time and whom I have an awful lot of respect for,
made the comment that if the difference of 4 feet would kill the project, he didn't think that it should be killed.
I happen to agree with that. We do have that 40 foot standard and it's there for a reason. I have heard other
people say on this Council many times that these things need to be looked on an individual basis. I question
the difference from anyone's viewpoint, whether they could tell the difference between 40 feet or 44 feet. Now
from that distance I could be wrong. That's a whole nother issue. I xvould like to see, and I know this quote is
good until the first of June. I agree with Steve and Colleen that I would like to see what it would look like as 3
stories, as opposed to 4. But I certainly, back tracking a minute here to Colleen's comment about landscaping
and the doubling of the canopy. And yes, it will take time. Any of us that have planted trees in our yards
successfully, or in my case unsuccessfully sometimes, knows that it does take time. That's the trouble I think
xvith being next door to a nexv development. Just like I was before Triple Crown came in. Just like people
were before Saddlebrook. Just like, just like, just like. It is an evolution. But I would like to see xvhat that
looks like but I share Councilwoman Dockendort's feelings on the financial package. It needs to happen and I'm
comfortable with it happening there and I knoxv we need to have some sort of decision by June 1, is that right?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Mason: So I'm.
Don Ashworth: Well your costs go up after June 1.
Councilman Mason: Well right. To hold the contract, we need a decision by June 1 and my understanding is
that would be fairly important. So I hope, it's easy for me to make those comments not living in Saddlebrook.
However I, many of you have heard this before and I'll try not to bore too many people but where I first moved
to Carver Beach, there were 2 homes there and I lived in the xvoods. Well, I don't live in the xvoods anymore.
16
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Well, kind of I do but this community is evolving and this community is changing and we need to deal with
that in the best way we can. I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Maybe this is overly simplistic but you know, I agree this has been through a very long
process. I'm sorry now that some people think that there's, I'm going to say back trac'king simply because
questions are being raised and concerns are being expressed. I think that's what good public process is, you
'know because that's what I think we should all be going through. I think the underlying flaw that everything is
really coming down to here at the end is the flaw that through this entire process of site selection, okay. Not
once did I ever hear the issue raised, the building envisioned or anything else to be a four to five story building.
You know I attended a lot of meetings. I attended a lot of work sessions. I looked at a lot of pretty slides at
one and two story townhome types of developments or single story types of development for senior housing and
that's what I xvas envisioning going forward on this thing because that's what we were being shown. I don't
think the issue here is whether the building's 40 or 44 feet, to be quite honest with you. I think the issue is
whether a building of this size belongs on that site and if you want to put density on that hill. I think we need
senior housing. You know we can go so far as to say I think we need senior housing now. I think everyone
agrees to the urgency of that. But now that the building has surfaced, I think we need to build to the, well.
Well, we need to marry the building to the site and I'm not sure we've really done that yet. At the last meeting
when we started to talk about financing, I raised the issue of possibly making the building a little shorter and a
little fatter and stuff to help solve that issue. I think we really, you know I share with what Steve says. ! think
we really need to take a hard look at that. And at the same time I know a lot of people, especially the seniors
are growing impatient and I don't blame you after 5 years but I think we really need to review the assumptions
that went into the decisions that we've made and by doing that, either reaffirming the decisions we've made or
alter the decisions we've made. And if that means throwing the stuff out, shuffling it up and trying to get the
site size, the building size and the economics to all get married again, to make this site work, I don't think that's
a waste of time to go through and do that. In fact I think we should spend the time and do it because I think
above all, the worse approach is to say gee, we picked the site. Now we've designed a building. Maybe the
two don't work the best together but simply because of time we're going to force them to work together. To me
that's a bad decision making process. I think the things need to marry together and they need to marry together
well because I think in the long run that's going to be what's best for the seniors, what's best for the
neighborhood and I think what's best for the city of Chanhassen. As far as the financing issues which, you
'know really aren't at least current issues on the table. That's been decided. I mean I have questions on that but
my questions as it relates to the economics of this thing, really relate to affordability and above all I just want to
make sure that this project is affordable to the seniors that need to utilize the facility. And in my mind all those
questions haven't been answered yet. In fact the last lady who I think got up and spoke about the, not being
able to afford parking here in town and having to move down to Jonathan, that again raises that concern for me
because these units are going to be more expensive than a lot of the apartments in town. At least from the
proformas I've seen. But again, that can be answered. I just I would like to really make sure from your minds
that the affordability thing is not an issue and I haven't really heard from a lot of it on it but I have heard from
a few and I've heard split opinions on that one. But I think before we get back to that part of it, again I think
we really need to marry the building, the site together and if that means taking a little more time to look at that,
to do it, I think we ought to take the time to do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Resident: Can I ask a question? How tall is that building...that new one here right across from Chan View?
17
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. Does anybody have any idea?
Resident: Because that seems like that is quite tall and that's put in amongst a mixture. The apartment building
I live in. There's another one and then another one and then you've got just plain homes. I mean bungalows or
xvhatever and I can't see what difference it's going to make. I've often xvondered how tall that xvas.
Mayor Chmiel: 'I have no idea. Staff have any idea at all?
Don Ashworth: Actually that was brought up out of the ground so I would say that's taller.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're saying that could be possibly taller than.
Don Ashworth: Well if you recall, that building over here is actually brought out of the ground. I'd say a good
4 feet. We'll get that answered.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. It comes back to this side of the fence. I think rather than go into a lot of reiteration as
to what everyone has said, I thought that sites that we've looked at where either denied because of some water
problems or whatever. Sites that were on the other side of TH 5, as was mentioned, was not to be considered
because the accessibility of the downtoxvn and that's what I really envisioned this proposal as being... A nice
short xvalk for them to provide them all the service needs that they basically have for post office, groceries,
whatever their basic needs are within. Those who xvould go to St. Hubert's, it's a close location as well. So to
me there's a lot of plus aspects to this. Senior housing's needed. There's no question in my mind, being that
I'm the senior on Council. But there is that need and I think that that location is set, at least in my mind, for
that basic construction of this facility. Now we have been toying back and forth and trying to come up with
some conclusions from last xveek to this week and yet we've really not reached not much of anything except for
the one aspect that has been brought up. The height of that facility, they lowered it 2 feet from the 44 to 42.
4(; to 44? Well yes, that's right. 46 to 44 as opposed to 44 to 42. But they did louver that 2 additional feet.
And I see that as a facility that xvill accommodate those seniors xvithin this community which I think we do
have a certain amount of obligation to provide for them. If we can scrunch that down and the costs don't really
vary that much, then that's something I think we can really look at. You were going to say.
Jack Dunbar: I just want to clearly understand you. If I take the fourth floor off, I have to find a home for 19
units and that would mean that, if you wanted to me add those to the west side of the building, I would go well
beyond the current sidewalk... The building is four stories here and four stories here. Are you saying that I just
need to lower the four stories on the north side and leave this four stories the way it is?
Councilman Senn: Well because the roof line comes out the top of the third story on the other building.
Jack Dunbar: So that means I have to take 19 units and add them to the end of the building and I don't believe
there's room on the...that would give 12 more units and I'd have to find another space for another 7 units.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, how did we get from 70 to 63?
Jack Dunbar: We just dropped off a bay of units, four stories on both sides. We did it on both sides...because
on the lower side of the hill we had four on this side and 3 on this side. That's 7 so we took those 7 off the
last bay. And if you want me to add that bay on, I can add 7 more units on and I can go back out but I've got
19 units on the fourth floor because you're telling me I've got to drop it to a three story 'building. I've got to
18
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
find a home for 19 units. That L shaped building has 19 units in it. I don't 'knoxv how the mathematics work
out to get these, the 19 units in a three story structure. That doesn't work. I can take the north side...
Kate Aanenson: I think it xvould make more sense if you spoke from the overhead.
Jack Dunbar: I just, before the discussion, I just wanted to make sure I clearly understand. This is a typical
floor. I have 8 on this four story structure. I have 10, or 11. Excuse me. 9. 9 on this structure. If you want
me to take that whole floor off, then I've got to take that total number of units and I've got to add them over
here. The 7 I took off simply took us to that point. I have one here. Three stories up and I had one here four
stories up. That's 7. So if you want me to add this whole floor here, I'd have to be way out here. So ! can't on
the building take and replace the whole fourth story. And I don't think I can add it out here.
Councilman Senn: If you shift it a little bit the other way you could.
Jack Dunbar: You mean if I drove it further north?
Councilman Senn: Driving it a big distance. You're talking about driving it, you've got a distance there
between there and the setback. All we're doing is saying look at the options...
Jack Dunbar: I was focusing only on this site.
Councilman Senn: Well we xvant you to look at both ends or any ends to do it.
Jack Dunbar: If you want me to push it further down the hill.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks for that clarification. Okay, so we're at a point of discussion. Is there any
motion on the floor?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question, because I'm uncertain. Have we looked at all the options? !
mean given the concerns of the neighbors and we've 'kno~vn about their concerns for quite a while. Have we
looked at the alternatives of shaving off a story and moving it around? Has it been thoroughly researched? I
mean I don't want to delay this when it's already been looked into.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We've looked at reducing the grade on the site. We ran into a problem with access into the
underground parking. We looked at the design of the roof and we were able to shave another foot, but
eliminating an entire floor, no. We really have not looked at that. We looked at different designs such as a U
shaped building. We ran into problems with that also. We looked at different shapes of an L shaped building
and again, there were problems with every option.
