CC 1995 03 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUN. CIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCII,MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESET: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Scott Harr,
Todd Hoffman, John Rask and Sharmin A1-Jaff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Mayor Chmiel: Before I go to the approval of the agenda, I'd like to remove a couple items. Item l(a) on the
consent. Item 1 and 2. It's been requested that it be removed from the agendas
Councilman Mason: Is that (a) and (b) or 1 and 27
Mayor Chmiel: 1 and 2.
Councilman Mason: Oh, under 1, alright. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And item number 8, the applicant requested that this item be tabled or removed
from the agenda so we will also honor that aspect of it. So with that, with those two, is there approval of the
agenda?
Councilman Senn: Before we do, I was wondering if it would be possible to move items 5 and 9 up after 2.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think that's a good idea.
Councilman Senn: We have a number of people here for those items, before we get into kind of our regular.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but item 3 and 4 shouldn't, well 4 might take a little time.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: 3 wouldn't be any problem.
Councilman Senn: How about if I move approval of moving item, on the agenda, moving items 5 and 9 to
follow number 2 and then the rest of the sequence.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, moved and seconded. All those in favor. Discussion.
Councilman Mason: How about for somebody that might not be here for item 9 until a little later, as is the case
sometimes? I mean I'm all for it but.
Mayor Chmiel: I would agree with that. Yeah, year that's probably true~
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Mason: I mean maybe we should find that out first.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hoxv do you find'that out?
Councilman Mason: Well, typically if my item on the agenda was number 9, I wouldn't be here at 7:30 or 8:00.
Mayor Chmiel: I agree.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well let's move up 5.
Councilman Senn: Can we wait and see at the time?
Councilman Mason: Then we can just hold it off if they aren't here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we can tentatively move xvith item 9 and if they're here for presentation, then we can go
along with that.
Councilman Mason: Sounds good.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to amend the agenda to move items 5 and 9 to
follow item 2 on the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: Did we just move on the.
Mayor Chmiel: No, no. We have to move for the approval of the agenda. That was just for moving items 5
and 9.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it. I want to add something.
Mayor Chrniel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: I don't 'know how late tonight's going to go. Tonight may be too late but, depending on
the time, I would like to talk about some of the Planning Commission Minutes for their discussion on an
ordinance pertaining to buffer zones between residential areas.
Mayor Chrniel: Okay. If there's enough time, we'll move into it. Okay, with that additional item, and did you
put a second to that one?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, he did.
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pumuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
bo
Accept Donations from the Chanhassen American Legion and Rosemount Engineering for the Carver
County Control Team.
Modification to 10 Year Acquisition Plan for Fire Trucks, Request to Obtain Plans and Specifications for
New Equipment.
e. Approval of Bills.
City Council Minutes dated February 27, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 15~ 1995
ho
Resolution #95-35: Approve No On-Street Parking Zones on Lake Lucy Road (from TH 41 to 1700 foot
east), Project No. 92-12; and Resolution #95-36: McGlynn Drive (from Galpin Boulevard to 1600 foot
east), Project No. 93-26A.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Item (d) and (g) were moved to the end of the agenda.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
OUR COMMUNITY...OUR YOUTH INrrIATIVE, BETTY JENKINS.
Betty Jenkins: I'm just going to take a fexv minutes of your time today. In fact, actually what I'm going to do
is just wet your appetite on Our Community, Our Youth. I've given you a yellow piece of paper which is a
special invitation and it's for an opportunity to learn more about our community, our youth initiative and discuss
the results of this survey. The kids that took this survey in Grades 7 thru 12 in the Minnetonka School District.
The date is Wednesday, March 15th at the Minnetonka Community Center, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Grays Bay
Room. If you have any questions, you can call Jan Callison or John Anderson, and their numbers are at the
bottom of the invitation. What I want to talk about tonight is, around last summer we decided that we needed
to take another look at how we could best effect helping our youth in building a healthy community. For years,
parents, leaders, educators, citizens in southeast Lake Minnetonka have been trying to find ways to insure our
young people grow up with good self esteem, a strong sense of confidence and the good news is, that for the
first time, the entire community is coming together to make the pieces of a puzzle fit together. There's an old
African proverb, which I'm sure all of you have heard. It takes a whole village to raise a child. In other words,
it's not enough for young people to hear a positive message at home, or at school, or in the community or at a
place of worship. They need to hear this same message reinforced in all areas of their life. Recent research
done by the Search Institute of Minneapolis, which was funded by Lutheran Brotherhood, brings new insight
into making pieces of this puzzle fall into place. The Institute's findings show that the average students in
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
grades 6 through 12 who have certain assets in place, for example strong families, mentors, clear rules and
behavior guidelines, they're involved in adult supervised structured programs, is better able to withstand and
cope with the temptations so prevalent in society today. Alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, anti-social behavior, etc.
Unfortunately, only 60% of our youth, even in the suburbs, have sufficient assets. These findings have inspired
diverse groups to come together and jointly take on the task of creating a solid, community wide commitment to
make sure that these vital developmental assets become more common in the lives of our children and our
youth. In our community, our youth initiative was formed last summer and our mission is to provide a positive
development of youth and community wide partnership together with family. What's unique about this
initiative? First, we're focusing on building positive, not just preventing the negative. There's always a place,
prevention efforts in the southeast Lake Minnetonka area but fostering developmental assets has the greatest...to
make the most difference in our children and our youth. Second, in the past when parents, agencies,
organizations, clubs, or grass root groups took on the challenge of youth development, their efforts went on in
isolation from each other. Youth do not receive common messages from home, school and the community.
Positive reinforcement did not occur consistently across the many different contacts youth have in their daily
living. There's a unique energy and connectiveness around this effort because we're looking at building the
positive and because we're working together to make an impact. We are unique. It's a journey, not a product.
We don't 'know what the end result will be but with input from everyone in our community, ~ve will be working
together to create something new. The initiative is for all children, from birth to age 18. Many programs today
focus on just young children, or just those at risk, or just.i~ We want to discover what it means to be a
community that values and supports all youth. We're also focusing on building the positive and not just
preventing the negative, and you'll hear me say this over and over again. There is certainly a valuable place for
this prevention, but I don't want you to forget that we need to look at positive ways in building assets so xve can
make a difference in our youth. This initiative includes all stake holders in the community. We're encouraging
cooperation and collaboration on efforts to develop a complete array of assets for all children and youth. And
our initiative, our organization for our community, our youth, we have stake holders from students, parents,
religion, business, schools, youth programs, school government, municipal government, the health community,
communications, laxv enforcement, social services, young adults and seniors. There are 14 main people that are
on the steering committee and each one of these 14 people have either one or more associate. We also have 14
advisors to our initiative and all these people are working together to send out the message of youth assets. Key
to the initiative's success, it was the input and commitment from individuals, organizations and networks. Over
3,000 students ~vere surveyed this fall to see which assets are strong in our community and which assets seem to
be lacking. Now I want to take a brief minute to go over the survey results, and that's the packet of paper that
you have. The xvhite stapled together thing. You can take this home and read it. I'm not going to bore you
xvith all these statistics but I just want to point out a couple different things. The profiles of student life in the
Minnetonka School District were prepared by Gayle Blyth and this is a summary, synopsis of what happened in
this survey and what the profiles of Minnetonka youth look like. I think it's like the seventh page in your
packet, they'll show a thing called the consequences of assets for your youth. And what you'll see is youth with
fewer assets are more likely to partake in illicit types of activities, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sexual
activity, depression, suicide, anti-social behavior, school failures and vehicular safety. But those students with
high assets are the students who are getting mostly A's, their service to others and your generally just the all
around good youth that we like to see in our community. Minnetonka does not look any different than anyone
else in the nation, and they surveyed about, oh I want to say 600 other communities. Many of them looking
just like Minnetonka. They were the suburbs, some of them as close as Wayzata, St. Louis Park, Edina had
participated in the survey and many other communities are also coming on board. And when we look at the
statistics, and the national statistics, people will say. Oh well, a lot of that is inner city. Well inner city hasn't
been put into these statistics yet because they haven't surveyed inner city. They will be doing that this year.
So, we've got a lot of work to do to encourage our kids to develop assets. One of the things everyone asks is,
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
what can we do? And as a society and as a community we might move towards asset... Where do we start?
First of all we've got to start by preventing, by thinking, you 'know a mind set. From preventing to promoting.
Kids need information but information is not enough by itself. We must change our focus on what Ave don't
want for our youth to what we do want for our youth. They need to hear that message. From youth as
problems to youth as resources. We need to empower our youth to be active in meaningful ways. From strictly
a family focus to a community focus. It's not enough for parents alone to raise a child. It takes the whole
community. Research shows that it takes 6 meaningful adults in every child's life to bring them to be a good
adult. From blaming to framing. Rather than blaming someone for the problems, look at ways to change what's
happening. From competition to collaboration. Let's work together with other organizations to help build the
best programs for our youth while building a community. From labeling to including. Promote and support
activities for all youth rather than just for at risk or kids at the top. What can you as a municipal government
do? Give recognition to youth whenever possible. Support and encourage youth volunteers in community
service opportunities. Encourage youth to take an active interest in the community and their city government.
Provide resources to help youth to become better connected to the community, and certainly begin to think
about asset...and I thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much.
Betty Jenkins: One more thing. There is a pink sheet in your packet.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I saw that.
Betty Jenkins: And you saw that. That's a survey and we'd really appreciate it if you would fill that out and
send that back to Janis Callison and she's using this information, or gathering all this information from all the
different city goq, emments and we want to know what's going on in your community and what kind of things
you would like to see happen. Thank you very much~
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, we'll just move right along to the next agenda item.
PUBLIC HEA~G: REQUEST FOR ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE, GUYed GRILL, 7874
MARKET BOULEVARD~ GUY PETERSEN..
Public Present:
Name Address
Charrisse Petersen
Jan Coey
John Hennessy
Guy's Grill
Guy's Grill
7305 Galpin Blvd.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Petersen has made an application for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license. I think that the
Public Safety Department would be concerned if this would be a bar type of a bar but the current application is
to solely have the liquor associated with the sales of food. Similar comments were received in terms of concern
from various merchants within the center. We have carried out the background review and find nothing in there
to not permit issuance of this. I should note that the issuance of an on-sale liquor license is solely at the
discretion of the City Council. So you do not have to state your reasons if you would wish to deny it. That's
really the end of the staff report.
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is Mr. Petersen here this evening? Okay would you, is there anything that
you'd wish to say this evening in regard to the application? If you'd like to come up to the podium please and
state your name and your address.
Jan Coey: I'm Jan Coey and the only reason we're doing this is basically as...tactic. With the restaurants that
have come into town and the existing, and more that have been pre-approved, there's no way that you can...
being blocked off by buildings and competing with the chains that are coming in. So we just want to try and
set ourselves apart from the chains a little bit and offer them something a little different to maybe give them a
reason to come there. And again, it's not going to be a bar...the latest we will be open will be 10:00 at night
and basically it's just...so people have another option in town...margarita with their Mexican food or a cocktail
with their dinner. That's basically about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, what are your actual hours of operation?
Jan Coey: Right noxv in the winter we've been closing at 8:00 and in the summer we're usually open until, we
have been until 9:00-9:30. We'll keep those hours, depending on business but I mean sometimes in that type of
deal when people are having their cocktails, they tend to eat a little later sometimes, it will depend. But like I
said, it will be 10:00 would be the latest. And there will be no bar bar in there. It will just be a small service
bar is all. There will be no added seating. No booth. I mean no stools or anything at the bar. It will just be a
service bar.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. Is there any questions that Council might have in regards to this? If not,
okay I'll move right down the line here. Steve. Would you like to indicate anything? Before I do that, let me
ask, is there anyone else here who would like to participate in this public hearing in regards to the issuance of
this liquor license to Guy's. Is there anyone wishing to address that? If seeing none, can I have a motion then
to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Now.
Councilman Berquist: Now. May I ask Jan some questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Jan, would you like to come back up to the mic please.
Councilman Berquist: When I ,,vas reading the application Jan, I had a couple of questions that came to mind.
You've currently got a wine and beer license that, how many dollars did you generate from wine and beer sales
in the past year?
Jan Coey: I don't have those figures.
Councilman Berquist: I'm wondering that, the license cost for a wine and beer is $280.00 for a year, and
obviously you know. And the license cost for on sale is $6,115.00. In my own mind I'm looking at this and
I'm trying to explain the economics to myself. What makes sense. The number of drinks versus the gross
profit. Does the food generate, food sales generated make the deal work. I'm simply trying to understand.
Does the liquor drive the food sales? Does the food drive the liquor sales?
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Jan Coey: That's something that we don't really know. I mean it might not even help, we don't -know. But it's
a shot. Let's put it this way, we've got to do something and that's about all we can do. I mean there really is
no other option. So xve want to try to do something and that's the only thing we can come up with is to try to
offer, you knmv xvhere people can come in and have a Mexican meal and have a margarita...we xvant to try to
emphasize the Mexican food and along with that...a margarita or whatever. Although we will have other things
available for people that don't like them but. We don't 'know if it's going to help. It might now.
Councilman Berquist: So what you're doing is you're betting 6 grand that it's going to help you survive.
Jan Coey: Hopefully, taking a shot because we have to do something. We cannot compete. Having Wendy's
in our parking lot. Being blocked off by another building from the main drag. Having a Perkins and Taco Bell
and all those type of places coming into town...there's no way a small person like us is going to survive, so we
have to try something to save what we've invested down there on the property.
Councilman Berquist: Well, I don't have any other comments right at this moment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
·
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I tend to have a soft spot for Guy's just because ! frequented it quite often
when you were a little shack on the comer.
Jan Coey: We xvish xve xvere still there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I understand it is a challenge. Nonetheless I'm having a hard time, and I
don't want to tell you how to run your business. You know I can't control the number of banks that we're going
to have in toxvn, although I think it's excessive. But this is something I can have an influence on and I'm just,
right now I'm leaning towards denying the application.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, if xve approve this, I see Frankie's coming in and I see every other restaurant coming
in wanting the same sort of deal and I guess I don't, it's my personal feeling is that I don't think we need ali that
on sale, sale of liquor in this city. I think there's some issues that are raised with having stronger spirits than
wine and beer sold at Market Square. And unless I can hear some other reasons, I'm inclined to agree with
Councilwoman Dockendorf at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm not exactly enamored with the idea of, I think it comes back to the same points
that I think Mike and Colleen raised. At the same time I guess I have a lot of respect for the current operators
and have had a long history with them. But at the same time that opens a little concern to me and the concern
it opens to me is, the liquor license is there and once you aren't the operators~ then I'm not sure I would be as
comfortable xvith that as I am as long as you are the operators. I tried to think through some -kind of a scenario
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
here that would make me a little more comfortable and the only scenario I can come up with I guess that makes
me more comfortable is confining the serving to hours somewhat similar to what the liquor store per se
maintains there now, I think which is what. 8:00 on weekdays and 10:00 on weekends or whatever. And also
confining, in terms of an overall amount of business more or less, confining to something like 40% of gross
sales can only be liquor or something like that. That's something I've brought up a number of times before
xvhen we've talked about our liquor codes and we've done nothing to date about changing them but I would
really like to start to see our codes put benchmarks in there which would relate to the amount of gross sales that
xvould come from liquor and the amount that could come from food and I think that would have a great deal
with governing, how would I say controlling that place turning over under any type of ownership to more or a
drinking establishment than a food establishment. Now I know there are some inherent problems with enforcing
it or keeping track of that but a number of cities have done that so as near as I can tell, it must be possible and
in my mind if we could put those types of restrictions on it, then I'd be pretty comfortable with giving it a try.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well I had decided to take a little time and sit out in the parking lot today to see
exactly `,vhat the flow is up and down the entirety of that mall. And what I really found ,,vas this being a family
orientated type of mall. People going back and forth. There seems to be even a lot of kids and I went back
there at about even 3:00 in the afternoon and then a little bit after that just to see exactly what it was. And to
have a place to sell liquor directly to where this is really family orientated and I think even in the leases as to
what you had with hard liquor, as I call it, I have some real deep concerns with that. As far as the operator of
the business, I don't have any concerns with Guy. But I do xvith maybe the type of clientele that will be
utilizing that particular facility and going back out into those lots after they had been in there for a period of
time. And to me it's just not really family orientated as far as I see that. The design of the mall I like when it
went in. I like it now.
Jan Coey: The parking lot.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Jan Coey: The parking lot is terrible.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. But at least that's where I'm coming from right now. I'm just, I really have some mixed
emotions about that. Steve did you, you indicated you might want to say something more as well.
Councilman Berquist: Well you know, again. I was sitting at my desk typing out some of my remarks and
Guy's has always had the reputation for having good food. Looking at it from what differentiates you from
Taco Bell for instance. You do have a, there is a wine and beer license. I doubt that they're going to come in
and apply for a wine and beer license. I would really, I would prefer, I mean I understand where you're coming
from. Survival is difficult in this day and age and God knows, Chanhassen has a tremendous amount of
restaurants. I'd really prefer to see your emphasis placed on the food. I can't believe that on sale liquor is
going to insure survival.
Jan Coey: If we can increase the dinner, I mean there's just not enough business in this town in the amount of
restaurants that are already here. Obviously you people don't realize that but there isn't. Anybody who's already
in a restaurant in this town, they're going to tell you they're down from just the two places so far that have
opened. You've already approved 3 more coming into town. There's no way. We're not going to make it the
way it is. So I don't care how much advertising we do, the name brands. We can't compete with having a
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Wendy's and everybody advertising every 15 minutes you see an ad on TV. We can't Compete. And we're not
national. We don't have that kind of assets to be able to advertise. We cannot compete with them.