Kate Aanenson: Well there's trade-off's. That's really what it comes down to and...it's not going to fit without a
variance so there's going to be a trade-off and that's xvhat you'll have to decide, what the trade-off should be.
Councilman Senn: And what I was judging after last meeting was, staff kind of went away thinking that we
really need to avoid variances. I mean that wasn't my.
Kate Aanenson: No, I think that issue has always been a driving force. To keep it up the hill as much as
possible. Okay, that's always been, certainly the imposing of the height is an issue. That's always been an
19
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
issue. We're aware of that and we tried to soften that `,vith additional landscaping. The Planning Commission
even added to that and do some things as Sharmin indicated. There were false chimneys to put on. Changing
the roof line. Even the colors. Spent a lot of time re-doing colors. All those things to minimize the visual
impact. But I think to try, as Sharmin indicated, we were trying to stay ~vithin the, minimize the variances so it
seems, but sure. That would be a trade-off. Reducing it. That would work if the numbers, you would have to
decide that. If it ~vould be more palatable to have it closer to the street and get the units that way, then the
height, then that's something certainly, they're willing to do that, sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we table this until next meeting and have those options brought back to
us so we could take a look at them.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'd second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table action on the preliminary and final plat of
Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6 and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition and
Site Plan Review until the next City Council meeting for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to see us come up with that conclusion so we can either put this center in or not
put it in. But I think we're going to have to really address that with the height aspect. See what we can do.
Thanks for coming. We're going to take a 5 minute recess.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF 36 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS~ HIGHI,ANDS AT
LAKE ST. JOE; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY~ NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND SOUTH OF LAKE ST. JOE, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION; AND
APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTIONS PLANS AND SPECWICATIONS FOR
HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST. JOE~ PROJECT 93-31.
Kate Aanenson: The City Council gave preliminary plat approval back in July. Excuse me, yeah. Preliminary
plat in July and then final plat in October. As you're aware, the most westerly portion of this property falls into
the jurisdiction of Victoria so negotiations were held on this. Subsequent to that, the applicants have
requested...Through our meetings with Victoria and how this most westerly property should be serviced, it
became clear that Victoria felt they could service this area, which is the Burrow-Lano property, so we eliminated
the stub street. The other change would then be to take, they have acquired the back half of the Roy property
and this originally ,,vas an outlot. This portion right here. Keeping this portion here and now it's been added...
additional lot so there's one lot added here and then this additional lot added to the outlot. There will be two
more lots than the original. The other major change, which has caused a couple different versions of this is the
storm water calculations. The reasonable plat that we reviewed included 36 acres. That original survey went
out into Lake St. Joe. If you look on page 3 of the Planning Department's staff report, under storm water fees,
it says the total gross area of the property is 36. That's been struck out and it's actually 27.3 so the storm xvater
calculations is based on that number minus the wetlands and the like so it's reduced their storm xvater
20
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
calculation fees. Noxv xvhen this plat originally came through, the storm xvater fee wasn't in place. Since they
are replatting the properties when they subdivide, that's the time that the storm water fees are calculated. They
are not platting the 9 lots that would be partially into Victoria at this time. So the plat has a total of 37. At
this time the 9 lots are excluded so only 26 lots are being platted and 2 outlots. So the outlots include all of
this area up here and then this outlot here against Minnewashta Parkway. The rest of the conditions are pretty
much the same. A landscaping plan was provided. That was an issue that former Councilman Wing had as far
as the views looking across Minnewashta Parkway because of the height of those buildings. Softening the backs
of those so additional landscaping, that condition has been met. So we are recommending approval of
preliminary and final plat with the modifications that you have. With the conditions in the staff report with the
dates so noted, including the landscaping plan. And then also on the 3(b), the change as far as the amount of
dollars for the storm water fees to be collected. That's all we had. Excuse me, 4(b).
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I have a clarification? So we're doing a preliminary plat on 35 and two
outlots. Excuse me, 34 lots and two outlots but a preliminary and final only on 26 and two outlots?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you said that so clearly. Okay. Terry. Is there anything that you'd like to say at this
time? And if you could, time is fleeting. Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Terry Forbord, Vice President at
Lundgren Brothers, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata, Minnesota, 55391. There's really only one issue
here and that has to do with what has been previously mentioned, the pre-fees for the storm water...because time
has gone by and the city has a new ordinance that was not in effect when we optioned the property and when
we initially final platted the property so subsequently we are burdened with a cost that we obviously were not
aware of at the time that we initiated this process. And effectively really what we've done in trying to improve
the platting...and make that a better neighborhood, we end up with an additional fee of $30,000.00 that clearly
was not a part of the initial plan. So from our standpoint, this put us in obviously a difficult position and our
position has been, I believe the city has the discretion to do this, was to waive that fee. Now if the city elected
that for whatever reason that that is not correct, well then maybe a more fair situation is that we pay the fees on
two additional lots that were added to the plan because the initial plat didn't have the fees_.so maybe those are
the two lots. I don't want in any way to be misunderstood. The city has been exceedingly cooperative in
working on this plat over the last 2 or 3 years as we've tried to resolve a number of issues relating to
boundaries, etc, so I don't want to be misunderstood or misrepresent what our position. Our position only has to
do with the fact that during this process, while we've been in the process with this project with the city, a new
ordinance has...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just let me ask one quick question. The platting that you have for this was never
entered into the County? Sometimes that's the name of the game unfortunately. Okay, Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this particular proposal? Any due concerns? ! see a
couple neighbors there. Okay. If not. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm feeling pretty smart. I have questions on all of the things that got changed on
the reviSed. I'm beginning to think I might be able to pick this up after 4 years~ No, I really don't have any
21
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
questions that haven't been ansxvered by the revised notes. Except I just wanted to say, I understand where
you're coming from Terry. I had a situation where we had a new mechanical code put in force in March which
was well after we had bid a project and there is no grandfather clause on ordinances apparently so, sometimes
we all have to eat some money. The planning, is the plat question that you answered, that was his
responsibility? Lundgren Brothers' responsibility to go down to the courthouse and file that plat?
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Terry Forbord: The history of this particular plat would take a long time to go into, and I won't do that but
we've been working with the city trying to resolve some boundary matters which prevented us from going and
recording the final plat. We were trying to work through these...and I will refrain from going into that
discussion. But it was done intentionally so we could work through some additional boundary problems. If we
xvould have kno~vn that we were going to be faced with additional costs as a result of time, we probably would
have tried to figure out a xvay to do that just to undo it again later on. And clearly all it is from our standpoint
is...That's the only thing I'm here to talk about.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions Steve?
Councilman Berquist: No. No, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: No comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, I guess what's fair for Lundgren Brothers and what's fair for the city might be two
different things. Although like a school teacher friend of mine says Terry, he only -knows three fairs. Valley,
County and State. So I don't know. You know things xvorked out for Meadows at Longacres and Woods at
Longacres. I'm, no further comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No additional questions. I guess if memory serves me well, which sometimes it doesn't. I
do remember back when we started getting into this whole thing, which was sometime ago and the issue over
having back yards in Victoria and front yards in Chanhassen and the strong desire on our part to see that issue
resolved you know prior to this going ahead. If that is in fact correct memory, I guess I would advocate yes in
terms on the issue as it relates to those charges because I thought we had a lot to do with that...desire.
Kate Aanenson: Actually you gave a couple options. One, originally you asked them to go work it out. Then
when it came back, the Council spoke and said that those could be used as a common area to accomplish the
same square footage. Obviously they would like to see it in one jurisdiction. It just makes it easier for the
homeo~vner not to have to deal with two different communities but you did indicate that they could use that
common area to meet the lot requirement and go ahead and plat it that way. That was one of their options.
22
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilman Senn: That xvasn't our preference though, if I remember right, ~vas it?
Kate Aanenson: But it was an option. You approved it that way. That they could do it that way.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else? Okay. There's just one thing that I picked up on and that was item
number 10 of the conditions. And I think that it indicates that the existing dock on Lake St. Joe on the Boley
property shall be removed at the time of grading within the plat and ! think we should just strike the balance of
that. Do you agree with that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. I can just give you the history on that. There is one existing dock on the original Boley
property. Staff felt based on the extensive, all the wetlands, that it really wasn't appropriate to have additional
docks there. Certainly they could try to get through the Wetland Alteration Permit. You know try to get
common docks but there is a public access there. We felt based on the sensitivity of that area, that it shouldn't
be allowed and Lundgren Bros indicated to us that they would put in their restrictive covenants that no docks be
permitted. That was our original position. When it went to Planning Commission most recently, the Planning
Commission wanted to say that if the covenants did change, which they certainly have the control to do outside
of the city's control, that they would just be on notice that they would have to require a wetland alteration
permit. I guess my preference would be that they try to keep the covenants to prohibit docks based on the
sensitivity of that area. That really they shouldn't have docks there and there is a public access to use that.
Mayor Chmiel: Lake St. Joe, as it is, it's sort of a pristine lake in itself.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It is a natural lake.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay, is there anything else?
Councilman Berquist: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay~ Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval. I guess I'd like to offer, in that splitting the difference on the fees.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second to that?
Councilman Berquist: I'd second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The motion is to approve with splitting the feet
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of the
Highlands at Lake St. Joe with splitting the diffezence for the storm water management fees° Mayor Chmiel,
Councilman Mason and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted to oppose the motion, Councilman Senn and
Councilman Berquist voted in favon The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's a 3 to 2 vote to vote it down. May I have another. My understanding was
that was not within our discretion.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
23
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move preliminary and final plat and the development contract, striking the
last sentence of item 10. That's it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn: Is that true Roger?
Councilman Berquist: Whether it said stamped...
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean.
Kate Aanenson: This is the storm water fees.
Roger Knutson: Yes. The question is, the ordinance as it's formulated says how you apply it. On it's face, the
ordinance applies to the project. But you are the final arbitrary of what your ordinance says.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we could, we do have discretion to change it?
Councilman Senn: We do have the discretion to change it.
Roger Knutson: You have the poxver to change it. The ordinance on it's face does not carve out that kind of
exception. You make the decisions so you can do ~vhat you want to do...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well regardless, my motion stands.
Councilman Mason: Second stands.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Revised Development Contract
and Construction Plans and Specifications as presented, and to approve the preliminary and final plat for
Highlands on Lake St. Joe (26 lots and 2 outlots), as sho~vn on the plans dated March 28, 1995 and April 21,
1995 prepared by Sathre-Berquist and landscaping plans dated Febmary 28, 1994, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements.
The applicant shall control public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1995
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Updated construction plans and specifications shall be submitted
to the City's Engineering Department for revie~v and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction
with final plat approval.
The applicant shall work with the staff to modify the grading plans to minimize grading adjacent to the
wetland. The plans shall be revised accordingly.
Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management
Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. All access points from the construction site to a hard
.
24
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
surface road shall be surfaced xvith crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices
Handbook.
The applicant/developer/property owner xvaives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the
special assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade (90-15), including but not limited to hearing
requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The applicant/
developer/property owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MS Section 429.081.
Phase I of the development shall be assessed for 35 units and Phase II assessed for 21 units.
Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations of acceptance of park and trail
fees in lieu of land dedication. These fees will be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building
permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $900.00 per unit. Full
trail dedication fees in lieu of a trail easement. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in
force upon building permit application. The current residential rate for single family dwellings is $300.00
per unit.
Compliance with the city's xvetland regulation include permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native
vegetation. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the
applicant $20.00 per sign.
A buffer strip shall be provided adjacent to all wetlands. The wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe is classified
as a natural wetland. The buffer strip width may vary from 10 to 30 feet wide as long as the average buffer
strip xvidth is 20 feet. The other wetland is located on Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 (preliminary plat) and are
classified as ag/urban. The buffer strip width may vary from 0 to 20 feet wide as long as the average buffer
strip xvidth is 10 feet. Only one building permit may be issued prior to a wetland buffer strip which meets
city ordinance is approved by the Planning Department.
9. Compliance with the Building Official's recommendations:
Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspection Division. Pads that are corrected at the
time streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before city acceptance of the
subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected shall be submitted before Certificate of
Occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report compaction tests, the
limits of the corrected pads and the elevation of the excavation.
b. Lots 23, 25, and 27 shall be revised to meet the 90' street frontage requirement.
c. The landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway shall be in compliance with the
city's requirements. In addition, the requirement of one tree per lot shall be required.
10. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed at the time of grading within
the plat.
11. The applicant will be responsible for a storm water quantity connection charge of $35,831.00. These fees
are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
25
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
12. Site grading may proceed prior to recording of the final plat contingent upon the applicant entering into
development contract with the city and provide the city xvith a financial security in the amount of
$225,000.00 to guarantee erosion control measures, site restoration, and grading.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Councilman Bentuist who opposed, and the motion carried with
a vote of 3 to 2.
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 25,304 SQ. FT. OFFICFJWAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 2.16 ACRES; LOCATED
ON LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION; PAULSTARR
ENTERPRISES, INC., STEINER DEVELOPMENT, AND APPROVAL OF PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members, thank you. The applicant is requesting site plan approval for
their building within the Chanhassen Business Park 2nd Addition. This project not only had to comply with our
zoning ordinance but with the PUD standards established as part of the subdivision of this property. It was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission with a couple modifications. They requested that the
north boulevard area be bermed to provide additional screening for the loading area and they also requested that
the applicant work with staff in looking at different entryway treatments for the project. We did meet with the
applicant and had pictures, I'll put them on the board. Of different entryway treatments in Chanhassen and in
the Business Park and Chaska that's right on the border with Chanhassen. After discussions with them and
going through this, the applicant had decided that they believed that their solution to that entryway treatment
was a reasonable architectural feature. When staff had originally put the condition in, basically ~vhat they came
out with was pretty much xvhat we had been looking for. Just some way to accent that entryway feature. They
do have a recessed entryxvay that's consistent with the Poxver Systems and they provide a little more detail on
the outside. We did discuss alternates that they could look at including starting farther away from the entryway
and stepping the block out or the use of planter materials or something. They decided that this is the concept
that they wanted to project. The building is rock faced block. They have provided material samples. The
primary material on the south elevation is the sanibel white with a gray on the bottom and it's accented with a
midnight black block face. Staff is recommending approval of this site plan subject to the conditions in the staff
report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Bob. Is the applicant here this evening?
Dave Kordonowy: Hello. My name is Dave Kordonowy of Steiner Development, 3610 Highway 101 South,
Wayzata, 55391. I don't have any additional comments, although I'll answer any questions about the site
development. We have an architect here from...answer questions on the design and we have the owner, Joe and
Sally Cerami...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I guess I just have one quick question of staff. In here you indicated that the applicant
has not provided details on the rooftop equipment details.
Bob Generous: That's correct. They suggested using a pre-applied treatment to the equipment itself that would
blend in with the building.
Dave Kordonox~2~: We have two alternatives that we're going to explore. One is, as Bob said, a pre-applied
treatment to the HVAC unit itself. It can be color coordinated. The second one is to have fencing with the
26
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
metal, pre-finished metal surrounding it. We haven't done that yet because we haven't designed...until xve 'know
how many units we're going to have, we haven't really explored how we're going to screen that.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess all I'd ask is that you work that out with staff. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I don't really have any additional questions than what was presented.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: It looks, no comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Bob, in that area, you 'know the additional berming. In that small area, what are you going
to achieve? Is that 2 foot? Maybe 3 foot.
Bob Generous: 3 foot.
Councilman Senn: I seems to me it would be far more cost beneficial rather than putting money into creating
that berm. Personally I'd rather see some good mature pines or something across there that are going to provide
a heck of a lot better screen than a little 2-3 foot berm in that very narrow area. ! mean did you think of that as
an alternative?
Mayor Chmiel: Be honest.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, be honest.
Bob Generous: Well I believe using larger trees would be a better screening mechanism in the berming area
because it's such a limited confine.
Councilman Senn: Make sense to the applicant?
Dave Kordonowy: We have added some trees to the back yard along there already...
Councilman Berquist: Did you see the berm as being a little bit of overkill?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean this isn't the first time I've raised it but I feel these berms in these very limited
areas have very limited effect and it costs money to create berms. I mean I would much rather see, if it's
$160.00 to make a berm, I'd rather see two mature pine trees out there than a goofy little 2 foot to 3 foot berm
that somebody thinks is going to accomplish something. Because I quite honestly don't think it accomplishes
anything.
Councilman Berquist: You mean you think you'll see that semi trailer back there?
27
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilman Senn: Sure are, no matter xvhether you're sitting, standing, or walking.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion. I'd like to have a motion for item (a) and (b).
Councilman Senn: I move approval without the berm and take the dollars that it would cost to put the berm in
and put a few more trees in instead.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment
Agreement as presented, and to approve Site Plan #95-6 shown on plans prepared by AKRW dated 3/20/95 and
Schoell & Madsen, Inc. dated 3/20/95 for a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 7, Block 1,
Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions:
The pavement sections in the parking and loading dock areas shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the recommendations from a professional soils engineer.
All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Design Detail (Plate No. 5207
- attached).
No building permits or grading may commence on the site until after the final plat has been approved and
recorded and the developer of Chanhassen Business Center had executed the development contract.
The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event to the city for
review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around the catch basins shall
be employed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook until the parking lots are
paved.
Additional information is needed on type of processes, product commodities, height of storage, etc. to
assure compliance with fire codes.
A minimum of 10 overstory trees are to be planted in or along the parking area. Staff is recommending
an additional landscape peninsula in the northern parking lot area. Locations are to be shown on the
landscape plan. Overstory trees chosen by the applicant are to be from the City's Approved Tree List
with a parking location designation. Perimeter plantings meet calculation requirements, but additional
screening ',','ill be required in the northeast section of the site to reduce visibility of loading area from
Audubon Road. Applicant shall work with staff to revise the landscaping plan to incorporate the changes.
The landscaping plan for the northern strip of property that is adjacent to Street B shall be revised to
include additional plant material equal to the amount of the cost of berming.
Plant material quantities on the Landscape Schedule and the Landscape Plan differ significantly.
Applicant must provide the city with revised schedule that correctly reflects quantities on Landscape Plan.
28
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
All free standing signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet
in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the
architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent
in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for
staff review.
10.
Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All
signs require a separate permit. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property
line.
11.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at
the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Consistency in signage shall relate to
color, size, materials, and heights.
12. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development.
13. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be
used throughout the development area for area lighting.
14. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-~vays shall be used in the
private areas.
15. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at
the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
16.
Revise the building entrances to project out from the building in order to improve the entrance features
and break up and add relief to the large building expanse. Specifically, the block be built out from the
remainder of the building facade enclosing the entry area.
17.
All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible
materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment
that would blend in with the building materials.
18.
The applicant shall provide aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsular or island type landscape area
containing a tree that is less than 10 feet in width, The applicant shall install automatic irrigation in all
site landscape areas. A financial security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $17,700.00 to
guarantee landscaping for the project.
19. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
20. Staff and the applicant shall work together on the treatment for the entrance to provide detail consistent
with the surrounding development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously°
29
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
REVISED PRELI/VIINARY PLAT OF 35.83 ACRES INTO 52 SINGLE FAMII,Y LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS[
LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY~ HARSTAD
COMPANYES.
Kate Aanenson: Harstad Companies is requesting to plat 35 acres. It's 45 lots and an 8 acre park. This
property's had a lengthy history with numerous variations. I think we've come to closure on this. The biggest
issue as far as design of this is the location of the park. It's always been the desire of the city to have a
minimum 8 acre park. 8 to 10 acre park in this area of Minnewashta Parkway and desirous to have it where
there's visibility and access along Minnewashta Parkway. The other issue was Kings Road and the
improvements along Kings Road. Having to push the road further to the north. The staking of that and it
would be only approved up to the extension of Country Oaks Drive, which is the north collector street here.
There is lots along Kings Road that would be west of Country Oaks Drive that will not be platted at this time.
We're indicating that they have up to 3 years to plat those lots. If after 3 years they're not platted and the
ordinance is changed, then they would have to abide by those ordinances at that time. There ;vas some concern
that there may be some additional wetlands on the site. Those ;vere surveyed and they have been noted.
There's a small wetland here and then to the west in the city of Victoria. Both homes can meet the wetland
setbacks. It ;vill be conditioned, this lot will not be platted at this time but this lot, or this lot, would have to
meet the ;vetland setback of ag/urban and both lots can meet that. It would require too, in addition put a buffer
strip in. One of the other issues that was raised by Sue Morgan and Linda Scott, who are property owners south
of Kings Road, ;vas possible drainage from this site. The Assistant City Engineer, Dave Hempel and myself
have met with them. They did have concern. There's existing drainage from this wetland here going across
their existing...damage to their property. Giving an easement. We have met ;vith them. I think that ;ye can
resolve the issues that they have. They're concerned about impacts to them and compensation. We've talked
about a number of issues and I think before final plat we can come to some conclusions as far as equity. This
does fall xvithin the Shoreland District. All lots meet those requirements, as required by ordinance. Again
believe this plan is consistent ;vith the city standards and requirements and would recommend approval ;vith the
conditions in the staff report. The one concern that the Planning Commission wanted to make sure was the
concern about access. There are homes off Kings Road that are serviced by the city of Victoria and when this
is under construction there ;vas concern about, for example Mr. Carlson ;vho has a business, ho;v they would get
in and out so we did commit to have a neighborhood meeting before we would begin construction to talk about
ho;v those issues would be resolved. The other one was red cedar trees. Preservation of that. We've given a
cursory look. There is large red cedars that are kind of native to this area to give it identity. The concern that
;ye have is because they are so large on the site, we don't believe they can be transplanted but as part of the
woodland management plan, that we ;vould have them transplant those. All the trees on the south side, which
the neighbors have concern or that are currently on their property, should be saved and will be saved and that's
a condition of approval. There is a woodland management plan. There's a significant amount of trees on the
northwest part of this property and xve did request that this area here...these homes in here would be custom
graded ;vhere all the trees are. With that I would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Is the applicant here this evening to address any items or concerns that
they may have at this time? Or in agreement ;vith what's being proposed. Just please state your name and your
address and ;vho you represent.
Paul Harstad: Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. Our address is 2191 Silver Lake Road. Honorable Mayor,
Council members and city staff. I'm glad to be back. I think we have come a long way with staff and I agree
with what Kate said. That for the most part I think we've finally got something that we're all in agreement with.
With a few exceptions. Couple exceptions. So I might as well just jump right into those and if you'd kindly
30
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
turn to page 17 of the latest staff report, item number 14. That discusses razing the existing structures on the
proposed parkland. We're happy to do it any way you xvant. If you do want us to raze those, I guess we'll do
that but it was my understanding previously that at least some members of city staff had asked us to keep them.
So we'll go any way you want. If you consider it, if they are in fact to be demolished at some future date,
maybe we might get some feedback on whether you might allow a burn permit for them and we're also looking
into whether or not the round house on the site might be preserved. I've heard from some neighbors that it may
have some historical value to it. I'm not sure how much because the thing's not in real good shape. But either
way, we'll raze them or not. If you want to stick with that, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess as far as that specific item, I think you can work that out with staff.
Paul Harstad: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Before final plat we'll have some conclusions on that.
Paul Harstad: Alright. That's definitely not a real big issue to us. Also I should state for the record that
what's currently labeled as Outlot B, we would like to have it labeled Phase II. I believe that our attorney and
the city's attorney have had discussions on that and agree that that's an appropriate way to cover our bases and
that sort of thing. We would still be obligated to plat them within the proposed 3 years.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger?
Roger Knutson: It's going to be recorded on the plat... You can't open Phase II on it.
Kate Aanenson: The reason we're calling it an outlot is because it doesn't have frontage on a public, dedicated
public street so it can't be platted.
Roger Knutson: ...it's got to be a Lot 1, Block or an outlot.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I had never heard that discussion before until you said it...consistent with and we
should put the preliminary plat and date number. At that time we said Outlot B subject to the city ordinances in
effect. So if we change shoreland regs. If we change stormwater fees, park fees. Well park fees automatically
change. Any other...requirements, then that would be subject.
Paul Harstad: Well then do ~ve have a problem here?
Dan ?: My name is Dan...counsel for Harstad Companies. We just wanted to make sure that the record was
clear that, because that outlot was part of the negotiations for the park dedication and so as part of the
consideration, what we discussed with your attorneys was increasing the lots that were allowed on this property.
That was the consideration that Harstad was...so they could have the more lots. We just want to make sure that
the record is clear that consistent with the plat in our interpretation means that staff understands, that your
counsel understands, we xvant to make sure that the City Council understands that 7 lots is the concept right
now. That's what we think is consistent with the plat. And if it's platted within the 3 years, as we've discussed,
that's what Harstad Companies is looking for. They're looking for 7 lots there. So unless something changes
and until after that point, that's what we've agreed to.
Kate Aanenson: That's what it says and we can clarify that..
31
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Dan: Item number 24.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And there's concurrence on that. We're saying if they plat within 3 years, they have 7
lots. After that, then if the rules change, then they have to go by the new rules.
Paul Harstad: Fair enough. Okay. Another hot issue. This last one I believe is an issue though and it's in
regards to, in general any shared public improvements, and in particular we're discussing the lift station. That is
on page 17, item number 17. Where the recommendation is that the lift station shall be designed to
accommodate future development south of Kings Road and the city's telemetry system. Or the City will be
responsible for up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system. I don't -know if I'm pronouncing
that correct.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Paul Harstad: Okay. Our issue with this one is that xve're not in the business of constructing public
improvements for any city, except for those that benefit our property wanting to develop. And we've stated this
in all previous correspondence with the city since we've submitted this plat that we do not intend to pay
additional costs that benefit future properties that are not our's. I've asked our engineer to try to quantify those
numbers to the best of his ability at this time and if you do have any questions on that, I'm more than happy to
have him come up here and give you those specific numbers but I don't see why we should have to pay for
those costs. It probably comes out to about $20,000.00. And if you xvant to get into a discussion of what it
includes, I think in discussions with staff in the last day or two and he definitely has done his homework on that
issue. That's the only one that we definitely are against~
Mayor Chmiel: Let us say that if you didn't put in your development, we wouldn't have to provide any kinds of
services whatsoever.
Paul Harstad: Well, then again if you didn't have this item number 17, we'd save $20,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: But the point is, is you're coming into the community with your development and the costs that
we're incurring, we shouldn't have to pick up fully is I guess what I'm saying.
Paul Harstad: Does that mean that we should have to?
Mayor Chmiel: As it reads on here, yes.
Paul Harstad: We're not in the business of financing public improvements that don't benefit our properties.
Mayor Chmiel: Well you are benefitting from it.
Paul Harstad: We're benefitting, whatever it takes. Maybe I should get John up here but.
Councilman Senn: Or maybe before you do, Charles what's the difference we're talking about? It says here
50%.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, you're out of order.