Councilman Berquist: When Market Square wasn't even out of the ground yet, there was a lot of discussion
about a national fast food going in one of the outlots. I mean in Guy's letter he says, the sudden outbreak of
restaurants. The sudden outbreak, I mean there is no real sudden outbreak of restaurants. Wendy's or a fast
food outlet has been planned for that area for years, or a long time. I mean there were people that turned it
down. There's always talk of a fast food outlet going in there. So I don't really see that as having changed.
Jan Coey: Maybe it hasn't changed but it has changed our business and we have to do something if we're going
to survive. So that's our only shot and we're just asking for it and I guess that's all I can say. You guys can
vote on it and either approve it or not. We don't know if it's going to work. It might not help at all. Then
we'd be out the money and whatever but, it's kind of like, you know before you give up the ghost, you've got to
try to take a shot at whatever you think might be a possibility and that's what we're doings
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If not, I would call for a motionc
Councilman Mason: I ',viii make a motion denying the request for on-sale intoxicating liquor at Guy's Grill.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second7
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to deny the request of an on-sale intoxicating
liquor license for Guy's Grill at 7874 Market Boulevard. All voted in favor of the motion, except Councilman
Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1o
REZONING OF 49.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO R4, MIXED LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 49.9 ACRES INTO 92 TWIN HOME LOTS AND ONE
OUTLOT; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5~
APPROXIMATELY 114 MII.E ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD; LAKE ANN HIGHLANDS,
BRAD JOHNSON~ LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Jensen 2173 Brinker Street
Bill Scorse 2187 Brinker Street
Mike Perry 7521 Windmill Drive
Julie Wojtanowski 2145 Brinker Street
Jim Fiedler 7500 Windmill Drive
Kathy Haldeman 2059 Brinker Street
Charles Peterson 7496 Crocus Court
Howard Sall 7491 Tulip Court
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Wren Feyereisen 7501 Windmill Drive
Jeff Stoke 2103 Brinker Street
Mary Jane Olson 7461 Windmill Drive
Bob & Carol Oleeraisner 2075 Brinker Street
Kevin Joyce 2043 Brinker Street
Virginia Bell 7476 Crocus Court
Amit Diamond 2117 Brinker Street
Rick Manning 7460 Windmill Run
John Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd.
Kate Aanenson: This item was tabled from the February 13th meeting. There were several issues that the
Council directed the applicant, and the neighbors tried to work to resolve. On Thursday, March 9th, a meeting
was held with a number of the neighborhoods and the applicant to try to resolve these issues. The applicant has
provided a different site plan. A modified site plan which I'd like them to go through. I'll just kind of highlight
the issues but I xvill allow the applicant really to go through those specifically. But what they have done is
provided a buffer along the north property line that's approximately 35 feet and come up with different floor
plans, therefore allowing for a minimum of 63 feet, 65 feet from the closest home to a maximum of 100 feet.
The two different floor plans allows for the porches to be placed along the side instead of the rear. Some
different variety in the design of the home itself. One of the other issues that was brought up by the Council
and the Planning Commission was the monotony of the design and the appearance. We've worked with the
applicant to come up xvith some different floor plans and different types of materials and colors and we've added
that as a condition in the staff report. Some things that came out of the meeting with the neighbors was the
possibility of the berm. I'm not sure, the neighbors have met with the applicant again tonight and I'll allow
them to speak to that but if there is a condition of a berm being placed in there, the staff would request that xve
have an opportunity to add that to the condition as far as specifying or allowing for alternatives so when it does
come back for final plat, we specify at least some designs on what it could look like to make sure that we get
what's represented here tonight. What we're doing with the conditions, we've added a fexv and xvhat we're doing,
even though this is a standard subdivision, is we're trying to tie the development down so xvhat's being
represented here tonight is actually what the neighbors will see. So what we'll do is put this into the
development contract itself so we have added a condition regarding the types of building materials. The variety
and brick or those sort of effects and that will be condition number 7. One of the other issues that came out
xvith the neighborhood was the possibility of a sidewalk. We are recommending that a sidewalk be placed along
the extension of Windmill Drive, which that would be the road heading north and south, down towards the
frontage road. That possibly being located on the east side. That will allow that neighborhood, allow them on a
sidewalk to get do~vn to the frontage road and to the trail and be able to head east. So we have modified those
things in the staff report. The other issue that's still a concern to the neighbors, the extension of the road.
Windmill Drive into this subdivision. Again we had felt that this was an important issue. The connection of
this neighborhood down to the frontage road. This is the...which will allow these neighborhoods to get down
onto that, over to the park without having to get onto TH 5 or another collector street, which is Oalpin. While
:ye believe that Windmill Drive access to Galpin from either Lake Ann or Highlands subdivision or the future
Highxvay 5 is neither efficient or convenient so we really don't think that there may be some trips down there
but we don't think that's really going to be the most direct path. And we recommend that the street remain as
proposed xvhen it was brought in to be connected with the subdivision to the south. So we are recommending
approval with modifications and again based on what's shown here tonight, we would like to further add,
depending on which direction you go, make sure that we've got the conditions where we xvant them so they get
put into a development contract.
10
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Would the developer like to.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. Peter Beck, representing the developer in this matter. This is the
revised plan. What was done primarily was to squash the plat, if you will, towards the south in order to
lengthen and enlarge the lots to the north. And what we were able to get enough depth if you will in those lots
to create what we're calling a 35 foot buffer yard, if you will, along that northern edge of the plat. And also
we've gotten to the point where, as Kate indicated, we're going to be able to provide a minimum 65 foot setback
from the closest home in the project to the north property line. And we've also gotten, as I mentioned in my
letter, again and I hope most of the Councilmembers had a chance to read it. We've gotten a lot of areas up
way beyond minimum code requirements. The depths to the point where they're about the same as the single
family detached neighborhood to the north. We have done our best at improving this twin home project but we
have not, as Council 'knows, put any single family detached housing in there and we have of course talked to
the Council about this. We've talked to the neighbors about this. We are willing to do just about anything with
this project to improve it from their perspective but we are not able to put single family detached housing into
this project and still maintain the project. It would have to be something ent-irely different if it were going to be
partially single family detached. So we're back to you with a plan that maintains the twin homes. They will be
Ross Fefercom's County Home project, which the Council saw and we have made a commitment to the
neighbors and to the Council that that can be written into the development approvals, which isl..situation in a
straight zoning but it's something that Dr. Conway is committed to and hopes to be able to hold Ross in the
deal. Certainly we have met with the neighbors last Thursday. We met again just prior to the meeting tonight.
We understand that most of the neighbors are disappointed that there's not single, family detached housing there.
Some will probably use stronger language. We do appreciate their willingness to work with us on the details if
it is going to be this project. And those include this minimum 65 foot setback. In this evening's meeting, a
representative of the neighborhood indicated their desire that the buffer yard incorporate a berm. A minimum 6
foot berm, which is fine. We will do that. They are requesting a minimum of 250 coniferous trees, 20-25 feet
in height. And we didn't have the benefit of Ross' guidance in this meeting so I'm not sure that we can get
quite to there, to that point but what we ask, in other words, if we could agree with the Council and the
neighborhood on a process pursuant to which Ross and BRW's landscape architects would get together and do a
detailed landscape plan for that berm and find out how much vegetation makes sense for there and what size
and take that to the neighborhood, and basically work it out between now and final plat. Because I think when
everybody takes a look at the differences between a picket row of evergreens and some groupings of different
types of vegetation that the creativity of a trained landscape architect can come up with, I think we can do
something better than just a simple solution tonight of dictating rows of evergreens~ And Kevin can speak for
the neighborhood and I think they're agreeable to some sort of a process like that. At least some of their
neighborhood representatives. The sidewalk connection is something that we're perfectly comfortable with
adding that as a condition. My understanding is that Kate and Ross were able to meet today and agree on some
guidelines for the architectural variety of color and style and what not that she thinks meets the city's concerns
and Ross is able to work with them. And that leaves us with the road connection. As the Council ,`viii recall,
we have designed the plat pursuant to the direction of the staff with the road connection. We will build it
anyway the Council decides it should be. As I said in my letter, we'll connect it now. We'll connect it later.
We'll never connect it. We do have a plan under here for how the project could be developed without. This is
one concept of how we could finish that comer by just turning the street down and putting in a private drive for
those two homes. There of course are other ways to do it and again I think that's something, if we have a
connection, no connection decision, we have the basic...planning decisions made tonight, we can work out the
plan...on ,,,,,hat exactly and whether this house stays this direction or tums the other way and those kinds of
things. And again, we are comfortable with the conditions Kate has recommended. The conditions that Kevin
11
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
has brought to us. And we are willing to work out...between now and final plat. With that I guess I'll sit down
unless there are questions the Council wanted to go through a full.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you just flip that back to that first one that you had on Peter.
Peter Beck: You bet. And I have some color versions too.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a question. You're talking about having a 35 foot buffer yard on that side. What about the
parcel just to the east?
Peter Beck: This? Again, this is where, that's why I say we can work out the details. If the road goes through
here, this becomes a side yard you know, instead of a back yard. So no, we're not talking a 65 foot setback on
a side yard setback there. If the road doesn't go through, as I just mentioned, but I'm sorry. Even if it stays
like this, we do have the ability. There's some extra depth right here. We can slide that doxvn. We can get it
quite a bit longer than it is now but probably not all the xvay to the 65 feet that we're showing here. If
however, you knoxv there ends up being no road and there might be a way to twist that and make it another
back yard and if it's back yard setback commitment tonight, would be 65 feet and we'll live with it. If it's a side
yard setback, we will...
Kate Aanenson: Let me just also answer that question. If your question was, could it be buffered? Yes. It
probably could. It probably could be crunched down a little bit.
Peter Beck: I'm sorry. Regardless of what, even if it doesn't end up being 65 feet, yes. We will be putting in a
buffer, landscape. I think since there's only one property owner up here involved, I think xvhat we ~vould
probably do, I don't know who it is, but I think xve would contact that homeowner and xvork directly xvith them
to see what their preference would be to see outside their window. Now everybody likes berms, you 'know.
And that's why we originally offered the neighborhood the option. At least for this segment, they would like a
berm and perhaps this homeowner xvould too. If he would, we'll put a berm there. If he'd like a different
treatment, we'll talk to him about that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Your coniferous trees that you had mentioned, what heights are we talking for those
trees?
Peter Beck: We're going to get, again Ross, are we talking a minimum of 20 foot?
Ross Fefercorn: 15 to 20 feet approximately.
Peter Beck: Yeah. When we met before the meeting, Kevin's recollection was that we were talking 20 to 25
feet and what I think, xvell we'll live with whatever the Council says. We are talking a range of 15 to 25. If
you want to say a minimum point and then...Yeah, if we're talking 250-20 foot and higher trees, it may be a
struggle but we will do our best and I think what we'll do, what we'd like to do is see whether it makes sense to
have 250 coniferous trees in the 35 foot strip along there. It may make more sense, and again this decision
would be made with the folks on Brinker Street that are affected, but it may make more sense to do some
groupings of different types of trees and mix the excess coniferous trees in the rest of the lots, and maybe even
on their lots if they'd like. I mean there's a lot of different ways. I guess what we're saying is, that 200-250,
yeah that was my recollection too. And I guess what we would say is, we ~vould do a minimum of 200 15 to
25 foot trees and it may be more if the final landscaping plan indicates an effective screen that requires more.
12
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good. Does anyone else have any questions?
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I have a question Peter. On the other, I think it was the color draxving. You had
shown some different driveway treatments, meaning the homes would be a different style and I know there was
some discussion last Thursday that you were changing those units along the north to be a certain style. Are we
talking uniform buildings there?
Kate Aanenson: Maybe I can address that from when I talked to Ross and Ross may be able to too, but this is
what I wrote down from my notes that we're expecting in there as far as variety. There's 5 building types. The
modifications include 2, 2 1/2 to 3 car garage. The location of the garage from front or side loaded. The
addition of a 4 season porch. The combination of external cedar like material with horizontal lap siding. And a
percentage of the first story would be brick or with stone veneer. And the color range, at least 4 different colors
and he said they may also be 6 so we feel that really meets the intent of breaking up the monotony. What we
don't want to have is the same product in a row.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I was just concerned about thatc
Peter Beck: I just confirmed ~vith Ross. This unit, this can accommodate either a front entry or side entry
garage so there would be a variety across there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So those are the kind of varieties that we xvere looking for and I think that that's being
accomplished.
Peter Beck: Even though these are all the...we get that setback, we can still have variety in the garage layouts.
It's basically the same garage, just where you put the door.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Turning it, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? Okay.
Peter Beck: Thank you and we'll be more than xvilling to get up later to confirm our understanding with the
neighbors. I know Kevin has a few conditions and hopefully we don't have too much of a misunderstanding on
numbers of trees but the other parts of it, in working through a process, we're in agreement with them...thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I knoxv we have a representative from the neighborhood and I 'know we have a
spokesperson. Who's the spokesperson?
Kevin Joyce: We have a couple. There's about 2 or 3 people that want to speak, and I'm afraid that's, we have
some thoughts of some of us that have come together. There are people that are still worried about this single
family issue so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If we can limit it to.
Kevin Joyce: We don't want to be here to I:00 again believe me.
13
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Well, we have a lot of other items on the agenda.
Kevin Joyce: I understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: And so, whoever would like to approach Council and I would request that you try to wind it
up. We've gone through this many, many times and if we could limit it to maybe 5 minutes.
Virginia Bell: Will do. My name is Virginia Bell. I live at 7476 Crocus Court. Many of the neighbors in
Windmill Run are still very much opposed to the twin home development. We've gone over the reasons for you
and I don't xvant to spend time going over the same ground but the misrepresentatives and what was represented
to us isn't consistent with this. The incompatibility of this type of housing to single family units. The lack of
balance xve feel between the right number of multi-family units that will be there compared to our small single
family community. The monotony and uniformity, even with the changes and the five different home styles, I
think there still `,vill be a lot of monotony and uniformity. Those are some of the reasons that many of the
neighbors are still opposed to the twin home development. With that in mind, some of the neighbors have met
with the developer and with the attorney and have worked out some conditions that if Council does approve this
project, these neighbors would like to see and I'd like to mention that for many of the neighbors, the conditions,
and there are basically three of them, are conditions they would like to see all of them and feel they would need
to have all of them before they feel comfortable with the twin home development. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Amit Diamond: My name is Amit Diamond. I live in Brinker Street and I'd like to point out to Council for
two issues that I think are very critical in this matter. Number one is the conduct of government over here,
which I feel that the reason the Planning Commission was supposed to approve or disapprove some development
project. This issue came 2 or 3 times into the Planning Commission and we all attended the same kind of
meetings. There were concerns but at the end they opposed it. And I repeat, t,hey opposed it and the main
issue was proper transition. Proper transition and you cannot...I'll repeat single family homes in the first of two
roxvs. Then we were approached and said, try to compromise with the developer, which we did. And I'II repeat,
this is 250 trees or xvhatever else the attorney has said, we didn't like it. We don't like it. But `,ye seem like we
don't have a choice because we're trying to fight up with bureaucracy and the bureaucracy is that there is a
developer ,,',,ho lives in town, probably lives in one of the offices upstairs, and every time we come in here...he
shows over here to come over here. And we come and we don't have a choice...just opposed or not. What I'm
trying to say is that we are civilians over here...and we're trying to fight government. And if there is a
government over here, and...Planning Commission and the Planning Commission opposed it, I think that the
City Council should oppose it in addition. Not just come up and approve it because the developer said so. The
developer put up the hotels and put up some other shopping centers in town, which he very nicely put up in the
last paper that I read. The other issue is that we are, we feel that there should be a proper transition and a
proper transition not proposed by a berm. And I'll repeat, all the builder is coming up and saying we want a
berm. A berm doesn't satisfy us. We don't want to see a mountain behind our houses. We want to see a
transition come up to say that we want to see a proper transition to put up between...and that's the main issue
over here and I don't see any particular point to have a Planning Commission if every development that the
Planning Commission opposes comes up to a developer that is very well, not very -know, very well 'known in
town and he just go through and we are...we can't fight government. We're trying to point out that we have a
voice in this town. We came up and we invested our money in this development and...don't think you like to
lose on your real estate value. I lost because of this type of incident in my first house that I sold and I don't
like it. In addition, there xvas also another...where we came up and we said, now before we build this house, go
14
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
up to...and they told us one thing and what happens is another and some of you, or one of you, or two of you,
whoever...that we were told one thing by the city staffer which, to our opinion, represents the town, they're
going to vote against this kind of issues and that's what I personally would like to see. Without mentioning any
names and that. So that's all. I would ask the city to go and tell the developer to sit with us and not just when
we come to him and ask him to put up I or 2 rows of single family homes. To basically come to us and said,
no. This is not a negotiation. We want to talk about berms. You want to talk about plants. If you want to
talk about flowers, trees, we'll talk to you. But when it comes up to the issue of single family homes, he doesn't
want to hear anything...twin homes, then he can do single family homes. And if they for $250,000.00...and not
to have one big house...we don't want to see that but we ask that the proper transition will be done. And again,
I would like to point out again the proper government that to the best of my knowledge, I wasn't born in this
country but I am living in this country and very proud of it. I like Chanhassen. I came to live in Chanhassen
from far away on the east coast and was told everything nice about Chanhassen. I don't like the city being
ruined because there is a massive of gain, which is financial gain. I don't see it any other way...position to a
single family home. So I'm asking myself...this neighborhood to come up and oppose it and instruct that the
developer and the owner of the land, whoever...to work with the neighborhood. Put a proper transition that will
lead gradually to the twin homes but ~vould start with the single family homesc Thank you.
Kevin Joyce: My name is Kevin Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street in Chanhassen and I, real briefly just have
one or two things to say. Number one, I am opposed to this development as well .... single family homes behind
there. This last meeting it was suggested that we work out some sort of compromise and as I'm saying, I'm still
very much, deeply opposed to this proposal. That there have been a compromise on the side of Ross Fefercorn
and his group and if, I'm hoping that you will oppose this proposal, but if this is sent through, we would like to
add these conditions. Peter tonight mentioned some of these conditions, but I'd like to go on public record xvith
the conditions that we have. Just so it's on the record. It will just take a moment. The one thing we were
talking about specifically was the berm and the trees, and I've written this out. The applicant shall reconstruct a
total visual screen between Windmill Run and the Lake Ann Highlands development which will include a 6 foot
berm the length of the abutting property lines, with a minimum of 250 coniferous trees, 20 to 25 feet in height
of Black Hill Spruce, evergreen, or Colorado Blue Spruce varietyc Also planted with 50 deciduous trees
interspersed with the coniferous trees. This screen should be planted prior to commencement of construction. I
understand that Peter is going to submit some proposals before the final plat and just to let you folks know,
we'd be involved with that decision and we'll be involved with that process. And we understand that...
landscapers will be talking to them but I wanted to go on record with that. The second thing I want to go on
record is the applicant will construct a bike or walking trail leading from Windmill Drive cul-de-sac south to the
proposed frontage road. The trail shall be built at the time as the road in the proposed development and shalI
separate from the roadxvay. And the final thing is the road issue. I think we've compromised a lot. If this does
go through, we're out of our single family homes, we're getting something that we don't want, I think they've
made some concessions. I think the city has to compromise with us here. We really do not want to be attached
to this at all. And we would like, it's such a different development than our's. We would like to have that road
not connected. I'll let Rick Manning go into that but thanks.
Councilman B~rquist: What was the route of this path that you were talking about?
Kevin Joyce: I think Peter referred to it.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be a sidewalk adjacentc Right on that... Good, thanks.
Kevin Joyce: Thank you.
15
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Rick Manning: My name is Rick Manning. I live at 7460 Windmill Drive and I'd like to speak to the road
issue for a minute if I could. And like Kevin said, I think that 2 of the 3 parties here have compromised and
we would hope that the city would compromise in this issue as well. Now that we've, if this does go through, if
we have to resolve to agreeing to the twin homes addition, we would hope that, well I should say that our
biggest concern after that would be the continuation of the road. It's a safety issue for the 60 children that live
in the area. 60 plus I should say. It continues to grow and I'd just like to go on record that Windmill Run does
not want to see that road continue on. We don't see any benefit to that road continuing on and we would like to
see a permanent cul-de-sac there with the sidewalk connecting the two neighborhoods and giving us access to
the trails and what not. In talking to the city, I realize that the Planning Department is very adamant about
seeing this connection and the main purpose of that, as I understand it anyway, is the issue of the frontage road.
We would have access to the frontage road. And quite honestly the consensus of the neighborhood, well
actually first of all. We're the end of the line in terms of access to the frontage road and with this connection,
we're the last neighborhood in the group there so the connection really just benefits us as far as getting to the
frontage road and then as a neighborhood we really don't feel that that benefits us. We don't want to see that
connection there. We don't feel the need for it. If we want to get to the frontage road, we'll hop onto Galpin
and pick up the frontage road and xve can get to downtown. So the issue of the ease and the access to the
frontage road, we really don't believe it benefits us. We don't see who it really benefits. Talking to the
engineering department, they would like to see the frontage road issue, same issue with the frontage road.
They'd like to see the connection. The engineering department xvould also like to connect neighborhoods in
Chanhassen. We don't feel like, we first of all we didn't want to see this neighborhood here anyway the ~vay it
is so to connect the two of us, we really don't see it as a benefit to us either. Also talking to the engineering
department, they feel that the connection to the frontage road would protect us in terms of the increase traffic
that we're going to see out on Galpin Boulevard. And that really is our main issue. Is that increased traffic on
Galpin Boulevard and I made this point at the last meeting. We see the traffic cutting through our
neighborhood because now we have a relatively short,jaunt, fairly straight except for one curve on Windmill
Drive. Pretty straight shot to the frontage road and in the engineering department's words, when we get stacking
that's going to occur at the intersection of the frontage road or at Galpin and Highway 5, we're going to have
stacking occurring. People aren't going to have access to the left turn onto the frontage road. They're going to
need an alternate route or a short cut...go through Windmill Drive and down onto the frontage road if these two
roads are connected. In terms of the stacking, the engineering department felt that the only times that that
would really happen will be in the mornings and in the evenings. Rush hour times. And I guess that's the
biggest safety issue for us. In the mornings our kids are walking to the bus stops and in the afternoon they're
coming home from the bus stops and playing out in the street. That's when the traffic is going to be coming
through and stacking at the turn...so we're really concerned that people will be using Windmill Run and the
connecting road is that should happen, as an alternative access to the frontage road because of the traffic issues
that are going to develop with the increased development out in that area. Should this road go through, and
again we certainly don't want to see it happen. We'd like to see some stop signs at all of the intersections to
slow down some of the traffic. And it's a number of areas where you see stop signs. There's another
intersection up here as well. We'd like to see that controlled, if you decide that that should go through. And I
think the developer is willing to, well they already have an alternative plan and I think that benefits our
neighborhood both in the development and the issue of safety for us. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. I'd like to, probably a little later I'd like Public Safety and our Engineering to address
some of those issues that you brought up as well. Go ahead.
Mark ?: Mark...Windmill Drive and I am the landowner that's right here. I'm on the edge. And the plat, the
site plan, I'm still concerned ;vith the difference in setback betxveen this unit on the end, my house is here and
16
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
the rest of them. The purpose of the berming, the landscaping is transition and it certainly should be continuous
across this development. I'd certainly like to see the road go through to see the same type of setback here,
reducing about half is what is...is going to reduce the ability to berm. Is going to reduce the ability to
landscape. It's going to reduce the ability to do all the things that are being proposed for the rest of the
development in the area between my lot and... If the project goes through, I'd like to see a...the same type of
setback across all the way...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else'/
John Hennessy: John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin. I'm the property down here. I've not said anything on this
whole issue...the entire process. I asked to be included in whatever meeting transpired this last week but I guess
that wasn't important... I was kind of hoping that the city would have taken to heart the residents, the people
that elected the City Council. People that put you here to represent us and look at this a little more critically.
We've been looking at the Vision 2000 and this is our opportunity to make wise decisions. To make choices for
the city at this point in time while we're growing and it does not make sense to me to have a neighborhood that
are duplexes or twin homes or whatever kind of homes you want to call them, in this type of situation. These
people up here...will lose property value having twin homes here~ I will definitely lose property value having
twin homes surrounding me. Brad's admitted this to me before, 8 or 9 months ago. My property will suffer.
As far as berms and any of this stuff goes, I've lived here a long time. About 13 years and right about this spot
here is an elevation of about 50 feet higher than where my home is or where these homes are back here. 6 foot
of berm set back this far plus 20 foot of trees is not going to make these homes look less twin homes. They're
going to be completely... You're looking up like this. When I walk on top of this hill and I 'know elevations or
the topo can be changed, is it 10%9. 10% of that is still only about 5 feet and then you've got 20 to 30 feet of
building on top of that. These people here will see all these twin homes here. I will see all these twin homes
here. Any way you look at it, it's still going to look like a twin home unit. I've taken some time in the last
couple weeks to drive around Shorewood, Eden Prairie and some of the neighboring areas, looking at the best
and the finest of twin homes. They all look like twin home developments, no matter how you turn them. How
you face them. What kind of vegetation you put, they all look like twin home developments. They all affect
property values surrounding them. If you for some reason decide to go and approve this project, I don't see any
reason why I should have any less consideration as far as all this berming and tree action than the people up
here should. And I don't see the need to approve this project as it is anyway. We don't, as a city, owe anybody
any zoning. It's not their God given right to come before the Council and say, well you have to approve this
because I think we can do that...particular zoning. There's no reason that perhaps that the transition, if there's
going to be a transition...shouldn't be a nice single family neighborhood coming down at least in this area here
and then maybe going to twins and then maybe higher density as you approach the State Highway 5. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: John, just on the fact of what you said to staff in regard to being notified about the meeting.
This was a meeting between the property owners and the developer so.
John Hennessy: I spoke to Kate about a week ago and I asked her if there was a meeting scheduled, if she
would please notify me. I understand in speaking to some of the property owners just tonight that she was in
attendance at that meeting. I'm very prominent on that map there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. I just wanted you to 'know, the city did not call the meeting. Just for clarification
is all I wanted. Okay. Is there anyone elseg.
17
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Bill Scorse: I'm Bill Scorse. I just moved into the neighborhood. I live at 2187 Brinker Street. I moved in in
the end of February. I would not have purchased this home if I had 'know this was going on. I asked my
person xvho sold the home to me about it. What was going to happen to that land and they told it would be
developed residentially. I probably should not have taken their word for it. I would say that in looking for a
home, in coming to the Chanhassen area, I've been through Savage, Burnsville, all the way up to St. Louis Park.
All over the place and in the Chanhassen area, in the price range that I bought, that ,,vas the only house that was
listed in that price range so there's a real need in Chanhassen for single family housing and not twin homes.
And I'd just like to go on record that I am opposed to this development as it's stated as a twin home. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'll bring it back to Council. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, thank you so much.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You can always pass you 'know.
Councilman Berquist: Well I've got a lot of notes, and to be completely candid, all of my notes have to do with
what happens if approval, or the reasons for approval and John, you really threw me for a loop.
John Hennessy: Thank you.
Councilman Berquist: Your welcome. Your welcome. To be quite frank, with as much of a loop as you threw
me, I would really like a chance to re-organize my thoughts a little bit so I am going to pass.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks.
Councilman Berquist: Your welcome.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well, I could be short and succinct but I think I owe everyone an explanation of
the reason I'm making my decision. I'm not going to be doing the politically popular thing to do but that's
never how I make my decisions, and I have listened to the neighbors. I have listened to the developer and I
respect all of your opinions and I hope you'll do the same with mine. To set the record straight on a number of
items, starting with zoning. Right now it's zoned A-2, and it's guided for residential single family. And it's not
being rezoned from residential single family to twin home. It was never zoned for single family detached. It is
simply A-2 to residential single family low density. Unfortunately this category, this zoning includes this type
of development. Rarely, but it does. And as a representative of the city, and responsible for city staff actions, I
sincerely apologize if you felt you were misled. I can understand how it happened. And take into consideration
that I think a good amount of this misleading may have been from your realtor. As Mr. Scorse just said, you
heard it from the landowner, or from your property owner. The person you bought the home from. But if you
did hear from city staff, I apologize. And we have learned from that. Please respect my opinion. What we see
here is something that is consistent with our comp plan. With what we have guided for this area. It does meet
the density requirements, but that's not all we look for in a development. And honestly, really honestly, this is
consistent with your neighborhood. I believe that. It has the same values of your homes, as a unit. It has the
same, if not much better landscaping. It has more interesting topography and I realize that that's a function of
hoxv it was to start with. The demographics may be a little different. We don't know what the demographics
will be here. I think on a different subject, the developer has shown incredible flexibility based on xvhat I see
18
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
coming from other developers in this city. Because this is coming in as a straight plat, as opposed to what we
call a planned unit development where there's a lot more negotiation taking place, there was no need to say what
color the homes would be. What they would be made of. Those requirements weren't made of your homes.
They are not absolutely necessary to be made of these homes. Although I think it's a good idea. In the
landscaping and the buffering, and the changing of the home plans, there's a lot of flexibility there that I've
seen. In the exterior materials. Like I said, this is not mandatory. It was not required of your development.
Having said that, I think it has made it a better project that you have been involved in the process with the
developer, and I thank you for that. Caring enough to be involved in it. As Mr. Beck pointed out in his letter,
which I think was probably distributed to everyone. There is opportunity for single family detached to the
north, to the west and to the east of your neighborhood. I think to address again something, I keep picking on
you Mr. Scorse, but in terms of availability and what we have in the city to offer. I believe Bob put together a
list of the different types of homes that we have in the community and we're at 96% single family homes and
the rest some type of multiple housing unit. And ! think, is that what our comp plan is guided for Kate?
Kate Aanenson: A little less than that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: A little less. So you -know when the long term, it will be a good balance and it
just seems to us, our may seem to you that a lot of these developments have come in lately but in terms of
overall balance, we're still the preponderance is single family detached. To get to the issue which I think that
we've come to tonight, is the road connection and I would be, at the risk of being highly hypocritical, because I
feel the need to tell you. Several years ago I was at that podium vehemently requesting that the Council not
connect my neighborhood with another neighborhood. Since then, I understand the issues maybe a little better.
I've seen it several times and we, as Council, have faced it several times. The road does serve to your benefit,
and it provides a connection to the frontage road. It provides a connection to what eventually will be an
underpass to Bluff Creek Elementary and the recreation center there. Nonetheless, it's your neighborhood. So
I'm not certain on that one yet. Let me see what everyone else has to say. And I guess, one thing that occurred
to me is that your, and forgive me for using the collective you. I 'know you all have different opinions on it.
The original objection to this development is that you did not want to be an island and I think you're making
yourself an island with the berm, which I think there are better ways of doing it. And with closing off the road.
You're creating yourself to be an island xvhich is what was your original objection. So I guess those are my
thoughts right now. I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say~
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, I've got notes scattered all over from 2 weeks ago and I'm trying to organize aII of
them. We'll see. I don't think I'll be very successful. A couple of points right off the top of my head. I was
the person that the gentleman chose not to name. It was at that meeting in November. I take full responsibility
for that. What I said was, based on the 'knowledge I have now, I would vote against this project. I believe I
also made it clear that the Windmill people were the first people I had asked to about it. I had, I quite honestly
had no knowledge of what was going on. So I just want to make it clear that I said based on what I knew then.
Now I understand that they were told from the city that they would be single family. Now I also understand
that those people didn't understand that single family could be detached or attached. And I think I said that
right. Now I think there's a problem. I think quite honestly it's kind of like, I had a conversation with Steve
Bell last night and as you all 'know, I'm in education. And when I talk with teachers, I throw around terms like
EBD, SLBP, abstract random, concrete sequential, and unless you're a teacher, you don't know what in blue
blazes I'm talking about. And I have a responsibility when I'm talking with people outside of my field to make
it very clear what I'm talking about. And I quite honestly think the city missed the boat on that one, and my
19
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
hope is that the city has learned from this and when these kinds of questions are asked again, it will be spelled
out extremely clearly. Because I quite honestly think a whole lot of this could have been avoided if things had
been spelled out better than they ~vere. That's point number one. Point number two is, there are currently no
ordinances concerning buffering between residential developments. I think everybody needs to understand that.
And I'm not quite sure, I believe it was from the Planning Commission, that they were the first to throw out
buffering between neighborhoods. If the city chooses to amend our statutes so we buffer between residential
areas, that's fine but I think everybody needs to understand, there is no ordinance in place that says that needs to
be done. I commend both groups for being able to get together and talking about that and I 'know people aren't
happy but at least it seems to me like both sides have said, okay. Let's try and work this out. I'll admit my
hackles went up a little earlier when the gentleman talked about conduct of government. If he truly believes
that a developer in this city has an office in City Hall, he is so off base I quite honestly think I probably need to
let it go there. Anyone that's followed City Council 'knows that developers have had their own battles with City
Hall so I'm very troubled by those comments. Okay. Alright. In terms of the conditions that have been thrown
out, I think the berm or the trees, I personally think putting a number on the trees and a height will serve you
less than the process Mr. Beck talked about and you folks would have to agree to that before final plat. I think
you could probably get a better deal that way. In the past I heard people talk about, the developer
compromising, you folks compromising and now city needs to compromise and knowing that I think the city did
not give out information quite the way they should have, I personally think the road should go through there. I
see the benefit for the road going through there but I also think that 'knowing that two parts of this equation,
while one of them doesn't want the road, one of them says they don't care one way or the other, I'm comfortable
in going that way. Having said that, you folks need to realize that 20 years down the road, people might xvant
that road in there and just like I've been at that podium when Carver Beach got developed yelling for my
neighborhood, it's a bigger picture than that and it's easy for me to say that sitting here and to be there is a
whole different ballgame. But I don't, if the road doesn't go through, I don't have any trouble xvith that. John
Hennessy's concerns, threw me for a bit of a loop too, to be honest with you. I'm disturbed that he wasn't
notified about that meeting, and having what I just said earlier about city responsibility and how we need to
spell things out, I don't quite understand how that got missed. ! certainly concur with John that he ought to get
the same consideration around his property that Windmill Ridge, I'm sorry. Windmill Run. The development.
Your development. Thank you. I certainly think he should get the same consideration. Peter, I wanted to ask
you one question. How long has Dr. Conway owned the land?
Peter Beck: About 11 years.
Councilman Mason: 11 years? How long have you lived in Chanhassen?
Dr. Conway: I live in Minneapolis.