32
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Charles Folch: Members of the Council. I haven't seen any numbers or any numbers that have been prepared
regarding this issue. What I can tell you is, I've had discussions with Dave Hempel on this probably 3 or 4
weeks ago. It appears that the area, possibly the area outside of this plat that could be possibly served in the
future, is relatively small in terms of size. This plat needs a lift station to serve the entire plat. Incrementally,
again I haven't seen those numbers but incrementally wise, once you build a lift station, to provide an additional
capacity for a small amount of area outside of that, an increase is a negligible amount in terms of pumps. Pump
sizes and things like that. To give you an example of where this has been done in the past, and it has been
done a number of times. For example Willow Ridge, up off of Lake Lucy Road. Lundgren Bros developed
that. They put a lift station on that site. The lift station was also sized to handle the Coey property and the
property immediately west of Coey to go to that lift station. They built and paid for the entire cost of the lift
station. The city did go into a 50% cost sharing venture for the telemetry system which is, if you will, an
additional element to the system which we find is a benefit to our operation and maintenance of the sewer
system so we have had these agreements in the past with other developers. This was a significant area that will
be draining into this lift station and we would certainly believe that there would be a greater benefit outside and
maybe there'd be more cause for looking at some sort of cost sharing which this development has.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
John Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. My name is John Berg. I'm with Louckes and Associates and !
have been in contact with Mr. Dave Hempel over the last 2 to 3 weeks and ! think the problem here is the
difference between what needs to be built to serve the Harstad properties and what needs to be built to serve the
additional 10 acres. The cost differences...to give you a general idea from what we've got right now to serve the
Harstad project, the cost would be somewhere in the area of about $35,000.00. To do the same thing with the
larger area to be served, the cost would be $46,000.00 but then there's some additional costs on that and the
reason for it is, because we're going from 21 homes to about 50 homes. Once you serve that many homes, your
cost start getting to a doubling effect. We'd need a deeper sump to accommodate in case of shut down. We've
got a pump up higher or we've got to pump to a different area, 800 feet away. We've got to bring in three
phase power to the site. There's a number of additional costs happening here that are above and beyond what
Mr. Harstad would have to be paying in his normal development.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Roger Knutson: If I could interject. The rules are clear. The city has to bear any incremental cost so I don't
know what the numbers are. Oversizing costs to serve other property, that's clear. I think that's an issue, what
that cost issue is worked out by the engineers and that's a detail for final platting.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Paul Harstad: I think that's contradictory to what the staff report says though. Because the staff report is saying
that we have to pay for the cost of the lift station, not counting the telemetry system. The telemetry system isn't
the majority of the cost by any means. It's the lift station. Now if we build a small lift station that serves our
property, obviously we pay for it but any incremental costs, as the attorney just suggested, I believe should be
paid for by the city. If that's the way the rules work, then that is contradictory to the staff report.
Roger Knutson: Charles, you estimate incremental costs is almost nothing. Whatever the numbers are, we'll_.
33
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Paul Harstad: Okay. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise I think we've got a deal.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Council have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: All the maps that I've got, I show the entire parcel fully platted.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: He's got bad stuff.
Councilman Berquist: I've got bad stuff.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: You've got old stuff.
Councilman Berquist: Lots 33 thru 39 are what's called Outlot B, right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: And you've answered by question regarding the drive. I've not seen the site so I'm not
familiar with the private drive. I've not seen the site so I'm familiar with the trees. The road changes that you
talked about Kate, that ends at Country Oaks Road.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Right now.
Councilman Berquist: So the paving of Kings Road ends at Country Oaks with this development?
Kate Aanenson: Right now Kings Road is a gravel road that the city has the right to use. What we've been
maintaining and using. That's what we have a right to so in order for this development to occur, normally a 60
foot right-of-way would be required. With this project xve're saying, at this time, 50 feet will come off ~vhere
the established right-of-way line is going north. So they will pick that up. At such time that the property to the
south develops, they will dedicate the other 10 feet to give a 60 foot right-of-way. But that would terminate at
this point right here. And taper down and they'll have access and Country Oaks will extends up to Mrs.
Hallgren's property when she develops her...Eventually this street, Country Oaks will tie in up to this so there
will be a two way access. The future Kings Road, how that will be serviced, how that gets worked out with
Victoria, there are Victoria homes, residents that service that road. How that whole thing gets financed is a
question for a later date and that's what we're saying. Until this is a public street, they're certainly not, at this
point, willing to pay all those costs and...people benefit and how that whole thing comes about. That's where a
lot of these negotiations came out of. Running all these improvements across...so at this time we're just coming
here. Was that your question2
Councilman Berquist: Yeah that was. And there ~vas a letter from a gentleman that eluded to problems that he
had when Minnexvashta Parkxvay was completed as far as getting onto and out of or into and out of.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That xvas an issue that we committed to meet with the neighbors because they were
concerned about getting in and out of their property during construction. There are some deep cuts that have to
be made in order to get the utilities in but now it looks too with this project, that things have changed so they've
got most of the utilities xve believe now will be to the north, so less impact will happen along the homeowners
to the south which was a concern about preserving their trees and the like. But there still will be some
problems, short term, getting in and out. We have to provide another access.
34
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilman Berquist: And the Morgan/Scott property, the runoff situation has been addressed and solved?
Kate Aanenson: They're here and if they want to speak to that, they can.
Sue Morgan: We're in the process of resolving that issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you come up to the mic please.
Sue Morgan: Good evening. My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is south of this
development and we have met with Kate and we have, our attorney and we're discussing resolution to the
easement situation. At the onset of the discussions...there have been a couple of...storm water pond north of our
property and then direct the storm water east and then through Outlot B and into Lake St. Joe .... the Planning
Commission meeting it ,,vas brought up that the city would be interested in...across our property which now
accesses storm water runoff from a vacant field which iso
Kate Aanenson: There's two options that we identified. One, that you could just come underneath the road
with the existing easement that Sue was talking about. Or the other option is to run it via a pipe and bring it
down here. We're saying it might just be more cost effective to bring it this way. Certainly that's an issue that
they have...
Councilman Berquist: And the developer's bearing that cost?
Kate Aanenson: Well it's tied into the whole storm water management plan where they get credits for, they
have to do a certain amount so they're maintaining pre-development so it falls into the whole mix of the storm
water management plan. So there are some costs that they have to bear but if they're oversizing, it goes back to
the same issue that Roger brought up before. The city would have to, if they're doing something for larger scale
and some of this is for larger project area. Basin areac
Councilman Berquist: So you're confident that this issue will be resolved?
Sue Morgan: I'm hopeful that it will be resolved...because we weren't really given an option as to whether or
not we would be asked to grant an easement or whether it was just taken. So that's why we initiated the... The
issues that were brought up where Dave felt it would be more cost effective for the city and the developer to
come across our property but it was eluded to that we were not going to be compensated for the easement so
we're in negotiation now with the city to work out some type of compensation. We're not adverse to the storm
water runoff coming across our property. It's just the nature of how the culvert might be constructed and what
we can work out... We're working on it and we're hopeful that it will be resolved...
Councilman Berquist: Alright, thank you. No further questionsc
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Most everything's been covered. I do have a couple questions about the trees.
We're going to move some trees?
Kate Aanenson: There xvas a commitment made earlier that there are some unique red cedar trees in this area.
Red Cedar Cove. It kind of has the name place for that area~ Staff had indicated that we would try to remove
35
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
those trees from areas where they will have to be taken down for utilities or the like and put them somewhere
else on the site. Our forester said based on the age of those trees, their survivability is very, very low. So what
we're saying is part of their woodland management plan, we think it'd probably be more effective to just go
ahead and replant red cedars than try to replace them. So that's what we'll do. The red cedars on the
homeowners property on the south side, they were concerned about the liability of those. Those issues have
been resolved and they should all the trees that are on their property should not be in any danger as far as their
construction.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean there just won't be, it will be that far away.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. We indicated to them where the edge of the construction limits would be and there
will be erosion control and tree fencing up.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Everything else is detailed that it will be worked out so it's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: My questions have been answered.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Same.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any either. Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Move preliminary plat to subdivide 35.83 acres into 45 single family lots, two outlots and
neighborhood park.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the preliminary plat #93-11 to
subdivide 35.83 acres into 45 single family lots and two outlots as shosvn on the plans dated April 7, 1995 and
subject to the follosving conditions:
Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the city the utilities and street within all public right-of-
way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be
provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
The appropriate 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 shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood
fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall
be restored with sod or seed and xvood fiber blanket.
36
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
.
,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be
submitted for staff reviexv and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed
District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR, and comply with their conditions of approval.
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.
Storm drainage discharge from the site shall maintain the pre-developed runoff conditions. The applicant
shall provide detailed storm server and ponding calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event of a
24 hour duration. Water quality and quantity ponding calculations shall be submitted in accordance with
the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for
review prior to issuance of building permits.
Lot 32, Block 3 shall take direct access from Country Oaks Lane and not Kings Road unless Kings Road
has been upgraded to City standards.
A report or letter of clarification prepared by a qualified wetland delineator shall be submitted to the city
documenting the location and integrity of all wetlands on the site. If there are wetlands on the site, they
shall be staked, surveyed and included on the grading and drainage plan. In addition, a buffer strip shall
be incorporated by city ordinance.
The proposed development shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees of
$22,040.00 and $54,549.00 respectively. SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees may be
credited/reduced depending on the applicant's contribution to omsite storm drainage improvements
according to the City's SWMP design parameters.
Storm drainage from the southwest portion of the site shall be evaluated for pre and post development
conditions. The City shall determine, based on the amount of impervious surface contributing to the
wetlands located in the southwest portion of the site, whether or not a sediment basin will be required to
pre-treat runoff prior to discharging runoff into the wetlands.
Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city by warranty deed for construction of a sediment basin and
parkland.
Staff recommends granting a variance to the city's ordinance regarding street grades. Street grades on
Kings Road shall be permitted up to 10%.
The existing structures on the site shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded.