Councilman Mason: Okay, but you've owned that land for 11 years, okay. Another thing, and I didn't realize
this until I sat up here is that people that own property do in fact have certain rights to the property that they
own, while their, me being a next door neighbor likes it or not. And that quite honestly, and I can reveal you
with stories in Carver Beach, that still remains a sore point for me but part of that is I don't own that land
either. I think I've covered everything. Let's be assured, I might raise my hand again is I haven't but I think
that about does it for me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
20
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: I'll try not to be too repetitive here. Just quickly I think I have to agree with Michael. I
think that we really missed the boat on the definitions of single family attached and detached in terms of
understanding and I'd like to echo I think a lot of us have learned from that mistake. At the same.time I need
to I guess reiterate a little bit of something that Colleen said too and that is that, and maybe I look at it a little
more basic. I think Colleen put it more eloquently than I can but legally we don't have an option to really turn
down single family attached versus detached, from a City Council's perspective. If that's not the case, I'd love
someone to tell me but everything I've been told is that's not the choice. Our only choice, if we want to turn
that down, is to turn around and buy the property... After last meeting, or I should say after the last full blown
public meeting or public hearing I talked with the developers afterwards and really impressed upon them I
thought the need to really expand that buffer area. And to do more planning on it and basically sit down with
the neighborhood and work out something a lot more substantial than what was there at the time, and I think the
developer's really made an effort to do that. I'd like to really see the developer and the neighborhood continue
in that process and finish it. If that comes down to numbers of trees and heights of berms, I think the affected
people should go ahead and decide that. It sounds like you're pretty close to something there so I think that
could be easily completed. Another big issue I guess I've seen in this thing from day one is the road issue. I've
tried real hard to look at that and say I see a lot of value to that road going through and I guess what it really
comes down to is, in my opinion, I°m going to do, siding with the neighborhood therec I really don't think the
road should go through. You have to understand however me saying that~ that I've said that a lot of times
before and most people don't agree with me. But I basically look at that and say, if the neighborhood really
wants the neighborhood to be that way, xvhich is effectively let's call it a cul*deosac and that self determination
isn't going to hurt anybody else...I think the neighborhood should be able to decide that. But again, I'm just one
opinion on that. If we were further along as a city, we've got a big issue coming at us, somewhat like a steam
roller though, and that's called affordable housing, which I think we've all read a lot about lately in the
newspapers. I think if we were further along as a city, I would be intrigued with the possibility of looking at
doing something differently on this property as far as affordable housing would go because I'm going to go back
to my original premise and that is, if we were to deny this project, we effectively I think would be forced into
buying the property, which means whatever we do there is going to be heavily subsidized and if we're going to
heavily subsidize something, then I think it may as well be affordable housing. But I don't think we're to the
point we could do that so I tried to think through that but I don't really see that as a viable option given the
time here so I think overall, basically I have to go with the project. I'd like to see that buffer remain an open
issue. Have you sit down and really finish working that out between the developer and the neighborhood and
I'd like to see that trail go along the road past the gas fork. I'd also like to not see the road go through and give
your access basically goes out to Galpin. You're the ones who will have to effectively live with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, are you?
Councilman Berquist: I'm ready. Yeah, I'm ready. The last sentence that I said prior to ending the previous
meeting a month ago was, I'm in favor of this project going forward with the stipulation that city staff,
Windmill Run association and the builder meet and arrange a set of criteria aimed at achieving a project that
adds to the existing neighborhood. If consensus is not achieved, the Council will have to decide. There's been
a tremendous amount of progress and the Windmill Run, Royal Oaks homeowners and the Lake Country
Builders have been able to hash out a lot of concerns and potential areas for conflict. I find it interesting that a
number of people stand up here and tell me that they're opposed to the project, and yet last evening I received a
phone call from a gentleman xvho intimated that he represented the homeowners and that given the berm and
given the trees and given the cul-de-sac on both ends, that the homeowners association would in essence bless
the project. I'm hearing something completely different tonightc And then you threw me for the loop John
again. It appears that there has been compromise on both sides. Frankly I've not known builders or developers
21
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
to compromise as much as I think these folks have compromised. 250 or 200 coniferous trees, 15 to 25 feet tall
is a tremendous amount of money. I thank everyone for the compromises that they have made. As far as the
cul-de-sac goes, the best ones to decide the continuation of that road are the homeowners that live on either side
of them. If Windmill Run and Royal Oaks choose to have a cul-de-sac, that's their prerogative and I would
certainly respect that. Now I've got to go through the rest of my notes here and see what I think is pertinent. !
spent a tremendous amount of time on this project, both sitting at my word processor and typing things out.
Thinking about it. You find yourself thinking about things like this when you wake up in the middle of the
night. I found myself the other day thinking about it in the shower. I mean these decisions do not come easily
and when you're talking about affecting people's homes and their perception of their homes, they're not easy
decisions to make and I hope everyone can appreciate that. At 2:00 in the morning tossing and turning it's just,
it's difficult. Let me go on here. John, I went and looked, you had told me about a project over in Minnetonka
of txvin homes. I went over and looked at that project. I'm sure you remember which one it is. I believe that
these folks have addressed those issues with the different models. The different frontages. The different faces
that they're going to be able to put on these. I can appreciate where you're coming from when you say a
townhome project looks like a townhome project because the ones that I have seen do. On the other hand, very
few builders are willing to go to the extent that these folks seem to be willing to do to make them seem unique.
Granted they're not going to be completely unique but the seeming unique is important. I'm also disconcerted
that you would wait until now to voice your disapproval. But I'm glad you did. Bear with me please. I've
spoken with 4 different people in the real estate sales and appraisal business. Three of them have said that they
do not believe a project of this type next to single family will impact the value. One of which, one person said
that in terms of relocation, relocation companies put out a set of criteria and given two identical homes in two
areas, one abutting a txvin home project and one not, stay away from the twin home project. I've got to believe
that a lot of that is generic, sort of generic directions from a relocation company's point of view. I respect the
three individuals that I talked to that said that they did not feel a project of this nature would have any negative
impact on the single family values whatsoever. Lastly, let's see I've already talked about the cul-de-sacs. I
think it's an appropriate use of the land, and I truly believe, like Colleen mentioned, that the txvo neighborhoods
can compliment each other and I trust that that's what's going to happen. And that's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Well it comes back to me with a lot of discussion and I'm not going to
reiterate a lot of the different things that we have discussed. Rezoning. I have to take exception to that with
Mark in regards to that. We have every right as far as the city is concerned to zone what we feel is necessary,
even though it is sort of consistent with our comp plan. We do have that right to come up with what we feel.
It might be best within this particular area. Some of the transition areas or some of the transition from areas all
the way to Highxvay 5 are things that we had to look at to make sure what would be acceptable and usable
within that particular area. When I look at it from the standpoint of the property owners, I put myself in their
shoes as well, and knowing good and well as to what they may feel. And putting yourself in their shoes, I
'know you or myself wouldn't really like to see something coming in if you think some other kinds of
development was scheduled for that, or indicated. As coming in as single family residential. I think that some
of the plattings that we have that come in are looked at from the standpoint as to how best they can develop
their property and derive the best dollar from that. That's all in the game of building and all of the businesses
as well. You're in there to make a dollar. I appreciate some of the concerns that they addressed within the plat,
as was mentioned previously, but I also feel that some of that transition was not taken into consideration with
residential being on the right, or to the northern portion of it. And one area which is still in the agricultural
aspect as to where John is even located too. I feel that there should have been a little better thought given to
this in preparing something for that particular area. And I know that to the north, eventually of Windmill Run,
they xvill have adjacent neighbors. How many years it's going to be. It could be 20 years. It could be 30
years. It could be never. Depending upon whether or not one individual decides to sell that particular property.
22
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
And to the east there xvill be some residential development but it's not as consistent as to what I see, and some
of the needs. So I have some strong feelings on this and I guess I'm going to stop it there. Are there any other
discussions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just want to clarify some statistics I threw out that were incorrect. The existing
breakdown of homes in Chanhassen. Single detached is 81%. Twin homes is 4%. Townhouses, 5.6% and
multi-family, which I would assume would be apartment buildings, is 9.6%. Just a clarification.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Any other discussion7
Councilman Senn: I have a question. Elliott? Can we force single family detached housing on that property?
Elliott Knetsch: What you have in front of you is a specific development project and you also have a request
for rezoning. The plat as proposed, obviously does not comply with the current zoning so I believe that you
have the basis to turn down the plat as inconsistent with the rezoning and deny the rezoning. Once you do that,
then the door is open for new development projects with, it could be single family detached. It could be
another single family attached or anything else that complies with the comp plan and the other ordinances. Did
that ansxver your question?
Councilman Senn: So we can't force single family attached, or detached housing on that site? That was my
question.
Mayor Chmiel: To what's existing, is what you're saying?
Councilman Senn: ...says xve can't.
Elliott Knetsch: You cannot, no. You cannot absolutely prevent single family attached on that property.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That's consistent with ~vhat I was told before so, okay. I want to understand that.
Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussions? Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, heaven help me, I'll try. Well, yeah. I'd like to move it but I'd like to make
sure we get our conditions straight and I can't find where they are spelled out. Okay, I would the rezoning of
49.9 acres of property zoned A-2, Ag Estate to R-4, Mixed Low Density and the Preliminary Plat for the Lake
Ann Highlands Project.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second7
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councihvoman Dockendorf: Now I'll work on the conditions. I would like to leave the buffer landscaping open
for discussion between the developer and, not only Windmill Run and Royal Oaks but also Mr. Hennessy. I
don't see a need at this point to designate the number of trees or what types of trees.' We'll look at that when it
comes back for final plat. Is the trail in there as a condition?
23
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Kate Aanenson: No, we need to add that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So I need to add the, are we talking about the side on the eastern.
Kate Aanenson: It'd be east of Windmill Drive.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The sidewalk in that, okay. I would further move that, as a condition, Royal Oak
and Windmill just loops around. There's not a connection there. We work on that private drive to serve those
townhome units in that corner. And did I miss anything?
Kate Aanenson: I'm assuming you're adding the modification of what we put in as far as the homeowners
associations for maintenance of landscaping and that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Kate Aanenson: We modified number 7,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And the brick, yeah.
Councilman Mason: And then, with not having that road go through, that will then take care of the gentleman's
concerns about setbacks to that house too, right?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like that worked on because I'm not sure a side setback should be given the
same.
Peter Beck: If the road isn't connected, and xve know that and we can get as much as setback as possible and
his portion of the buffer will be shown on the landscape plan.
Councilman Senn: But you'll have a trail coming through?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, there will be a trail coming through the property line.
Peter Beck: A trail coming, a north/south trail? Yeah. Even though the road doesn't go through, yeah. I
assume, I guess that hasn't been talked about but if the road doesn't go through, we should probably still run a
trail connection through there with some sort of right-of-way.
Kate Aanenson: Get an easement, correct.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, so then there would have to be an easement there. That should go in the Minutes.
Did you mention about landscaping for John Hennessy's?
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Right. Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was put in the motion. Now with your motion, I'm assuming that you're covering
the rezoning aspects of the property, and then include all the other conditions for the subdivision, items 1 thru
35.
24
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yep.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Rezoning #94~7 35.1 acres,
encompassing the land north of the south lot lines of Lots 1 and I0 through 16, Block 2 and Lots 15 through
19, Block 1, from A2, Agricultural Estate District to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District, consistent
with the Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan, and approve Preliminary Plat #94-7 twinhome lots for Lake Ann
Highlands subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and
garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
2. Revise the grading and drainage plan to show standard designations for dwellings° This should be done
prior to final plat approval.
3. Submit soil reports to the Inspection Divisions. This should be done prior to issuance of any building
permits.
4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department~ Inspections Division for review prior to final plat
approval.
5. Outlot B should be conveyed to the city or attach to the Hennessy property to the west for future access
and provide a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the street frontage.
6. Full park and trail fees be required pursuant to City Code in lieu of land dedications
7. The applicant shall agree to incorporate a mix of building types/styles with various floor plans,
architectural features, garage orientations, driveway configurations, and primary siding colors as well as
the use of 30-35 percent brick on building exteriors. These issues shall be worked out with city staff
prior to final plat approval.
8. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the city the utility and street improvements within the
public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The plan shall be submitted to the city for review and formal approval.
10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be
submitted for staff revie~v and City Council approval.
25
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
If necessary, 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 construction begins and will charge the
applicant $20.00 per sign.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide
detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal
water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual
storm server calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on
Walker's Pondnet model.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit,
the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be
implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall be placed
a maximum of 300 feet apart.
The applicant shall submit to the city soil boring information and include a drain tile system in
accordance with the construction plans. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs
to convey sump pump discharge from the units.
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 width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The final plat for
Phase I shall also dedicate the frontage road right-of-way.
No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage
road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study.
The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the
100 year high water level.
Stormxvater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no
more than 3'1 thereafter or 4'1 throughout for safety purposes.
26
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Water quality fees will be based in accordance xvith the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu
of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use
zoning. This proposed development of 35.2 acres is $50,019.00.
Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be
evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The proposed multi-
family residential development of 35.2 acres would be responsible for a water quantity connection charge
of $69,696.00.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction
and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall dedicate to the city a 100 foot wide conservation easement over the southwesterly I00
feet of Outlot A. This area may also be deeded to the city as an outlot.
Prior to Phase II receiving final plat approval, the downstream permanent nutrient ponds shall be
constructed or scheduled in conjunction with Phase II improvements in accordance to the City's SWMP
and the frontage road shall be constructed or scheduled for construction through the site out to Galpin
Boulevard. No building permits shall be issued in Phase II without these improvements completed.
The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12 inch trunk xvatermain along Windmill Run. The
credit shall be for the cost difference betxveen an 8 inch and a 12 inch water line.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service stubs to the Hennessy parcel located west of
Lot 16, Block 2. The applicant shall be reimbursed by the city for the cost of providing the service stubs
when the property connects to the system.
The applicant shall list in the association bylaws the maintenance responsibilities of the association for all
project landscaping. If the landscaped cul-de-sac islands are not maintained, the city reserves the right to
remove them or continue maintenance and assess the benefitted properties. The city will adopt a
resolution prohibiting parking in the cul-deosacs with islands.
Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin Boulevard or the
future frontage road.
The grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with Windmill Run and incorporate berms along the
future frontage road and Galpin Boulevard outside the right-of-way. The grading along the rear yards of
Lots 5 - 10, Block 3 should be revised to promote drainage north along the common lot lines of Lots 26 -
32, Block 3, out to the street.
Landscaping along the future frontage road shall be maintained a distance away from the street in
accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards.
The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative xvith regards to earthwork quantities and a schedule
of construction events.
27
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
35. The applicant shall agree to provide the necessary right-of-way for the future north Highway 5 collector
street as a part of the development of Outlot A.
36. There shall be a side~valk along the east side of Windmill Drive running north and south.
37. The landscaping berm shall be placed along the entire north side. The landscaping plan shall be
presented at final plat. Mr. Hennessy's property shall also be included in berming and landscaping plan.
38. Windmill Drive shall not be extended/connected between the two subdivisions.
and approve Wetland Alteration Permit #94-6, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map
with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of
the soils.
.
If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The city will install buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant
$20.00 per sign.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I indicated my concerns.
REZONING OF 20.11 ACRES-OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.11 ACRES INTO 20 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS; VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 50 FT. STREET AND 20 FT. FRONT YARD
SETBACKi WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITi LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY
ROAD JUST WEST OF W[LLOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, POINTE LAKE LUCY, TED COEY PROPERTY~
MASON HOMES.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The applicant is requesting to subdivide
approximately 18 acres into 20 single family lots. The property is zoned Rural Residential and the proposaI
request to rezone into Residential Single Family. The average lot size is approximately 36,000 square feet,
resulting in a gross density of 1.1 units per acre. All the proposed lots meet the minimum area width and depth
requirements of the zoning ordinance with the exception of Lots 3, 4, and 5. Those lots are deficient in width.
The ordinance requires a 90 foot width at the setback line. In order to achieve this required width, the applicant
is contemplating reducing the total number of lots to 19 from what is shown on the plans right now. This item
appeared before the Planning Commission twice. The first time numerous issues were raised by staff, as well as
the Planning Commission and the neighborhood. I'll briefly go through those issues a.nd explain how they were
addressed. The number of potential docks that could be permitted on each lot that abuts the lake was
questioned. To answer this question, each homeowner will have two options. Either one dock per household or
per lot, or each two lots would be able to share one dock and those docks would be right on the property line so
that those lots will be able to share the docks. Quite a few neighbors from the Willowridge neighborhood were
concerned over Lot 12, and requested that it be eliminated. This is a buildable lot and staff cannot justify
recommending elimination of this parcel. There is a man made wildlife pond located to the west of this
28
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
development. All of the homes within the Willowridge neighborhood maintain a 40 foot setback. It was
requested that any new homes, especially on Lot 12, maintain the exact same setback as '`vithin Willow Ridge
and this is being achieved with this proposal. There ,,vas a request for an environmental assessment worksheet
to be conducted within this development. This subdivision is an environmentally sensitive development. The
development is providing a water quality pond, minimizing grading, preserving trees and replacing wetlands at a
ratio of 2:1, all consistent with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. We really don't see a need for
an environmental assessment sheet and we feel it's an environmentally sensitive development. In summary, staff
believes that this proposed subdivision is well designed. Consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make your presentation at this time? And are you in agreement with some
of the things that Sharmin has basically said?
Randy Travalia: Yes Mr. Mayor. My name is Randy Travalia. I'm the President of Robert Mason Homes and
we are the developer of this property. I don't want to go through a lot of ground that's already been covered.