The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate permits for
demolition of all structures, wells and septic systems.
37
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
15.
Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be required by the City for reviexv
and approval prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 4 through 8, Block 3.
16. All private driveways shall be built in accordance to the City's Ordinance No. 209.
17.
18.
19.
20~
21.
22.
23.
24.
The lift station shall be designed to accommodate future development south of Kings Road
(approximately 10 acres) and the city's telemetry system. The City will be responsible for up to a
maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system.
The applicant shall include xvith the street construction a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots
xvhich do not directly abut a wetland or storm drainage pond. The drain tile system shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with City standards and detail plates.
Erosion control fence adjacent to all xvetland areas shall be the City's Type III. Erosion control fence on
the entire site shall be maintained by the applicant until the entire site has been revegetated and removal
is authorized by the City.
Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on White Oak Lane and a sign
indicating that 'WHIS STREET WlI,L BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE".
Park
The plat shall include an 8+ acre park at the north;vest intersection of ;vhere Kings Road currently is
located and Minnexvashta Park;vay. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park
dedication and purchase. This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase
agreement shall be negotiated by the city contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit
shall be granted as a part of these negotiations.
Trail
Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application as per city ordinance.
The applicant shall escrow with the city their fair share of the costs to extend Kings Road west of
Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed of Outlot B that these future lots will be
responsible for 50% of the costs to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road.
A woodland management plan shall be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). Prior to final plat
approval, tree conservation easements shall be developed between staff and the applicant. Preservation of
the red cedar trees will be evaluated.
Within 3 years after final plat approval, Outlot B must be subdivided consistent with the approved plat.
After that time, Outlot B will be subject to the city ordinances in effect.
25. All parkland shall be designated as an outlot on the final plat.
26. Street names are subject to review and approval by Public Safety prior to final plat approval.
38
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
27. A neighborhood meeting shall be held to resolve tree locations along Kings Road and access to the
existing homes during construction prior to final platting.
28. Lots adjacent to the two ag/urban wetlands shall maintain the ordinance requirements of a 40' setback and
10' buffer strip.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously°
PRESENTATION OF PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FINDINGS~ PARKLAND ACQUISITION
AND DEVELOPMENT~ TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF A TASK FORCE.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On April 10th of this year City Council
received a recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission to establish a task force to take a look at
and forward a proposed parkland, trail construction and open space acquisition. The discussion that evening
resulted in a request from the City Council for what I gleaned were four items. Number one, a list of the
proposed referendum projects. Second, a map depicting the areas involving in those proposed projects. Third,
prioritized ranking of the proposed projects and then fourth, an opinion on limitations in bonding capabilities the
city might face if all or a portion of these items passed. I've gone ahead and assembled items number 1, 2 and
3. I believe you have a memo from City Manager Ashworth in regards to the fourth item. I quickly run over
three of those for you. First the parkland and/or open space acquisition item. They're separated into four
categories. Park development, and as Council is aware, Bandimere Community Park, 30+ acre parcel was
acquired in 1990. It's located south on Highway 101, which will eventually be south of the 212 corridor. There
is a proposal to acquire an additional 5 acres in the north corner here from the Lundgren Bros development in
the future so it would be over 35 acres in the future. The city has owned it for 5 years. The need for active
youth components for athletic associations and the like has been increasing in our city with the increased
population. We're filling that gap for need .with the recent construction which will be completed this fall at the
new elementary school site so that's a stop gap measure but in the future, within again the next 5 years, we will
need to see the additional need for future sites. So we have an estimate in there, I believe it's, if you round it
up, about $1.2 million for development per the current proposal for Bandimere Community Park which includes
ballfields for softball, baseball, soccer fields, parking, a four bank of tennis courts, irrigation, playground
equipment, a recreation building, etc. Second category under the main listing is preserve wooded lands. The
commission has identified two locations, labeled IA, which is located south of Lyman and then east, or excuse
me, west of the Bandimere site. It's the Fox property. The easterly portion. If any of you recall the central
portion of Mr. Fox's property was included as a RALF application per Mr. Fox's request and that's what, that
application process and how it ended is what I've described here under value. Mr. Fox petitioned for right-of-
way acquisition loan fund for Highway 212 land. That fund acquisition, or that acquisition effort failed due to a
large discrepancy in perceived value. MnDot certified a per acre price of approximately $8,000.00 for that. Mr.
Fox's last lowest offer was $28,000.00. The characteristics of these property changed quite dramatically. This
central portion which was appraised as part of the 212, is mainly rolling agriculture, 1 property, lA is
predominantly woodlands. Second parcel which was investigated for woodland preservation is Parcel lB. It's a
smaller site. The 87.42 acres includes lB and 3B. This is a, lB is the northerly portion of this site. Probably
closer to 25 acres. Again a characteristic, it's primarily agricultural. In fact 3B would be nearly 100%
agricultural and then the northern portion contains steep slopes, tree cover, wetlands and a small pond. In
attempting to determine a rough valuation of this property, I spoke with a representative of Chaska Investment
Company. They stated that they've recently sold right-of-way properties in Chaska, which were included as a
portion of those RALF right-of-way acquisition loan fund buyouts, for anywhere from $25,000.00 to $28,000.00
39
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
per acre. Those parcels were within the MUSA line or had available sewer and water service to them. This
parcel, lB, and 3B inclusive, are outside of the MUSA line. How that devalues property, evaluates property
varies the cost in the southern reaches of Chanhassen. Third category we have is to preserve the Bluff Creek
~vaterway and Council is aware of that initiative as it is beginning to take shape in the city of Chanhassen. A
parcel of property identified as 2A which parallels the creek from Lyman Boulevard to the north, and then
traveling the length of the creek to Pioneer Trail, has been identified as the next segment for preservation within
the city of Chanhassen, or at least the next segment to take a look at as far as the platting process. If you
imagine in your minds Bluff Creek which starts near Highway 41, north of Highway 5 and then it travels to
Rice Lake in the southern portion of Chanhassen. There's really four quadrants. North of Highway 5 the creek
is not distinguishable, all except a very small portion and then it meanders into a large wetland. So that's the
headwaters if you will of Bluff Creek. That large wetland. Lundgren is developing just to the north of that
property with the Meadows at Longacres and the Woods at Longacres. So the easements have been put into
place. There are properties xvhich have yet to be developed where the city would need to obtain future
easements for a trailway, for trail purposes. And again the eventual thought process here is that the entire
corridor should be a greenway, or a linear park to allow public access up and do~vn the corridor. In many
communities, as they've developed, they have lost that opportunity. Lot lines as the property developed adjacent
to the creek terminate in the center line of the creek so you then do not allow for the opportunity for public
access up and down this corridor. So as I described these different sections, that is the overlying tone of the
planning process. The second segment is between Lyman Boulevard and Highway 5 which would then run into
the north and off of this map from Lyman Boulevard to Highway 5. You're aware again of much of the
development which has taken place in that segment from the school property to the Heritage property, Bluff
Creek, the Keyland Homes project. If not outright ownership, easements have been acquired through
negotiation or purchase throughout that segment so if you will, the troops have landed in there and things have
taken place and much of that section of the corridor is already locked up. This next segment is outside of the
MUSA line. It's unsexvered, unserviced and it remains primarily an agricultural uses at the present time. Again
from Lyman to Bluff Creek. Whether or not this future preservation xvould be outright oxvnership through fee
title or whether it would be a combination of fee title and perpetual easements, whether or not the landowners
xvould choose to alter their property in any form at this time or if life estates, some type of arrangement could
be made available. Or if just, it's simply a planning process to lay the ground work for what the future would
hold if these landowners then did maintain their property in their current use for a period of years. The third
category is to acquire a 50 to 100 acre property which xvill accommodate a future community park. As the
Commission began to take a look at the future of Chanhassen, I believe everyone xvas under the impression that
we had plenty of vacant land. Lots of development left to go and the future of Chanhassen's parks would be
secure. Well in fact when we began to take a look at what community park space we had and what the
development tone of the city is, we soon found out that there are a lot of players within the community that are
changing the shape and the future of Chanhassen and if the city and it's residents xvant to be one of those
players, we'd better get into the game fairly soon or the opportunities are going to be lost. Such ~vas the case
with the 50 to 100 acre parcel of property. If you think of Lake Ann as the single 100 acre piece of property
for parkland purposes within the city of Chanhassen which is owned and maintained by the city. We look
farther to the west and to the north of Highway 5, the opportunities are gone. We are fortunate to have the
availability of Minnewashta Regional Park and then the Arboretum. So we look south and again you are forced
to look south of Lyman Boulevard to this future parcel of property~ If we think we're tight, if you've heard
conversations or participated in conversations over the lack of ballfield space or open space in the community of
Chanhassen and we're presently at 15,000 people, imagine what we're going to look at and what those
conversations will be like when we're at 30,000 people and we've not acquired additional large, open spaces for
the community. There's a variety of parcels which are taken into consideration. In this category, Parcel 3A is
the Teich property. Approximately 100 acres. It's characteristics are 100% floodplain and at present I believe
40
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
you can have a firsthand look at that. Approximately 50% of it is wetland. 50% tillable and today a portion of
it is under xvater, xvould be the southern portion. The value however is attractive, at about $5,000.00 per acre.