Suffice it to say, we have worked closely with staff and the engineering and the planning staff and taken a lot of
their ideas and taken them to heart. We've made a~ I think what is a careful and a sensitive and intelligent look
at this property. It's a very heavy amenity property. It's on the lake. It has lakeshore. It's heavily wooded in
certain areas. It has a lot of terrain. There's about 50 feet of vertical deviation from one end to the other. The
center of the property is much like a ridge or a saddle so as it starts, it pushes the houses off of that center
spine, it starts to slide down the hill. Slide into the side slope. As such we have requested a 50 foot right-of-
way through there and staff has supported that, as has the Planning Commission. The original proposal
advanced by a different party other than us, suggested 27 lots on this property. We have worked it over and
have concluded that 20 was the proposal we have asked of the Planning Commission. There are three...Lots 3,
4 and 5 that have technically have a violation on the frontage requirement. On the frontage requirement. Part
of that is due to the proposal of using a 20 foot front setback in that location and if we pull it forward up the
hill, we obviously...a lot that's shaped in that fashion, lose frontage. The more we've studied that since that
time, we basically have two options of being able to accomplish the required frontage. One of them is to just
do some technical, just move the lot lines around a little bit and we would have been able to accomplished the
required 90 foot on all of those sites. The more we've studied the site, we have come to the conclusion that due
to the wetland between Lots 4 and 5 and the hillside there, the grade deviation there, that we are going to~ with
your permission, change our plat from this proposal of 20 lots to 19. Basically the lots will change from about
the easterly, excuse me. The westerly line of Lot number 10, all the way around to Lot number 1. Through
that area. Thank you Sharmin. In so doing we're going to be able to open up those sites and be a little more
accounting for the types of homes that we anticipate building in this area. We have changed about 12 or 13
things in this plat at the request of Council. Or at the request of staff rather, and the Planning Commission.
We've moved the road somewhat easterly. I'm just going to kind of litanize these so you, I won't go through
them in very detail. We had proposed originally an eyebrow on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. We've removed that and
are able to thereby pull the houses further away from Joe and Gayle Morin's house, which is situated
immediately west of our property. It also will result in less grading through that area. We've relocated the
NURP pond to it's current location on Lot number 13. We've relocated the wetland mitigation area which was
originally scheduled on Lot 8 in the comer there, there's a series of brush and actually some white birch trees
that we want to save so the mitigation area is now located as you see between Lots 11 and 12. We've realigned
the storm sewer that was proposed to go along the very easterly edge of the property and is now between Lots
11 and 12. That allows us to stay out of that hillside completely and...stand of vegetation along that side
completely. We've significantly lessened the grading required throughout the entire area. We have less tree
canopy loss. Previously our plat '`vas about 20% loss less. Our plat previously had envisioned about 2.75 acres
29
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
of tree canopy loss and now it's about 2.3, which complies xvith the city ordinance and we will not be required
to plant any additional canopy. We're intending to transplant some of the trees that are located along the
existing driveway and we intend to transplant some of them onto the rear of Lots 2 and 3. You can see here
those trees, there's about 25 of them total. About 12 of them on that proposed roadway and what they're.., what
we would be building in that area. Our intent is to transplant some of them onto Lots 3. Some of them onto
Lots, what is now 19. 20 on your scorecard there. And some of them along the easterly property line of Lot
12. We held a neighborhood meeting with the Willowridge residents, the neighborhood immediately to the east
and worked out a concept with them that we want to create a natural shaped buffer with the evergreen trees we
intend to transplant instead of just sticking them in a straight line along the easterly property line. We're in
agreement xvith that. They asked us if we could transplant them on the easterly side of the property line. In
other words, in their property and we're in agreement with that. The only proviso that we've asked is that we
~vill look at that in the spring when we're better able to assess for the soil conditions so that we're transplanting
trees in soil that's going to be certain that the trees will be viable in there. We've, as I say, met with the
neighborhood. We worked closely with the staff and we're pleased to present for you tonight this plat. As I
say, we have approval at the Planning Commission of this 20 lot subdivision but we are intent with your
permission, to reduce that a lot to 19 lots. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any questions? Not at this time?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I°m not sure Randy if you can answer it or Kate, but xvith the reduction to 19 lots,
are we at the statistic given here is 1.8 units per acre. Is that based on 20 or 19 lots? I'm sorry, Sharmin.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's on 20.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's on 20. So it would be a little higher. Or excuse me, a little less.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And actually, there will be minimal changes as far as grading. There ;vould be less grading
xvith the reduction from 20 to 19 lots. We would be saving more trees.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Not now. They may have them later. Thank you.
Randy Travalia: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is anyone here from the adjacent area that might have some concerns with the proposal?
Seeing none, I'll bring it back to Council. There's just a couple things that I had looked at in there and being
on the recommendation and numbers accordingly, if you go to page 17. I should say page 18. There we have a
few numbers that we should correct. Number 23 and then change 23 to 24 and 24 to 25 and 25 to 26. Okay.
...plat with the directional portions on there. But maybe if we look at that.
Councilman Senn: Just in keeping with your first comment. 27 and 28 seem to be a duplication.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, just a tad. You're right.
Councilman Senn: Well there are four words that are different but I mean, they didn't seem to have a whoIe lot
of...
30
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Let's choose the right one for that one and put it in there~ Okay. _And probably on the
blue line draxving, the directional, maybe if xve could make sure that that was, if you turn the plat upside down,
it is correct but if you look at it upright, it sort of throws you a little bit. Alright. The variance. I think I had
my question answered by Sharmin. I guess oh. One additional thing too. With item number 8. The last
sentence it says, comply with their conditions of approval. I think we should probably have denial in there, just
in case there is some. If there is any. I guess that's about all I really had on it. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I don't. I looked at this and I'm amazed that you picked up on the number error. You
have a fantastic eye for detail.
Mayor Chmiel: Flattery will get you everywhere.
Councilman Berquist: No, I don't really have any comments and I'm agreeable to the rezoning and approval of
the preliminary plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a love hate relationship xvith pieces of property like this. I think they're
absolutely gorgeous and I absolutely hate that they're developed into 19 units. Working from that premise, I
just have an issue with transplanting trees. Realistically, how successful is that? Who wants to tell me?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: The City Forester went out to the site a couple of times and she believes that it is doable. I
stressed that point.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I would like to have as a condition of approval that we have a 2 year
guarantee on that. And I know you can't replace a 42 inch basswood, but if we could work something out
where if they do die, we have some kind of replacement of a large, similar tree. And I think 2 years is
sufficient. You 'know this is a very complicated, I hate to dismiss it with you 'know, two questions but I think
the issues have been worked through.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well I think it's that whole issue that we've talked about before about doing quality control
up front. I think everyone's done a lot of work on this and I think it looks fine. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Looks good to me. One question. Have you looked at this in relationship to what may or
may not happen to the west?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes we have.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Do you have anything that kind of shows that?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: You have some very steep grades, as well as wetlands in this area. So connection between
those two subdivisions is truly not practical. But we did look into that in detail:
31
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: Do you have any idea how the design is going to come in to the west there?
Kate Aanenson: It's coming.
Councilman Senn: Oh, it's coming.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Onto this parcel right now, the Morin's are looking at sketches as to how it could potentially
be platted. They don't anticipate to have more than two home sites on this parcel. Again, because you've got
wetlands as well as extremely steep grades.
Kate Aanenson: We believe that one, just to elaborate on what Sharmin is saying. The Christensen parcel is
coming in for a subdivision. That application is in. What Sharmin has looked at is how would the Tichey
piece be served and more than likely the ;vay to get access to that, based on topography, as Sharmin indicated in
the t;vo wetlands, is through the Christensen parcel. We did look at the super area but as you know, the
significant topography, they don't always mix ;vell together. Same with Willowridge but we think the best way
to serve the Tichey's is probably through the Christensen parcel.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I understand. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Approval being the rezoning of the 18.15 acres of property zoned RR,
Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, 94-6 REZ, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 18.15 acres into
19 single family lots and one outlot with a variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback and 50 foot wide
right-of-way, 94-13 Subdivision and a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate the ag urban wetland, 95-1.
And including items 1 through.
Councilman Senn: 28.
Mayor Chmiel: 28.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Does that include the condition for the tree transplantings?
Mayor Chmiel: To include also your conditions that were indicated in regards to the trees.
Councilman Mason: Did you say 20 single family homes or 197
Mayor Chmiel: 19.
32
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to rezoning of the 18.15 acres of property zoned RR,
Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, 94-6 REZ, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 18.15 acres into
19 single family lots and one outlot with a variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback and 50 foot wide
fight-of-way, 94-13 Subdivision and a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate the ag urban wetland, 95-1,
xvith the following conditions:
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion
control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands.
.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or ~vood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be
submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City ~vill install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant
$20.00 per sign.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normaI
water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, erected basins, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on
Walker's Pondnet model.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit*,
the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be
implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts
resulting from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement
plan application.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply ~vith their conditions of approval or denial.
33
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
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 width shall be a minimum of 20 feet ,,vide.
Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a
minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
level and no more than 3:1 thereafter, or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing
upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended.
Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned according to the
Minnesota Department of Health Water Well Code.
The proposed single family residential development of 12.11 developable acres is responsible for a water
quantity connection charge of $23,978. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the
final plat.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction
and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
16. All lots shall take direct access to the interior system and not Lake Lucy Road.
17. The traffic lanes adjacent to the entrance median shall be 18 feet wide.
18.
A catch basin shall be installed on the west radius of the proposed street at the intersection of Lake Lucy
Road to maintain the drainage pattern and help prevent an icy intersection.
19. The easterly half of Lot 12 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance.
20.
The applicant shall develop a landscaping reforestation plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-
of-way acceptable to the city staff. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development
xvill be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal
of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be
permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation
easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
21. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to grading.
22. Building Department conditions:
a. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be
done prior to final plat approval.
34
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any buiIding
permits.
c. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final
plat approval.
d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
23. Fire Marshal conditions:
24.
25.
26.
27.
Add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 6 and 7 and one at the end of the private driveway or
have the homes constructed with built-in, automatic residential fire sprinkling systems. The hydrant
between Lots 4 and 5 shall be relocated between Lots 3 and 4.
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can
be quickly located and safely operate& Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c. Submit street name for approval.
Due to the close proximity of surrounding residential neighborhoods, any trees, shrubs, bushes,
natural vegetation will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning
permits will be issued.
e. A turn around for personal vehicles is recommended at a minimum at the end of the private
driveway.
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
The private street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private
street ordinance to serve the four lots in the southeast comer of the site. This private street shall serve a
maximum of 4 single family homes.
The applicant shall adjust the frontage on Lots 3, 4 and 5 to meet the Zoning Ordinance frontage
requirements of 90 feet.
Screening for the east side of Lot 12 shall be coordinated with the affected residents of the Willow Ridge
subdivision to insure a natural appearance.
28. A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be allowed for Lots 4, 5, 13, 17 and 18.
29. Any transplanted trees that die within 2 years are to be replaced by the applicant per city staff's approval.
Ali voted in favor and the motion carried~
35
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
AWARD OF BIDS:
PUBLIC WORKS TRUCKS AND ROLL PACKER.
Charles Folch: ...on February 28th we received and open bids on the remaining public works heavy equipment,
trucks and roll packer. The following list represents the low bidders in each of the items. The 33,000 lb. cab
and chassis goes to Iten Chevrolet in the amount of $38,733.00. The transfer aerial unit...$3,510.00. The two
41,000 cab and truck chassis went to Boyer Ford in the total of $91,027.00 for both. The dump box and
sanders, there are two of those...two sets of plows and wings...Crysteel Incorporated at $13,988.78 and finally
the double drum vibratory asphalt compactor to Ziergler Incorporated for...$28,716.66. Total cost of the
folloxving purchases along with those that we previously approved in February totals $475,800.00, which
provides us xvith a savings...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Meaning next year we won't need any kinds of vehicles or things to be
replaced, right. Tongue in cheek. Okay. Any questions?
Councilman Berquist: One question. The compactor. They discount 8 1/2% for 220 hours of use. Is that, I
mean for $3,000.00, you're talking Harold is comfortable with that?
Charles Folch: Yeah. Evidentally that's a pretty highly desired piece of equipment by that manufacturer. In
fact, if we had to order one nexv it would probably be 6 months or better before we could get one. So the used
resale value, if you will, on those is holding way up there.
Councilman Mason: And I'm sure those 221 hours were easy hours.
Mayor Chmiel: Only on Sunday.
Charles Folch: I think that probably represents about...
Councilman Berquist: So somebody bought that and then.
Charles Folch: Rented it...but they provide a warranty of course...
Councilman Berquist: That's the only question I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussions? Hearing none, I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Mason: I move to award of bids for Public Works Heavy Equipment, Trucks and Roll Packer File
No. PW-016CCC.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second it.
36
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Resolution #95-37: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded that the following Public Works
heavy equipment and trucks be awarded for purchase:
1. 33,000 lb cab and chassis and transfer of existing aerial unit to Iten Chevrolet, Kodiak C7H042 in the
amount of $38,733.00 and Reach Equipment, aerial unit transfer of $3,510.00.
2. 41,000 lb cab and chassis (2) to Boyer Ford, LS-8000 in the amount of $91,027.00~
3. Dump body and sander (2) to Midland Equipment in the amount of $21,189.24 each.
4. Plow and wing (2) to Crysteel, Inc. in the amount of $13,988.78 each.
5. Double drum vibratory asphalt compactor to Ziegler, Inc. Cat CB2224C (used with 221 hours) in the
amount of $28,716.66.
All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendoff who was not present at the time of the voting, and the
motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE~ PROJECT 93-25~ SP 194-090-02 STP EN93 (01:3):
Public Present:
Name Address
Greg Yeakey
Laura Papas
Doug Peterson
Howard Grace
Bob Wudeck
Dale Mrozinski
Peter Knoll
Mike Kraus
Steven Peterson
George Thomas
Nina Cottrell
David Isackson
Uli Sacchet
Jim & Pam Murphy
8181 Hidden Court
8091 Hidden Court
8141 Hidden Court
8150 Hidden Court
8161 Hidden Court
8050 Erie Spur
370 Hidden Lane
8037 Cheyenne Avenue
8121 Dakota Avenue
8029 Cheyenne Avenue
8044 Cheyenne Avenue
8183 Marsh Drive
8071 Hidden Circle
8021 Hidden Court
Don Ashxvorth: If I might start this off. Charles is prepared to go through the report and the bids received.
Hoxvever, I had kind of a procedural question and that was really one of, should this approval, the award be
given through the HRA or should it come through the City Council. It could go either way. It was my belief
·
that this project has kind of originated at the HRA level and that probably the best recommendation would be to
recommend that the City Council simply refer this over to the HRA to act on. But again that's a procedural
question that you need to answer.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion on that?
37
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Berquist: That seems like the chicken's way out.
Councilman Mason: I'll take that one.
Don Ashworth: Okay.
Councilman Mason: I guess, I'm sure there will be some discussion on this Steven, one way or the other. The
fact remains, this has been, Don is right when he says this has been an HRA project and past practice has been
that the City Council typically does not get involved in HRA projects. Now I'm not saying whether we should
or shouldn't be but this has been an HRA project from day one. And at least, as I've been on HRA, and since
I've been on Council and since I've been following city politics, typically City Council doesn't step into the
middle of an HRA project.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Agree.
Councilman Berquist: You agree with that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I agree with basically what Michael has said.
Where it has started to where it's at right now.
Councilman Berquist: Well, if you're not saying whether it's right or wrong, let's look at what's right.
Mayor Chmiel: What is right?
Councilman Berquist: Well in my opinion, if we're looking at spending the kind of dollars that we're looking at
spending, then it needs to be, the onus needs to be on the people that were elected to make the decisions, not on
a volunteer commission. So I would argue in favor of Council making the decision. I believe that's right. That
may not be what's happened in the past but I think that that's proper.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I apologize for stepping in late.
Mayor Chmiel: That's alright.
Councilman Berquist: Do you want to think further?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I probably want to ask questions that have already been asked.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: All we're talking about now is whether City Council should decide or the HRA should
decide. To bring you up to date.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, thank you. Before I get to that though, I want a clarification of what dollars
have been spent so far on this project and I don't see Todd. I assume Don, or who?
38
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Don Ashworth: Todd, I think you'd be in the best position to respond to that question.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone so we can, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: I believe they're approximately about $200,000.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: On what?
Todd Gerhardt: We had land acquisition of approximately $87,000.00. You have had.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that the Taco Shop property? That sliver or what9.
Todd Gerhardt: No. That is the land over off of Lake Drive, next to the Legion. That area. You have paid for
a good portion of the design.
Councilwoman Dockendorfi How much is that?
Don Ashxvorth: Well that Mortenson acquisition, I think initially we thought that we could get by with a
smaller piece but then in looking at ADA and the amount of grade difference between the existing sidewalk.
What you have to do is one of those S type of things to meet those type of grade requirements, which I
consume more land.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How much have we spent on design?
Todd Gerhardt: Design, about $51,756.00. And planning to date, Fred Hoisington's time and consulting on this
is approximately I'd say about $12,000.00 to $13,000.00. The grant application itself was $3,400.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that for time filling it out or just the application itself7.
Todd Gerhardt: Filling it out. Putting renderings together. Researching different designs. Photo image and
model was approximately $8,000.00. It's that photo and also the City Council, Planning Commission, HRA
wanted to see a rendering of how the mesh would look, so there's a model that's out at Public Works for
everybody to view. That's included in the 8. And legal expense dealt mostly with the land acquisition portion
of it. Research and title, putting the purchase agreement together.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And then the dollar amounts get smaller after that, right? These are the biggee's?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. And then $20,000.00 was spent on grading over on the Hanus site for the embankment.
Part of the Hanus parking lot construction. We were out there grading, filling. Bringing dirt in just...to bring
up the dirt at that time to match grades to the south.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And those evergreens were quite a bit as well?
Todd Gerhardt: Whatg.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The evergreens~ the plantingsc
39
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Todd Gerhardt: No. That's all on the Hanus property...approximately $50,000.00 in additional landscaping...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The reason I wanted to preface my comments is because I truly wanted to 'know
this -knowledge because we've put a lot of money into this and, I mean it's almost appalling. If we're going to
throw good money after bad, I think that decision needs to rest with an elected body.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: A couple of comments. As I think most people know here, I'm going back and forth on
this one, being both on Council and being on the HRA and initially being behind this project 100%, and as the
prices rose, starting to, as the prices rose? As the price ,,vent up on the project, started questioning it. Colleen,
you're assuming that it is in fact being good money thrown after bad, and I'm not willing to say that. I'm not
saying hoxv I'm voting one xvay or the other yet but I don't know that it's good money after bad. Steve, your
comments I think are, your comments earlier about what's right, I think is a point well taken. We've had
discussions before about whether City Council should be HRA. Whether there should be an HRA, and how that
should work, and I think if this body chooses to change the structure of the city, that's certainly the choice of
City Council. I'm hesitant to do that in midstream. And I 'know this is not shared by everyone on this Council.
I have some feelings that HRA and City Council should be separate, and I 'know there are members of Council
that disagree with that. They think it should be one and the same. I think like our city manager's comment, is
that if we pass on this now, we still get it back again because we're the people that have to release the bond
money for the project, is that not right Don?
Don Ashxvorth: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: So bearing that in mind, on this project, I'm personally very uncomfortable as a
Councilmember stepping in and saying no. Now after HRA has talked about it and if this Council feels they
don't want to release the money for the bonding, I think that's a different issue. And then it sounds to me like
somebody wants to bring up the issue of whether HRA and City Council should be separate entities or not. So
I see there are two different issues going on here and I think xve need to separate them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I agree with Steve and Colleen. I think the Council should decide.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a request in regards to this. Of course a lot of this factors were on this bridge
were brought up as to what the community's has bought and how we connect one side of a highway to the other
and the best utilization of this. And at the time the consideration was given that that bridge be the factor that
xve look at. A few of us here voted on that at the time and approved it, back a couple of years ago. Almost 3
years ago. And decided that that basically was the only way to go with this. This was a connection of one side
to the other and also some of the concerns that we had in regards to the safety factors that are also brought into
it. When I look at what it's costing us to put this up and what's going to be there for 35 years plus, maybe even
longer, and look from the standpoint of if this just eliminates you having kids utilize this bridge with their bikes
or walking, to me it's a great safety factor. You have one kid going across that highway and if anything were to
happen, God forbid, that bridge would be well worth whatever we put into it to have it there for that connection.
That also connects to the trails and the other portions within the city. I felt strong at the time when we came up
with it and I still feel that strong. And I'm not saying where that should lie as far as responsibility of the dollar
because I do sit on HRA with Michael and we came to the conclusion at that time, at least there were 4 of us at
40
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
that time felt that the responsibility or with HRA and City Council, whether it should be one and the same, is
that there's a little better insight into community when you have different people sitting in different directions
just like we had with the Planning Commission, Public Safety, Park and Rec, and Senior Commission. I don't
think we're infallible by any stretch of the imagination as we sit here, and by getting different insights and
different thoughts on things, that it enlightens us, at least it does me, to come up with some of my conclusions
as well. So I think that from a safety standpoint, and I know we have some members from the residences
within that particular area, who would like to also address this bridge, and I'm going to give them that
opportunity to come forward. And I think probably I should just keep quiet now and just maybe open that up
to the residents within that particular area. Is there somebody who would like to bring this up as to your
position, feeling as to the need, want or whatever of that particular foot bridge?
Steven Peterson: I'll go ahead and start. Your Honor, honorable members of the City Council, I'm Steven
Peterson. Resident living south of the Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue intersection. I also own a business on
the north side of that same intersection. I go through that several times a day. Obviously I don't know yet if
you're going to make a decision tonight or if you're going to HRA so I'll make my comments and due to the
possibility that you may make a decision in favor of or against the pedestrian bridge tonight. To the extent my
comments are unnecessary, I apologize. I see, especially in light of the recent comments that there's something
else that is an issue for the City Council and it's the power and control issue over the spending. It sounds like
that's something that needs to be resolved at the city level...HRA, possibly staff. If you look at the matrix that's
on page 11 of the material that I received... It's a status report that shows the costs at various points in the
project. I'll be referring to that a couple times. If you look at the last itemized thing there, it is the
approaches, trails and landscaping. The current estimate is $110,000.00. That amount is not in the approved
design or the original estimate, which was an off the cuff I believe comment of $400,000.00 without any
research given to the cost. It wasn't in Scheme A or Scheme B, but these are things that are needed to connect
the bridge up to anything...a bridge over a highway doesn't give you anything. If you take that out, the cost is
actually down from what you approved in, it's the third to the last item there. The approved design. City
Council approved it February 4, 1994. We're down $16,300.00 from what's already been approved. That one
item was not taken into consideration. I don't know why. I wasn't here in February... Ye's, the overall project
has gotten higher, but it's because something was either overlooked or not included in the dollar figures. The
bridge is actually down from the approved design estimate. Design is down. I'm sorry, design is up. Planning
coordination is up. Land acquisition was up. That was unforeseen. And it had to be done. Legal is down.
Grant application was not included earlier. The photo image and model were not included earlier. Those are
things that were necessary. Part of the problem with the design planning and coordinating, it is higher because
of MnDot requirements, as I understand it. This wasn't something that we could just throw up a bridge. MnDot
wanted specific design done for this topography and for this particular bridge. As I understand it also, the
money for this bridge has been set aside through the tax increment plan and the sale of bonds. If the bridge
does not proceed, that money would be used for something else. I would respectfully submit that we should use
it for what it was set out to be used for. The design money, the other items that are higher than earlier
approved amounts, unfortunately have already been spent. Stopping the project now will not get the money
back. The land is already purchased. Stopping it now won't get that back. Instead we'll have land on two sides
of the highway that has no use. We will have wasted the money that's been put into it so far. The options that
the city or City Council, HRA, somebody has at this point, I see are three. One is to proceed as planned.
We've got about $200,000.00 that are already spent. If we proceed, the federal tax, or the federal money is
going to be $280,000.00 contributed towards this project. Using the figure of the bid for the construction of the
bridge, that means that the city would have to spend an additional $299,621.45. $300,000.00. That's over the
amount spent as of October 13, 1994. Now we've probably, it sounds like we have spent additional money
since then. So we're actually spending less than $300,000.00 now to complete the thing to be done. Choice
41
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
two. Delay the decision now, build the same bridge at some point in the future. Hopefully this is not a choice.
We'd lose the federal dollars and with inflation...cost more. The cost to the city would be the same $300,000.00
roughly, plus $280,000.00 more that we won't get from the fed's. The third option, stop the project now.
You've got $200,000.00 or more into it. You're left with two strips of land on the sides of a highway that are
pretty much useless. You're probably going to do some landscaping, irrigation, trail paving, as I understand it
that connects up with the city park on the north side. Put in a walkway. I don't have any idea what actual cost
would be but I wouldn't be surprised if it was $50,000.00 that you're going to spend on these worthless pieces
of property. That brings you up to somewhere in the $240,000.00 to $290,000.00 of money invested there.
Why not take that and put it to use. If you stop now, the money that's been spent, plus the money that will be
spent on these useless lots, is thrown axvay. It's gone. Spend the other $300,000.00 and let's at least spend it
for the bridge on nice landscaping. Make it worthwhile. Certainly if we could go back 2 years or 3 years ago,
if we 'knew what xvas going to happen, maybe the City Council would have approved it. Maybe not. We don't
'know. I think it's late to second guess at this point and we started the city on a course. I believe we should
continue it xvith that course. As I said, the problem is not necessarily the cost of the bridge. It's that these other
things were not included in your estimate. They should have been included. Somebody wasn't thinking of all
the different things that have to go into a project. And I'm not blaming. I would have forgotten something too,
I 'know that. But it's maybe something that can be watched a little more closely in the future. Some additional
points that may or may not be known. I talked with somebody, I thought she said her name was Jeannie
Martell at St. Hubert's campus. In her opinion, attendance at St. Hubert's School would be higher if there was
access over the highway. She 'knows there are families living on the south side of Highway 5 that do not send
their children because of the' danger factor. For both that school and Chan Elementary, there's a concern now
raised by the Governor's latest budget proposal. If that goes through, our school district will lose funds.
Anywhere from $300,000.00 to $500,000.00, depending on what happens with the whole thing. If that goes
through, the loss of revenue for our district would mean loss of funds for transporting students across hazardous
areas. That's what we have now. We have funding from the State. The School District buses children across
Highway 5 because it's hazardous. If we lose that, children are going to be expected to walk across Highway 5
to get to school. Whether it happens this year or sometime in the future, it's a real possibility. The only way to
avoid that would be to provide some safe means for the children to get to school. The bridge is a way to do
that. We also need to continue to try to tie the north and south sides of Highxvay 5 together. It's unfortunate in
my opinion that we've got a highway dividing the city. Right now we have at least an estimate of 1,000 people
living on the south side of TH 5. Before development is done in Chanhassen, if you look at the whole city,
there are going to be more people on the south side than there are on the north. We need to tie the two together
as much as we can. On the west side of the city I understand there's going to be two underpasses. We don't
have the luxury of doing that now. The highway's there. We can't do an underpass. The only option
is...bridge. There's a nice trail system in place. It's being expanded on both sides of Highway 5. We need to
provide an easy way for people to get from that trail system on the south side of TH 5 into Chanhassen. The
bridge alone is not enough. We need more sidewalks to connect the two, but it's the major stumbling block
between the connection right now. Let's take advantage of it while we can. While we've got federal dollars and
try to work on the rest of it later. If you drive on Highway 5 from Great Plains Boulevard intersection to the
Dakota Avenue intersection, you'll notice that there are a lot of skid marks on the road, just before you get to
Dakota Avenue. You'll also notice that there's actually a rise between those two. When you go towards the
east and you're approaching Dakota Avenue, come up over the rise, by the time you see the stop light, it's
changing and you have to stop. Especially trucks I would imagine have to slam on their brakes to stop at that
intersection. That's not safe for kids. I've seen a lot of children either walking or on bicycles going across that
intersection. My children will never cross that intersection on bike. I won't let them. Unless the bridge is
there, they are not going to their friend's houses on the north side of TH 5 unless we drive them. That's not a
real great thing to do but that's the rule that I'm making for my children. Is it worth the extra money to
42
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
complete the project? As with everything else that you have to decide, I think it's a balancing act and as Don
said, xvhat's the life of one child worth. In my opinion, it's worth the extra money. Whether we would have
wanted it at the beginning or not, it's too late to decide that now. We've got a lot into it. Let's finish it. At
least we're providing safety for the children. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Steve.
Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live also south of Highway 5 at 8071 Hidden Circle. Frankly I'm very
surprised about this being an issue at this time. I thought this was a done deal...very closely based on that
assumption... But what I hear being said here is that we spent roughly $200,000.00. We don't have a bridge.
We have $280,000.00 which is a grant, specifically for that bridge. If you don't do the bridge, you don't get it.
And the cost has grown bigger. By considering not to build this bridge, you're throwing out the baby with the
bath water. I mean if those $200,000.00 weren't spent to build the bridge, what happened with it? I'm not here
to represent myself. I'm not here to question the reasoning of finances and all that. I trust, that's your job. I'm
here to represent my two little boys. They're 7 and 9 years old, and to them it's important. Not to repeat what
Steve laid in front of you. I do a lot of driving across Highway 5, To friends that live around St. Hubert's.
Maybe to go play on the playgrounds in St. Hubert's. We have to drive. And I didn't realize how much that
meant to my kids until tonight. They never want me to leave in the evening. They hate it when I go to
meetings. When I tell them I'm going up to City Hall, I get to hear a lecture from my little guys. Oh dad,
come on. I told them why I'm going. I said well you 'know, they're planning this bridge and all of a sudden
they have second thoughts. They almost kicked me out of the house. I want you to know that and I really
want it on record too...hearts, that I believe this bridge has an important purpose. You have a wonderful system
of trails coming up in this city and this bridge is essential...thank you.
Doug Peterson: Hi. I'm Doug Peterson at 8141 Hidden Court and we bought our house on Hidden Court three
years ago, just at the time when this was first being talked about. In fact when we bought the house we didn't
know that there was a possibility of a bridge connecting the northern and southern halves of Chanhassen and we
still bought the house because we loved the neighborhood. It's just a beautiful neighborhood with great
neighbors. But xvhen shortly after moving into the home I discovered that they were actually considering
putting a pedestrian bridge across to connect our neighborhood with downtown Chanhassen, with a new library
that was being proposed I was reading about, and I thought here's a city that has some real foresight. This city
has some vision. They're not going to leave neighborhoods disconnected. Separated by big highways. They're
going to connect us. They're going to draw people together, and I thought wow. I'm happy I moved to
Chanhassen. I love this neighborhood. I love this city and now, I still think you're going to be doing the right
thing. I think you're not going to make the wrong decision. I know that you're going to make the right choice
because you're thinking about the future of this city. You're thinking about, like our Mayor said, of 25, 30, 40
years into the future, there are going to be many more people living on the south side of the highway that are
going to be wanting to go into the city. Into downtown. Using the library. Using the other public facilities.
Getting to school. I have a 2 and a 4 year old and they don't ride their bikes very far. Not yet. I put them on
the back of my bike and that's even a treacherous adventure to cross Highway 5, even with my 2 year old on
my own bike. I'm nervous about doing that. I've done it a couple of times. But it's kind of scary and I think
any time, if you've taken a young child across a busy street, you hold on really tightly because you don't know
if they're going to dart out. Ride their bike out into traffic or not. And I guess I would encourage you not to
get too hung up. I knmv we're talking about a lot of money. We're talking about our money. A lot of money
but it's money that's going to be well, well spent. If you look back even 10 years from now at this day and
think, you know we decided not to build that bridge because we were concerned it had gone a little over budget
and we just really didn't want to put any more money into it, I think you're going to be kicking yourselves right
43
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
here. A lot. And I guess I would just encourage you to do the right thing. We need to connect our city
together. We need to build some bridges, in more ways than one. This is a very tangible way. I saw the
picture Mr. Hoffman had with him and I thought boy, that's a beautiful looking facility. It not only looks like a
bridge, but it looks like a gateway to the city. I thought it was fabulous so whoever did the design work, very
nice. I wanted to say my two cents and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to say a few words.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks.
Howard Grace: Hello. My name is Howard Grace. I live at 8150 Hidden Court. As a matter of fact, I'm
Doug's neighbor.
Councilman Mason: You must be pretty nice.
Ho;vard Grace: Yeah, he speaks well. We have a nice neighborhood down there. With lots of kids and if I
could re-emphasize the fact that when I gre;v up I used to do a lot of biking around town and I used to go to
the library, in Jamestown, North Dakota of course but it's a nice little residential city. And so the thought of
busing my children to Chanhassen Elementary, and things like that when they're not very far from home, but for
their safety I need to send them on a bus. For their safety I need to give them a ride everywhere they go.
That's kind of tough. Now my children are only 3 and 1 so I'm thinking forward just a little ways. Only 5
years but I plan to raise my children here and I did vote for quite a bit of money just a little while ago so we
could have some good schools in our district. And the idea of connecting us as a community and being able to
all get to our public services, to get downtown, I think that'd be kind of nice. I guess I don't have a lot to say
about the financing and stuff other than I ;vork in construction and some projects do go over budget, but if you
put a little bit of love into them and they seem to work out somehow. You've got to put some value in to get
some value out. Thank you.
Greg Yeakey: Well as long as we're throwing two cents in, I'll throw mine in. I'm Greg Yeakey and I also live
in Hidden Court with a lot of our neighbors here. I want to thank Steve Peterson. Without him putting notices
on the mailboxes of everybody south of Highway 5, I don't think we would have had any idea that there ,,vas
any question that this bridge would not have gone through tonight. Whether it does or not, I don't 'know. I
think that there's a lot of people south of Highway 5 that would vote for this. Maybe they couldn't come up
here tonight on such short notice. I also voted for the bond referendum to build new schools. Those schools
happen to be farther down Highway 5 than where I live. Obviously in the planning process there, what I have
learned tonight is there will be underpasses under Highway 5 to get those children who live north underneath
that roadway to their schools, to their playgrounds so they can play with their friends. Without this bridge, my
2 1/2 children, with one on the way, xvould not get an opportunity to do that without this bridge. Okay. So I
don't 'know a lot about the HRA. I don't know a lot about the in fighting and where the dollars may come from
or the cost over runs, but I do not think it's throwing good money after bad. I think good money has been spent
and better money can be spent so...I would say, please vote for this. You'll be doing Chanhassen a very good
service.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Steve, do you have something?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. I have comments that I wrote down earlier and my opinions really haven't changed.