There is a pending sale of that property as well. Item 3B is the Halle property. It's a portion of the Halle
Nursery. It's located at the intersection, the southeast intersection of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101. It's
attractive because it is relatively flat. It is situated at a prominent intersection or an intersection of future
prominence, if you will, in the community of Chanhassen and the trees which are there are overgrown nursery
stock or nursery stock if you will. Item 3B is the, or excuse me, 3C is the Peterson property. It consists of
approximately 80 acres. It lies, a portion of it lies within the Bluff Creek corridor~ The property is not, was not
a finalist in the prioritization process due to it's topography. A great deal of it slopes down severely into the
creek corridor. There are some special interests and then again 3D which...
(There was a tape change during this part of the presentation.)
Todd Hoffman: ...findings of the commission in doing so, they feel the next appropriate step would be to
appoint a task force to work exclusively on this event. Or this effort. As you noted in the Star and Tribune, I
believe it was a ~veek ago Monday. I spoke to a reporter and his angle on the story was, during tax time, how
can you even consider bringing up the issue of a referendum. One of my responses, I think there were
numerous ones but that, if I did not I believe it would be irresponsible because it's not my choice. It's simply
the choice of the voters of Chanhassen if they would like to be a player in the future of Chanhassen... With that
I'll be glad to answer any questions. I arrived home about 7:00 from Kansas City and if you believe it, boy
absence makes the heart grow fonder until you drive from Minneapolis to Kansas City through all that open
space, I would have seen...but really just a lot of open agricultural land.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Any questions? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I can make a comment about Kansas City~ Did you see any pretty little women there7
Todd Hoffman: Excuse me?
Councilman Berquist: See any pretty little women there?
Todd Hoffman: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: In looking at the prioritization that took place. The Fox property. I mean to me that
looks pretty land locked. What would be the overall goal of that? The attraction. I mean I understand it's
woods.
Todd Hoffman: In the future a major trail corridor. Again another linear park would be called for from this
major intersection along the proposed 212 in this configuration. So this would be a pedestrian access which
would allow a loop into this property. And then the other pedestrian access is obviously coming down this in
this configuration. At this point it's hard to tell what would happen because you're entering, as they call it, the
Valley of the Lost Valley so at this point you would probably have to circumvent Bluff Creek, either through
TH 101 to continue the trail down to the regional trail or down Bluff Creek Drive. So there is a future
connection identified there along 212.
41
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilman Berquist: In 20 years from now when all the land is gone, if in fact it happens and people are
saying xvhere are our kids going to play ball. Where are they going to play soccer? Where are they going to do
that? Is that the Chaska Investment land and does that fit for that type of parcel?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: So that's how it got to be number 3 on the identity?
Todd Hoffman: And again the listing...that's the priority but there's no preferential rating as to those:
Councilman Berquist: There is no preferential, really2
Todd Hoffman: Not as they're listed in that ranking. Those are all priority items. They do not take your 1, 2,
3,4...
Councilman Berquist: I'm surprised. Okay. This task force. Please define for me what you would expect the
goal of the task force to be? Work on this effort. This effort is rather loose knit. You've got to define it a
little more.
Todd Hoffman: It certainly xvould be. Or it could be. In the past the task force process has been used within
the city of Chanhassen... I believe our recommendations from April 4th xvhich there's been a lot of...what they
xvould go ahead and do then is take a finite look at each individual parcel. Identify whether or not that would
truly be a piece of property xvhich fits best xvith their goals and the goals of the proposed referendum. What...
Again to evaluate each individual site. Communicate with the public. ! believe we have a series of public
meetings which were identified in that memorandum. We have task force meetings listed and again that was
considering a September voting date... Again meet with the City Council. Talk about whether or not the goals
of the preservation are being met and then one of their final jobs is to go ahead and present the referendum to
the city of Chanhassen. To carry out speaking engagements to public groups. To begin the dedication process...
Councilman Berquist: So the first goal is to take these park parcels and these trail segments and say, and
prioritize them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and then assign dollar values and then begin the education, the
political process to gain favor in the public's eye.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. Estimating dollar value, which again is an integral part of all of that. In the short
window of time that I've had, identified at least a rough estimate...We're not talking acres, but hundreds of acres
of property...
Councilman Berquist: Well I just took the first three parcels and the first three trails and I come up with $6
million, and that's not giving you everything you want at Bandimere. Buying Frank's property for a reasonable
amount.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else?
Councilman Berquist: No, I'm done. Colleen.
42
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No questions. I look forward to what the task force can find out and I think we
need to have steps along the way and the first one is taking a hard look at the prioritization and the dollars and
bringing it back to Council to talk about it and then going forward so I'd like to see it as a staged process.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Let's go.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Todd, is there a reason why they didn't want to prioritize them first? I mean in a ranking
order.
Todd Hoffman: No, there's no reason. I believe..°
Mayor Chmiel: Was that also sort of left for your task force as well to look at?
Todd Hoffman: And the process. Bandimere Community Park, Parcel lA and Parcel lB and Parcel 2A, at least
in their opinion, fit somexvhere in that $4 to $6 million...and that includes the trail process.
Councilman Senn: So more or less everything they've set as a priority in their view right now is fundable
within the $4 to $6 million with the exception of the Bluff Creek Park? Or Golf Course.
Todd Hoffman: With the understanding that land values are going to increase and fluctuate dramatically so they
understand they may not be able to fund those...
Councilman Senn: Don, in relationship to the bonding. I'm a little confused. In here you talk about the $10
million limit we have. Earlier you talked about $15 million limit. Is that HRA versus city or something?
Don Ashworth: No. Really the $10 million is really more so for the person that is purchasing the bonds. It
doesn't really have anything to do with the city of Chanhassen~ It has to do with the not taxability of the bonds
but the marketability. And once you go over the $10 million, it no longer meets what's referred to as bank
qualification and the price, you could go ahead and sell but it becomes more expensive~
Councilman Senn: In lay language, it affects our credit rating?
Don Ashworth: No. It affects the marketability of the bonds themselvesc
Councilman Senn: The rating on the bond?
Don Ashworth: The interest rate. So if, it'd probably be an additional quarter to half a percent more, depending
on the number of years. The entire $10 million then moves up to that entire amount. So it's not just, let's say
the 1 or 2 projects that are in at the end. The entire $10 million is going to go at that additional half a percent.
43
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Councilman Senn: So if we did this, if I understand your memo correctly, we're effectively bonded out through
'97. Is there anything else that's been contemplated or thought about one way or another that would impact that
time period that's not being considered?
Don Ashworth: I don't knoxv public facilities that we're considering for any form of either revenue bonds or
other type of GO bonding. I'm sure there are a lot of public improvement projects that right noxv, you know
when Klingethutz will come in, we were saying xvell, we might consider that as a public improvement project.
Now we're telling those people, no. We're not going to do it as a public improvement project. You guys are
going to have to build it and do it yourself. Are you aware of any other projects that we have coming up in the
next two years? Any type. I would think your expertise would be more in terms of public improvement type of
projects.
Charles Folch: We are, most of the projects again...project for next year are...Lyman/Lake Riley Boulevard
project xvhich is basically...
Kate Aanenson: Coulter, if that's what we're naming McGlynn. Coulter, the continuation of that.
Charles Folch: That project will be this year.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, I'm talking between McGlynn's and the school.
Charles Folch: Oh Phase II...
Don Ashworth: The north frontage road project. Any time you have multiple property owners, that's where
you've got a problem saying, okay. You have to build this because they either have to fall right into sequence
or if first Developer A is going to do his piece and then B is the next one in line. If the guy C comes in first,
that's xvhere you've got a problem because that's typically xvhere you've got to go back in and do all of A, B and
C and assess the cost back to them.
Councilman Senn: And if we do this at a $5 million level, we'll lose the ability to do that then effectively
through?
Don Ashxvorth: Well, the other way, and I'll have to verify this one with MacGillvrary. I didn't throw this out
earlier. Was if you would do that particular project as a taxable project so you'd give up your tax exempt status
if you had certain project's that you felt were worthwhile projects but they're primarily developer projects and if
they really want us to do it, then are they willing to pay the additional half to 1% that would typically, 1 to 1
1/2 that would go along with taxable versus tax exempt. And I'm sure if it went taxable, that would not count
against the bank qualification requirements under IRS standards.
Councilman Berquist: How much higher of a rate are you going to pay for a taxable bond?
Don Ashworth: 1 to 1 1/2%. So if you're talking about a 6% market now, you'd be 7 1/2%. 7-7 1/2%.
Councilman Senn: If we do a $5 million bonding, I mean are you comfortable with being backed into that
corner?
44
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Don Ashxvorth: Just so the Council is aware that, when and again that frontage road issue would come up,
we're going to, we would not xvant to take and jeopardize the initial $10 million but what we would do then is
go back to those three owners, Brad Johnson, Gorra and I don't know a third owner out there. Just say, you
know if you guys want to develop, you need this road, and the only way it can be done is your agreement that
the financing technique will be back through taxable bonds and your costs are going to be an additional 1 to 1
1/2% higher than it might ordinarily be.
Councilman Senn: How do you deal with that when you have somebody sitting in the middle who doesn't
want the road at all? I mean let's put reality where it is.
Don Ashworth: Yeah. The guy in the middle is just going to be complaining that much more.
Councilman Senn: But effectively haven't we lost our ability to affect the service road then?