Some of you may be surprised when I conclude them. I just became aware of this back in September of the
outrageous cost over runs that are associated with this project. This is Chanhassen's version of boon doggle
spending. The original city costs xvere projected to be about $100,000.00. And then it was $200,000.00 and
44
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
now after we've already spent, Todd says 200. I have notes that say 250. We finally 'know the real costs. This
bridge will cost the taxpayers $800,000.00. Originally it was proposed to cost $380,000.00. We can talk about
how we will get $300,000.00 back in federal funds but I'm always tickled by that sort of an argument. Who
funds the federal funds? The sad part of this is, and Steve eluded to this. Had anyone known that when this
became that the costs would escalate to this point, this bridge probably would not have made it past the
discussion stage. I believe that other avenues would have been explored. I did some calculations that I don't
think I really want to bore anybody with. Given a 35 year life expectancy. I've got a cost per year and if, well
you don't want to hear that. It's expensive. Now here we sit at a point of decision and having, we spent a
quarter of a million dollars and do we approve spending the rest or do we cut our losses and chalk it up to
experience? The land has been bought and the plans are complete. The bid has been done. People talk about
government waste and government inefficiency. The restrictions put on this project by government bureaucracy
at the federal and state levels have doubled the cost. I'm convinced, and I told Steve Peterson this earlier. I'm
convinced that this project could have been accomplished without federal help for about $400,000.00. It really
makes me ill to authorize spending $800,000.00 but it also makes me ill to throw away a quarter of a million
dollars. And receive nothing of value. If this does, and this will do a lot of good. But my final comment is
that I will vote for awarding this contract but I resolve from this day forward to fervently question, and this
goes back to the discussion with HRA. To fervently question any proposed project using public money. I
consider this a fiasco, and I consider it to be very poor business.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: First and foremost I think the decisions lies, as I said earlier, with the City
Council. And with all due apologies I am not ready to make a decision one way or the other on the bridge. I
need to do some more thinking about it. I really wish I would have had this sheet of costs in my packet to look
at. In theory I love the idea of the bridge because to me it functions as an entry gate. But I have a hard time
with the dollars. I'm going to need to think about it more. Sorry for whimping out.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: A couple of questions. Don Ashworth, could you, or Todd perhaps. What were we told at
HRA the city portion of this would be? Steve said $100,000.00. See I thought it was higher than that
originally. Do you have any recollection of that?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, the only thing I remember was back when it was originally, we were going to do this
pre-fab bridge, it could have been $100,000.00. But back in February of one year ago you were told the costs
would have been $515,000.00. So when you approved the design, the plans, and everything one year ago, the
numbers had not changed. They've gone down.
Councilman Mason: Okay, alright. As I stated earlier, I was initially behind this project 100%. As prices kept
going up, I kept wondering about whether we should, as has been said before, cut our losses and run. I had a
call from a woman tonight who does not have children. Who does not live on the south side of Highway 5.
Who said I can't believe you're considering not funding this bridge. I don't have kids. I think we need to
connect the city. I understand the prices went up but I think this is a very important thing for this city. I think
we're talking trails in this city. We're talking better use of downtown. We're trying to build a better downtown.
We're talking sense of community. We're talking about more city folk using Lake Ann. We're talking a trail
system. Clearly it just won't be children using a pedestrian bridge. I can't believe that there is a, I would think
that most of the retail community in downtown Chanhassen would be four square in favor of this bridge. I have
45
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
not asked anybody. That's what I would feel. Todd Hoffman. What, I don't recall. What did we peg the price
of a trail along Highway 101 at.'?
Todd Hoffman: The preliminary estimate was $400,000.00 to $500,000.00.
Councilman Mason: And where would the money come for that?
Todd Hoffman: There was no source.
Councilman Mason: No source at the present time, but if that were to go in, that would be, the city would be
paying half a million dollars, give or take?
Todd Hoffman: Sure.
Councilman Mason: I mean that's what it looks like right now. Okay. These folks I think have raised some
very salient points. We are going to have underpasses on the other end of town. We originally talked about
underpasses here but clearly that couldn't happen because of the land usage and what not. The comment is, if
we don't do it noxv, it ~von't get done, I think is really true. I'm not, I think it's easy to landbast spending
money. I think it's easy to call things a complete waste. I think it's easy to call things fiasco's. I can't believe
that in any business that there aren't unforeseen expenditures. I don't, those things happen and that's happened
here and I'm not happy with that but it did happen. And we have put a lot of money into this project and I
personally thing we are doing a major disservice to the city of Chanhassen, the residents of Chanhassen, the
businesses of Chanhassen if we vote this down.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Mike. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm going to do the easy thing. I have to really agree with both Colleen's and
Steve's comments. You 'know I voted in favor of this as a project concept way back in the beginning when it
xvas supposed to be $280,000.00 State money and $120,000.00 city money. In '93 when those numbers started
to change dramatically, I voted against the project because I thought the costs xvere just going crazy.
Unfortunately nobody wanted to listen at that point. I am not opposed to the bridge, otherwise I wouldn't have
voted for the concept in the first place. What I'm really opposed to is the process that we've followed and the
way, the entire way that information has been mismanaged on this project all the xvay along. To end up with
this kind of exorbitant cost at the end. I don't 'know, one side of me says geez, I don't want to say it's too late,
or I think it's too late, you know because if we say it's too late and let it go this time again, then it's going to
happen again. Because it's real easy that way. At the same time I don't think that your neighborhood should be
held hostage, so to speak, to that. So I'm really torn. I don't 'know how I can, in good conscience back in 1993
say I think the costs of this thing were utterly ridiculous at that point and having seen those costs just rise even
further now, and not say the same thing. As far as Colleen's point, on maybe not being ready. I'm not sure I
am either. I guess I had a lot of questions pop into my mind today as it relates to this. We've spent over $3
million on intersection improvements on Highway 5 right now and those intersection improvements were made
to provide safe crossings to the highway. That's not the State. It's the City spent those monies. And in fact,
over $2.2 million on TH 101 alone. And now we're kind of saying that well, we spent all that money for safe
intersections but those intersections aren't suitable for people to use. There's a real problem there in terms of
mismanagement, if you ask me. And then I go look around and see what's around and say, well. Yeah, we've
got three intersections in 6/10 of a mile. We've got five in 2 miles. And then when I go drive in Eden Prairie
and I see Eden Prairie's got three intersections in 4 miles before you hit the freeway. And their xvhole trail
46
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
system is constructed, has been constructed too. In fact it's the trail system I use most the time sinee it's the
only one I have access to. It goes to all those intersections. It goes through those intersections. I've been using
them for years. Our trail systems are constructed for these intersections. Again, that's why we spent all the
money in building them in the first place. Part of that cost was to do that. So to me there's a lot of information
both ways. And I'm going to say you know, not a lot of good answers...I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do
on this one.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I spoke my piece previously. I think as to what I'm hearing here and what I'm
listening to is that there is some real concerns. Poor business and fiasco, I can't go along with that Steve. I
really don't, only because of the fact that everything does have escalations. I don't agree with the complete cost
on this because I did, when I worked in my real world, we put a bridge in over across a railroad. We started
out at approximately $500,000.00 to build that. And by the time they got done, it was a little over a million
dollars. So I 'knew this was going to come a little higher than what we anticipated.
Councilman Berquist: Same estimator.
Mayor Chmiel: Well no, different estimator. Right church, wrong pew. But anyway, I really see that as a
connection between community and I really feel strong about that. And to throw $280,000.00 some dollars into
the pit and say forget about it, I don't 'kno~v. But yet, do the additional expenditure where there's a lot of money
and I don't think anybody is in a position, and I've heard Colleen say she's not in a position at this time to come
up with a conclusion so I would like to make a motion to table this to our next agenda meeting. Whether it be,
I don't know how long you're going to need for.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just, I need some more complete information and you 'know,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And I guess that's some of the things. As long as xve can get the total facts and figures
all together, I think I would make that as a motion to table to our next available Council meeting.
Councilman Mason: I will not be here the next Council meeting, and I would really like to be here for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Then ~ve could do that...goes within a month.
Todd Gerhardt: You have 30 days since we received bids.
Don Ashworth: And when did we receive them7
Todd Gerhardt: They were opened March 8th I think.
Don Ashworth: So you've got to award by.
Councilman Senn: The second April meeting.
Don Ashworth: April lst?
Councilman Senn: No, April. You got them when? March what?
Mayor Chmiel: March 8th he said.
47
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: March 8th I heard.
Councilman Mason: March 1st it says right here.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh. I thought he said March 8th too.
Councilman Berquist: I don't understand the process here. You've got the votes to get it done.
Councilman Mason: That's right.
Councilman Berquist: Why don't we get it done?
Resident: Can you have txvo motions going at the same time?
Councilman Mason: Well, I don't think there's been a motion made yet.
Mayor Chmiel: No. Well I have a motion but it wasn't seconded. So that dies for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion to table with a second. Discussion?
Councilman Mason: Well it sounds to me like there are 3 votes to award this tonight so hearing that, I will be
voting against a motion to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If I'm hearing what you're saying, I ~vould remove my motion to table.
Councilman Berquist: Were my comments unclear in that regard?
Mayor Chmiel: I think I came in on the tail end of it, but that's alright.
Councilman Mason: Having removed your motion Your Honor, I would like to make a motion to award bids
for the pedestrian bridge//10531 over Trunk Highway 5, Project 93-25, SP 194-090-02 STP EN93 (013), and in
that motion would also include approving Limited Use Permit for pedestrian bridge #10531 over Trunk Highway
5, same project numbers.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
48
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Don Ashxvorth: Just a clarification. I would make the assumption that since the Council's made a decision to
act on the award, that that would be in essence a vote also to kind of release the dollars that are kind of being
held hostage as a part of the bonding. Because unless you tell us that the amounts that we previously bonded
can in fact be used, you really will not be totally acting on this item.
Councilman Mason: So you want my motion to include the release of that money7
Don Ashworth: Well, I would make the assumption that in fact by, if you would approve this motion, it's kind
of implicit that your intent was to release those dollars but.
Councilman Mason: I would agree.
Don Ashworth: Maybe it should be part of the motion, ! don't 'know.
Councilman Mason: Well, let the motion, my motion stands that that money should then be released.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, does the second agree with that?
Councilman Berquist: Fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Resolution #95-38: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded that the Pedestrian Bridge No.
10531 over Tmnk Highway 5, City Project No. 93-25, SP 194-090-02 STP EN93 (013), be awanled to Edward
Kraemer & Sons, Inc. at a contractual amount of $441,758.45; and to approve the limited use permit for
Pedestrian Bridge No. 10531 SP 194-090-02 STP EN93 (013). All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and
Councilwoman Dockendorf who abstained, and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: Your Honor, could I make a comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Councilman Senn made the comment earlier that nobody wanted to listen, and just for the
record I guess I wish words sometimes were a little more carefully chosen. I think I do listen and just because I
disagree doesn't mean I don't listen. I'm not sure the intent of that statement but I want the record to know.
Councilman Senn: Never to mean you Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well but, but I think we need to choose our words carefully when we make statements like
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good.
49
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Chmiel: This is Commission appointments, and rather to...any other long discussion with this, I might
like to, rather than to sit here and discuss this for another 2 1/2 hours, I would like to make a motion in regards
to this, and we did hold this off for Councilman Berquist but I would like to make a motion and see if I have a
second. Is that the Planning Commission, that we appoint, re-appoint Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott and the two
others that would be appointed. Rather than showing as three members, it should really show as four because of
Matt Ledvina submitting his resignation from the Planning Commission. And the other one along with that
would be Robert Skubic and Michael Meyer. For the Park and Rec we have two members to be appointed and
I would suggest that we appoint the two incumbents, James Manders and Fred Berg. And for Public Safety, it
shows rather than two members, actually it's three because of a replacement for one who resigned and he has a
year to fill on that and with that, I would suggest Dave Dummer for that one additional year as being an
incumbent also. Bill Bernhjelm and Steve Labatt. And the one, let me just clarify one more for Dave. That
would be replacing Dave Johnson, which expires in 1996 and Dave was in agreement with that. Is there a
second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Berquist: You want to do this all with one motion? I don't have any problem with Park and Rec
and I don't have any problem with Public Safety but I do want to talk about Planning.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's discussion. You can do that now.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Alright. Well I would prefer to, I'd like to reappoint Ladd Conrad. I'd like to
appoint Mike Meyer and Bob Skubic. And since Ledvina has recently resigned, shouldn't that be brought to the
floor via the paper?
Mayor Chmiel: Point of procedure.
Don Ashworth: I guess I'd defer to the attorney. As I see that, we did advertise. You do have the pool of
people. In the middle of that process you had an additional resignation and I think procedurally, procedurally
it's up to the City Council. If you would want that position to kind of be re-advertised, you could. Or if you
wanted to take out of this pool of names, that would be acceptable as well. Correct?
Elliott Knetsch: Yeah. I agree with that. I think the practice has been to advertise openings. I think we did
that. But I also think if you're uncomfortable, and think you want to take another stab at it.
Councilman Berquist: Well it's 4 months later and insofar as the previous ad said incumbents are going to re-
enter the race, I think it only fair.
Elliott Knetsch: I think that's totally at your discretion. You can start over or move ahead.
Don Ashworth: I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What's Council's?
50
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I like the suggestion of re-advertising.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: I'll go with Steve's suggestion too.
Mayor Chmiel: For one additional person.
Kate Aanenson: There was two, wasn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: No, just one. We would appoint three at this time, which it's there. Okay, any other
discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, the three being who?
Mayor Chmiel: Well the three that I mentioned was Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott and then it would be Robert
Skubic.
Councilman Berquist: And I've got a different three.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, well my motion's on the floor, xvith a second. Okay. You don't have any problem with
the others. So let me call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Councilman Mason: What's the motion now?
Mayor Chmiel: The motion is for Planning Commission, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, and Robert Skubic. Park and
Rec, James Manders and Fred Berg. And Public Safety would be Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Dummer and Steve
Labatt. But with Dave Dummer filling just that one year. Even though he is up for re-election or re-
appointment I should say. Motion clear?
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council appoint the following: For the
Planning Commission, Ladd Conrad, Joe Sco~ and Robert Skubic; Park and Rec Commission, James Man&rs
and Fred Berg; and Public Safety Bill Bemhjelm, Dave Dummer and Steve Labatt. Mayor Chmiel and
Councilman Mason voted in favor, the rest opposed~ The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Senn: Can we take the commissions one at a time? It might be easier.
Councilman Berquist: Narrow it down.
Mayor Chmiel: No we already, okay.
Councilman Senn: How about Public Safety, move Dummer, Labatt and I can never pronounce Bill's name.
Mayor Chmiel: Bernhjelm.
Councilman Berquist: I'd second that.
51
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: And Dummer's the one year.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded that the City Council appoint the following people for
the Public Safety Commission: Bill Bemhjelm, Steve Labatt and Dave Dummer, for a one year term. All voted
in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: With a comment please? No, I voted in favor. Just the fact that we had excellent
candidates for this position and I would hope that they would re-apply or somehow get involved.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I would like those letters also sent to those who did apply, encouraging them to do so
the next time. Okay, Public Safety is completed. Park and Rec would be James Manders and Fred Berg.
Councilman Senn: I move Berg and Manders.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Cotmcilman Mason seconded that the City Council appoint the following people for
the Park and Recreation Commission: James Manders and Fred Berg. All voted in favor and the motion carded
unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Planning Commission. My motion failed.
Councilman Berquist: Your motion failed. I motion we re-appoint Ladd Conrad and we appoint Mike Meyer
and Bob Skubic to the vacancies.
Councilman Senn: And what, re-advertise that?
Councilman Berquist: And re-advertise the spot created by the resignation of Matt Ledvina.
Councilman Senn: I'I1 second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded.
Councilman Mason: Discussion?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: I think these should be done one at a time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why?
Councilman Mason: Because there's obviously differences of opinion on who should be on the Planning
Commission right now and I don't think it should be done as a package deal. I think we should all state who
we're in favor of. So as such, I will be voting against that motion.
Councilman Berquist: Well, I'll xvithdraw the motion. I have no problem going individually.
52
City Council Meeting - March 13, 199:5
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Let's go through.
Councilman Senn: You want to vote on each one individually or do you want each one to state their
preference? I misunderstood what you said.
Councilman Mason: Well, either or. I think we should vote on each one I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Each one who has applied?
Councilman Mason: That's correct. Well however. I mean obviously people want to make a motion on who
they want to be on the commission so I think maybe somebody should be making a motion on one person at a
time.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move that we re-appoint Ladd Conrad.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to re-appoint Ladd Conrad to the Planning
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Who's, Robert Skubic.
Councilman Berquist: I move that we appoint Robert Skubic for the Planning Commission.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to appoint Robert Skubic to the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
Councilman Mason: I think before any more motions are made, ~ve need to take into account that we arc
essentially saying, with what we're doing here, we'll have 3 ne~v people on a 7 person commission. And I think
that that's creating a whole lot of grief for the Planning Commission. That's almost 50% of brand new people
and it wouldn't surprise me if one of the persons we just appointed, when he hears that, decides not to be a part
of it. Because that's an awful lot of work for all those people to have to break 3 new people in. And I think
that's wrong to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that was some of my reasoning for bringing Joe Scott up.
Councilman Mason: I understand that and that's why ! voted for your motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There is a motion on the floor.
Councilman Senn: There is?
Councilman Mason: No, I don't think there is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, no one has gone to the third, alright. I thought there was.
53
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Mason: I don't believe there is.
Mayor Chmiel: It's getting late. I thought there was.
Councilman Senn: I'll move Meyer. For the third.
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded for Michael Meyer.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to appoint Michael Meyer to the Planning
Commission. Ail voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have everybody in place then.
Councilman Mason: I would like to knoxv the reasons why, well maybe that's out of line.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no. I think one individual indicated his feelings at the meeting.
Councilman Mason: At?
Mayor Chmiel: At our work session.
Councilman Mason: Was that a public meeting?
Mayor Chmiel: It was a work session. Yep, it'd be an open meeting.
Kate Aanenson: It was noticed here, it has to be.
Councilman Mason: Okay, yeah. It `,vas noticed. Yeah, well.
Mayor Chmiel: I just, I have to express a feeling that I have, and I'm going to do it. I guess I don't like,
because of situations that occurred with the Council and one individual ,,vas cited and reviewed and was proven
innocent, to basically take the position as it he did, as a grudge, in my opinion. I don't fully, I'm in order.