Don Ashworth: No, because the City Council still has the authority to make a determination as to whether or
not a public improvement will be done or not. So I mean, you don't need to get all 30 property owners to agree
to extending a sanitary sewer.
Councilman Senn: But then we also have to agree to fund it. Do we not?
Don Ash~vorth: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And can xve still use taxable bond methods to fund it under that scenario?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Without the consent of the property owner?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: So I'm hearing you say is you don't really see much coming out of the...that's going to bite
us so to speak. What I'm hearing is you don't really see much of anything coming out of the corner that's going
to bite us in the next couple of years?
Don Ashworth: Well I think the thing that really comes out of the woods to bite you is, you had a lot of people
here tonight that were talking about the significant increase in their property taxes and not a one of them really
related to the fact that they knew and voted for the increase in property taxes to fund the new schools. And
they knew that there would be an approximate 12% to 14% increase in the school district's portion of their
property tax to accomplish that school construction. But that it really wouldn't occur until in the year 1995.
They don't seem to acknowledge that when they get into these truth in taxation... I mean they continue to come
in front of you just saying, my taxes continue to skyrocket. Every year they're going up 12% or 14%. So I
mean if we put through this referendum, it will create a tax increase and I guess we just have to continue to
remind people when they come in is you were given the choice. I mean do you remember the article in the
Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Do you want to preserve lands or are you concerned with your property taxes?
That's where it will come back to bite you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, is there a motion or recommendation?
45
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Council~voman Dockendorf: i would move that we establish the task force.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendoff moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council appoint a task force to
review the potential park, open space and trail acquisition and development referendum items. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay we have three items yet on consent. Mark, you have C.
Councilman Senn: Just a quick one Don, if I could. Can we make sure that Colleen's point gets in there
though about the phased process. I mean I agree with that 100% that we should see some stuff come back
before xve're effectively going out and marketing the referendum, so to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah. We will.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Co
AUTHORI7ATION TO DEVELOP PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS~ CSAH 17 (POWERS BLVD.)
WETLAND MITIGATION AND PATHWAY 12MPROVEMENTS.
Councilman Senn: Charles, what's the delay in the roads. I mean I thought that was part of our deal with the
County and funding through the trade-off with the County and stuff. Why are ~ve being delayed there?
Charles Folch: It's probably back in February or March we brought this feasibility study to you and at that
time, as I recall, ordering the project was tabled to allow our bonding attorneys the opportunity to review the
agreement between the City and County and also to the financial obligations so we were xvaiting. I don't
believe that that review or that report has come back yet. But in any case, for all intensive purposes the delay
has killed starting the project this year because the City and the County' do not want to open up the project,
open up the roads and tear it up unless we can have it black by freeze up so for all intensive purposes, we're out
for this year. Being that we are out, we have an opportunity here to do a couple other elements of the project at
this point in time to basically accomplish a couple of goals. One is the trail connection element that a
neighborhood has been waiting for a number of years to be completed. We also would like to define the
wetland restoration along with that which we have a couple of other pending capital improvement projects
which involve wetland alterations and xve need to create this banking on this project to be able to get the
permits approved to do those projects so it's kind of timing thing here.
Councilman Senn: I was told today that by splitting the timing though and proceeding with the mitigation
ahead of time, we're going to add a cost of $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. I mean if that's true, aren't we better off
going to the State or whatever and negotiating a extension to go along with the main project.'? I mean it's not
that anyone is trying to avoid the mitigation. It's just that the timing's being delayed a year. Can't we get some
kind of absolution from the State to still do it at the time that the project's done so we don't have to spend the
extra $30,000.00-$40,000.00?
Charles Folch: I guess I'm not sure where that figure's coming from in terms of cost.
Councilman Senn: That's one that Diane had given me today.
46
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Charles Folch: Basically what you have is, your project plans have been prepared. Basically they're full plan
sheets out of the original project. They would have spent the same dollars to prepare these plan sheets. The
trail work and the wetland work. The only thing that you may see a difference is your economy of scale to do
the grading work but we are expanding the size of the project a little bit by adding on a couple of other SWMP
projects that we have. I mean it's hard for me to believe that a $100,000.00 project could be increased by
$30,000.00 to $40,000.00.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you don't think that's true? It's going to be negligible basically?
Charles Folch: No, it will be negligible. You're probably talking more between a 5% to 7% range maybe...but
you're not going to pay $30,000.00 to $40,000.00.
Councilman Senn: Okay, that makes more sense then. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you xvant to move it?
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the authorization to develop Plans &
Specifications, CSAH 17 (Po~vers Blvd.), Wetland Mitigation and Pathway ImpmvementSo All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously~
APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR CITY HALL EXPANSION.
Councilman Senn: If we're effectively in the planning stage Don, as it relates to the new~ or this proposed City
Hall expansion, at least my sense has been so far that there's not a true comfort level yet as to what is or isn't
going to be included in that project. Aren't we better off, I mean if we need this expertise, to just effectively'
hire this guy as a consultant on the expertise rather than get into the construction management fee and start
paying $3,500.00 a month you know like the process is going forward or?
Don Ashworth: Councilman Berquist and I talked, I can't remember if it was yesterday or today. It kind of
blends in. It had to have been today. Maybe it was last week. Kind of the same type of questions. What I
had mentioned to him is, I really think what I need to do is to present back to the City Council a schematic that
basically shows who's going to be using each of these different office areas and also some of the statistics as it
deals with the library to insure that the Council really feels that we're not building something here that is more
than what we need. And I would say need from all aspects. One of the things that I have done since our last
meeting, and I mentioned to Councilman Berquist that I really goofed up on. I think the question had been
asked, you really haven't shown in here the total needs as it deals with the library and the seniors and I made a
response, thinking on my feet of something to the effecL well we really haven't surveyed them and I really have
47
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
been trying to keep them from overly bugging the City Council. That was the wrong response. The correct
response was, the library had completed their analysis of their space needs. That is !5,000 square feet. We
cannot afford 15,000 square feet. They're going to have to live with something less than 15,000 square feet and
it should really be the budget that should be driving what we're able to provide at this point in time. So again, I
apologize for that ~vrong impression. Anyway, I think I need to present that back to you and I've done some
additional materials. In fact one, a picture's worth a thousand words. One you will not believe is I got a map
showing all the lots in the City of Chanhassen that are basically were being served by the library when this
building was first built. When they had their first 2,500 square feet. And then that same map in comparison
xvith today. Like I said, a picture is worth a thousand ~vords. There is absolutely no question in my mind that
if you take a look at that service area in 1978 and '79 versus the service area today, it's unbelievable.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But service area based on who has a library card or?
Don Ashworth: No, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Total amount of residents.
Don Ashworth: Those residential areas that are just pretty obvious that they're going to be served by this
library. Somewhere you're going to have a cutoff line. When you get up around Christmas Lake you may
decide that's going to be Excelsior. But look at the area that was being served with 2,500 square feet of space
versus xvhat you have today.
Councilman Berquist: So the light one is what it was when the library was built?
Don Ashxvorth: Right. That was again 2,500 square feet. The service area is roughly 5,000 people. Half a
square foot per person. Mid 1980's we increased that to about 3,500-3,800 square feet with a service area of
about, I've got to remember the numbers. 8,000 to 9,000 people so xve had dropped at that point. It was more
like 4/10th's of a square foot per person and today we have roughly 15,000 people and the proposed addition
xvould put them to 7,500 square feet so they would go back to exactly the same ratio that they were at in 1978.
And again I've got all of the circulation stuff. Hoxv many books they had in 1978 versus '89 versus '95. I think
xve will be able to demonstrate very well to you that 7,500 square feet for the library is a reasonable number.
Councilman Senn: Well to get through the next step of the process, which is establishing that comfort level, I
mean do we need a construction manager?
Don Ashworth: No. If you would like to table action on this item...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Councilman Senn: ...~vell a little bit of my fear is that in the normal construction management contract, I mean
which we're being somewhat selfish in limiting the fee. I mean we've got a good fee arrangement with him on
it in terms of percentage of the project but I mean usually that covers work from the point the project starts to
the point that it's finished. Because if we put this on now and start paying $3,500.00 a month you know
towards that, I mean effectively we're going to be revisiting the issue at some point because it's going to be a
lost leader for the construction manager. I'd rather deal with the up front issues we need to deal with up front
that should be dealt with up front before a contract is put in place than put the contract in place closer to the
time that we really get, you know pursue construction so to speak.
48
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1995
Mayor Chmiel' Do you xvant to table this then?
Councilman Senn: Sure. If that's okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Looks like it's dying without a second. Is there another motion?
Councilman Berquist: Well I think we're better served by having him under contract and working on our behalf
than we are in attempting to get...and start the process without being under any formal obligation. I'm very
comfortable with the individual and the company that's involved. I think we can wield more control and get
something started by completing this as opposed to tabling it so I would move that ,,ye approve the management
contract.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Todd Christopherson as the Construction
Manager for the City Hall Expansion. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the
motion carded with a vote of 4 to 1.
L. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GAMBLING PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION OF
THE CHANHASSEN AMERICAN LEGION POST 580.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Someone else move it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll move it. And we know your reasons for it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #95-53: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution for the
gambling premises permit rene~val application of the Chanhassen American Legion Post 580. All voted in
favor, except Councilwoman Doekendorf who opposed~ and the motion carded 4 to L
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting° All voted in favor and the
motion carded. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
49