You're not. I don't particularly like that kind of dirty pool. That's my position and I, at least ! have to state it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That had absolutely no bearing on my decision whatsoever.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not talking about your's.
Councilman Senn: Well, it had no bearing on mine either Mr. Mayor, but no matter how many times I say it,
you won't believe it because Joe Scott's your good friend and you wanted him there so that's up to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Joe Scott is not a good friend of mine.
54
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: I think the Planning Commission needed a lot of change, as I stated in the work session. I
would advocate regardless of doing that, I think Mr. Conrad needs to stay because of his years of experience
and he can provide some leadership. Beyond that I would like to see an entirely new Planning Commission, but
that's my opinion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: Well, I will state what I said earlier about how people choose their words, and part of me
says, I'm kind of ashamed to be up here right now and part of me says, I'm not sure. It's hard for me to sit here
'knowing the comments that were made at that work session and say that this is all above board and.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what made me say what I said.
Councilman Senn: I'd love to 'know what you're insinuating because I didn't make any comments at that work
session.
Councilman Mason: You xvere, I could quote what you said about Joe Scott Mark.
Councilman Senn: I said nothing about Joe Scott Mark. I asked the Planning Commission member who we
happened to be interviewing a number of questions. I said nothing about him.
Councilman Mason: That's not true Mark. You made some very derogatory comments.
Councilman Senn: Well, you can think whatever you want Mike. If you want to get into work session
comments, I mean I can get into a lot of them too but.
Councilman Mason: You made some very derogatory comments about Joe Scott.
Councilman Senn: I don't believe I did sos that's between you...
Councilman Berquist: Let's move on.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on.
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12' X 20'
TRANSMITTER BUII,DING TO BE LOCATF~D 5' FROM THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES~
1451 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE~ KKCM RADIO.
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The applicant is requesting site plan approval, as he indicated, for a 12 x
20 foot transmitter building. This property is located south of Assumption Seminary and south of LIS 212 or
Flying Cloud Drive. The surrounding land use in this area is predominantly mapped flood way. The Minnesota
River goes south. And then Assumption Seminary to the north. A site plan review is required to expand and
locate a building on this site. In addition to the site plan, the applicant is requesting a 45 'foot variance from the
front yard and a 5 foot variance from the side yard setback requirements for the location of the shed. This
would basically allow the shed to be 5 feet from the front and 5 feet from the south. The exterior of this
building is an exposed rock aggregate consisting of earth tone colors. A steel door will be located on the north
side of the building. The applicant's original proposal entailed leaving the existing transmitter building on the
55
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
site. However, in recent conversations and as discussed in the Planning Commission, the applicant indicated he
would be removing the old transmitter building. From looking at this site, it's pretty obvious that this whole
area is a wetland. Based on the vegetation, the soils found on the site. The State Wetland Conservation Act
does allow activities that result in the draining or filling of less than 400 square feet of wetland per year, per
landowner without mitigation. The applicant will need to prove that he's within these guidelines and submit that
information to the city. On February 13th the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed site plan. The
commission recommended approval of the site plan with several and minor revisions involving the use of
building materials and the colors of those materials. The idea behind this was that the building blend in with.
the natural environment and not stick out. The commission also recommended approval of a 5 foot side yard
variance and a 35 foot front yard variance for the building. This would require the building to be set back 15
feet from the front property line and 5 feet from the side. We did hear from MnDot regarding this proposal and
their only comment was, they wanted to maintain a 30 foot clear zone between the edge of the pavement and
where the building is to be located. And I guess as proposed at 5 feet, they maintain that 30 foot setback.
However staff feels that a greater setback, and I guess Planning Commission agreed xvith staff on this, that
additional setback is needed to maintain that separation for safety reasons. With this, staff is recommending that
the Council approve the site plan and a 5 foot side yard variance and a 35 foot front yard variance. I'd be
happy to ansxver any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions of staff'?. Is the applicant here? I was hoping so. I just thought
maybe you wanted to sit around here.
John Hull: My name is John Hull. I'm the General Manager at KKCM Radio...it's been interesting to watch
city government at it's finest and I admire you and your devotion. I don't think I could do it but I admire your
work. Basically '`vhat we have here is we have had this location for our transmitter site since the station began
in 1962. Actually we were actually...back in 1961. It's a beautiful site for a transmitter. AM transmitter
because of the fact that the water table's only about 2 1/2 to 3 feet down. It allows for excellent ground...and
the fact that the water will stand and in year's past when the floods come along, the flood waters will come right
up to the property. Thus the necessity of trying to purchase a brand new, state of the art transmitter and the
necessity of moving this building to as far up, as far high in elevation as we can on our parcel of land... And so
we have...with a good solid building that will blend in with the earth tones. I suppose the one thing that I
would just mention about this is the fact that we had an engineering firm recommended this to us, going 5 feet
from the north property line, or is necessary because it's about the only dry spot that we have on the whole
parcel of land. In trying to keep that building up out of the wetland area. Noxv staff has recommended it going
back 15 feet. The problem you'll notice on some of those pictures, you'll see that if we go back 15 feet, we
have to start 'knocking out some shrubs and some trees and a disruption of the natural beauty of that area. So
what we'd like to do is you'll see it on that picture, there's a stake there with a orange marker on it. If you'll
notice, the building just inside of that stake and thus our proposal ,,vas just to put it down right there. It won't
be disrupting the trees or shrubs or anything like that. And like I say, out of the wetland as much as possible.
Questions that I can answer at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Are you going to bury your power at this time?
John Hull: Sir?
Councilman Senn: Are you going to buD, the power or is the power going to be overhead still?
56
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
John Hull: It's going to be overhead. It can't be buried. You mean the incoming utility?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
John Hull: Yeah. It has to be overhead.
Councilman Senn: Why does it have to be overhead?
John Hull: I don't know. I'd have to ask Minnesota Valley Electric. They are our...
Kate Aanenson: We can do that.
John Hull: I've never, you know it's the first time somebody's asked me that question.
Councilman Berquist: Is that the only thing on the pole?
Mayor Chmiel: There's a transformer.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, there's a transformer on the pole but the wires, there's pictures floating around here.
Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes you can put those underground, depending upon soil conditions. Whether they're
acidic or not. If they are, then there's some problems that happen with the conduit contained within that ground.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I kind of understood the reason for the condition in there to move the power away
from the north side of the building but for me going down there and looking at it, the power boxes can be
painted up to match the buildings but that overhead to me is what's, I mean if you're looking at something from
an aesthetic standpoint, that's. You know you've got this huge amount of power kind of going over this tiny
building and that's kind of what sticks out like a sore thumb.
John Hull: If it means anything, it's a 10,000 volt transmitter that we'd be putting in there._but I imagine they
do require quite a bit of...
Councilman Senn: I understand. I mean we have that buried all the time. It's just, if there's some special
circumstance here not to, can we.
Kate Aanenson: We can cheek that, you betc
Mayor Chmiel: The only disadvantage is, from overhead to underground is the fact of trying to find a break if
the event that occurs. And being in the business they are, I think they may have some real concerns with that.
Councilman Berquist: Well a cable break is much less likely than overhead break. It's not.'?
Mayor Chmiel: Underground they have.more problems with underground than they have with overhead.
Councilman Berquist: Really?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
57
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: In terms of breaks?
Mayor Chmiel: The gophers and...
Councilman Senn: The only other thing I wanted to ask the applicant is what constitutes earth tones?...
John Rask: Yeah, I guess just tan, light brown.
Kate Aanenson: Something that blends with the surrounding area.
John Rask: I think the applicant may have, do you have that color?
John Hull: No, I didn't bring it with me.
John Rask: Okay. Yeah, we've seen what the building's going to look like and it is.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the intent is to blend with the vegetation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? With the additional suggestion, checking out that and we'll leave
that to staff. Is there a motion on the floor?
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I'll second it.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve Site Plan Review #95-1, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain al required permits or approvals from the FCC and the Army Corps of
Engineers.
2. A wetland exemption form shall be obtained from the city.
3. Plans submitted for the building permit should include an engineered foundation or slab.
4. The existing transmitter building shall be removed from the property within 60 days of completion of the
new transmitter building.
5. The only signage allowed on the property will be the caution signs required by FCC regulations.
6. The exterior and roof of the building shall consist of earth tone colors and consistent with the materiaI
proposed (exposed aggregate).
7. No utility boxes shall be allowed on the north side of the building.
58
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
And the City Council recommends approval of a five (5) foot side yant and a thirty-five (35) foot front yant
setback variance for the construction of a 12 x 20 foot shed at fifteen (15) feet from the north property line and
five (5) feet from the west property line based on the following findings:
The wetland on the property prevents the placement of the shed at 50 feet or more from the front lot line
and 10 feet or more from the side lot line.
The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
This petition for a variance is based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the property while
minimizing the impacts on the wetland.
Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously,
CITY CODE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING TYPICAL CONNECTION CHARGE FOR SANITARY
SEWER AND WATER SERVICE~ FIRST READING.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council...something we did a few years ago with the
trunk hook-up charges. The city...wanted to establish a uniform charge for...similar approach for lateral
connection charges and pretty much the language is pretty much the same format that we used in the trunk
hook-up charges. We're recommending that we establish a uniform connection charge of $7,000.00 per lot
for...watermain and sewer benefit...And that as with the trunk hook-up, that each year we'll look at the
construction costs and make a recommendation...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does Council have any questions in regard to this proposal? This is a first reading.
Councilman Berquist: Current Code 19-21 states, single family townhomes, etc will be one unit. Apartments
will be 80% of the unit. Are you still going to hold that or are you just going to make it $7,000.00 no matter
what kind of residence it is?
Charles Folch: Yeah, we'll stay with the 80% for the apartments. The 80% factor actually goes back to the
Metro Council Waste Water Commission Services. That's a factor they use for their SAC charge. Basically the
SAC charge for an apartment is considered 80%. But that's if the apartment itself does not have washer and
dryer type facilities contained within the individual apartments. It's like a floor or community or I should say a
floor where it's multi, used by more than one resident...80%. If they feel that if the...if the apartments that go in
have washer and dryers for the individual units, then MWCC says they should have a full SAC charge.
Councilman Berquist: You said the range was 67 to 8500 previously.
Charles Folch: Yeah. A lot of that depends on how many years that interest has been accumulating. How old
the project was. If the lot sat vacant for many years before someone decided to build on it.
Councilman Berquist: $7,000.00 was a calculated figure?
Charles Folch: Right~ That's basically the going rate right now looking at our current cost of putting in lateral
sewer and water to the property.
59
City Council Meeting- March 13, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Given the fact that development is going to start occurring on more difficult properties,
and therefore the cost to put in the utilities is going to escalate.
Charles Folch: That's a possibility. But actually what you're seeing is most of these that we're dealing with are
in the older neighborhoods where you maybe have one lot...project in the 70's. Most of the development that's
occurred, and I can't think of anything in the last 4 or 5 years, and the development that's gone in where they
haven't actually put in the improvements, outside of the trunk improvements. They've put in the laterals
themselves but we haven't had to deal with the lateral assessments that have been...but it's a possibility.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: I'm confused now. Are you saying 7 for everything or are you saying 7?
Charles Folch: 7 is just for the lateral sewer and water...but there's still the trunk hook-up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but the 7 will be for everything. Apartments alike. Everything alike.
Charles Folch: The 80% factor will be used for apartments based on the number of units, if they do not have
individual washers and dryers...
Mayor Chmiel: If they have their washers and dryers within their own apartments, then it has to be assessed
accordingly.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're going to effectively follow what the Met Council does in terms of the...
Charles Folch: Exactly.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Any other questions? Motion?
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: I'd move approval of the first reading.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. -Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adopt a uniform connection charge of
$7,000.00 per lot and amend Section 19-20 in accordance with the City Attomey's draft of the ordinance
amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sewer and water connection charges (Attachment
B) and that this charge may be adjusted annually by the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
1995 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET AMENDMENT.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I will be very complete in my analysis this
evening...tonight and I say that simply because the second item, or the third, item number (c), does deal with the
recreation center, school building and it's an additional expense which is being recommended from the Park
Commission and staff. First off however, items (a) and (b) are simply housekeeping items. You'll recall the
60
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
City Council and Park Commission approved trails.., for both Shenandoah Ridge and the Meadows at
Longacres. It xvas simply a matter of when those projects got underway as to when the final cost estimates
would be developed and the contractors would start doing construction, thus the bills would begin rolling into
City Hall. The estimates have been completed and thus it is recommended that we amend the 1995 Park
Acquisition and Development budget to include to fund accounts...$80,000.00 for trail construction at the
Meadows at Longacres, and $12,000.00 for trail construction at Shenandoah Ridge. Various documents
specifying the conditions of approval...in this regard and maps showing the...trail routes in your packet. The
third item this evening, $50,000.00 for ballfield irrigation at the ballfields at the new elementary school site.
This was not proposed as a part of the original, when we signed the development. To be quite frank with you,
I thought we were pushing the envelope at that time with the additional building and other components of the
site. However, in hind sight, each time we take a look at a seeding project or a turf establishment project in a
public setting, it always comes down to timing and it comes down to the critical nature of getting grass to grow
at a particular site. I've personally been involved in numerous occasions, 3, 4, 5 different occasions where we've
had contractors seed a particular project 2, 3, 4 times prior to them being kicked off the job. Some type of
settlement paid for that inadequate seeding and inadequate growth and the city takes over the project at that
point. That is what we feel could happen int his site as well. The contractor wants to get off the job in June,
thus they would be seeding in the first part of summer. It's not the right time to be seeding a ballfield if you
xvant it to grow properly. You should be seeding it in August but we cannot the hold the ties of the contractor
to go ahead and seed that property. They want to get the job done, get...have that authority to do that. So what
we are left with is potentially dry days and hot evenings which do not allow for good grass growing. If you can
envision we are opening a recreation center and elementary school with a dirt playfield so the critical nature of
getting grass to grow is, we'll be facing this immediately. Irrigation was the last resort at the Lake Ann
ballfields, when we had difficulties maintaining growth with the ballfields there...for 3 years, 4 years running.
Part of the irrigation by hand. It has to do a lot with the disturbance of soil and go ahead and mass grade a site
and put down materials which looks black but is in essence many times void of nutrients due to where it came
from in the layer and we can't guarantee anything from the first foot of black dirt and the layer which has...so
an expenditure, an additional expenditure of $50,000.00 for ballfield irrigation° I've quoted the site, or the
locations for funding which are proposed being $30,000.00 from the city's $100,000.00 contingency and then a
deal which was struck, at least verbally...correspondence and written matter...school district to go ahead and
deduct $20,000.00 in seeding. Have the city pick up the...install that seeding and the first seed would be
approximately a $2,000.00 expenditure. Thus the $20,000.00 in savings could be put towards this project so
that would represent $15.00 of $200.00 from the District's portion the city can deduct and $4,800.00 from the
city's portion... That is the recommendation which has been forwarded by the Park and Recreation Commission
to the City Council. In regards to where that puts us with change orders, I can tell you that the approved
change orders total $59,139.26 on the city's ledgers so this will put you up to $90,000.00 and I'm certainly
aware of additional change orders which will put you over the $100,000.00 contingency on the school project.
I'm also aware of additional change orders which will be brought back to the City Council...in this regard so
please bear that in mind.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you have a ballfield estimate, so to speak, of the additional change orders?
Dollar amount.
Todd Hoffman: No, I do not. I think we're up to another couple after this. There's also a change in this
building which does not have a window, which I feel should have a window. I'm in fact investigating what the
proposed cost for that addition would be, and if it seems reasonable...City Council. We'll end up, if I have to
go on record, $130,000.00 plus in change orders.
61
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Berquist: We've got 59 worth of change orders so far. We approved $35,000.00 two weeks, or a
month ago. And there was $24,000.00 approved prior to that.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: So there's 59 and you're saying how many more? How much more has been put through
that hasn't come here yet?
Councilman Senn: Todd, can you jump in? I thought we had only approved Change Order 1.
Todd Gerhardt: Well there were six change orders but the one got brought back.
Councilman Senn: Which was Change Order 1.
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Councilman Senn: But that didn't total 50 some thousand did it?
Councilman Berquist: It was 35 as I recall from the Council meeting 6 weeks ago.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, because I mean the school was paying part and xve were paying part and our portion
was 30 some thousand, was what I remember.
Todd Hoffman: The correspondence that we have to date at least, and whether they've been approved or not...
documented to date total $59,000.00 on the city's ledger and $105,000.00 on the school's ledger for a total of
$165,000.00. The change orders which are in progress, again under request for proposals for additional
amenities both on the city's side and the school's side of the building and what those prices will come back to
the city and the...is un'known at the present time.
Councilman Berquist: But that's a guesstimate that you gave Colleen of 1307
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: In addition to or total of?.
Todd Hoffman: Total on it.
Councilman Berquist: So that includes the 30 that you're talking about now.
Todd Hoffman: Correct...
Councilman Senn: Why is there no split on the 30?
Todd Hoffman: No split on the, well the split would come in as the school district would go ahead and pony
up their $15,200.00 with that irrigation. The ballfields are being funded, if you will, owned and operated by the
City of Chanhassen. The school has one ballfield site which is designated a school ballfield.
62
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilman Senn: I thought there was a pre-set percentage split in the contract. I mean I understand them
putting their seeding money back, just like we're putting our seeding money back, if we don't need it but I
thought the underlying contract there was the one percentage split on the building and there was another
percentage split on the outside or something.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, there's 50/50 on the outside.
Councilman Senn: So why aren't we splitting the 50/50 on the third?
Todd Hoffman: This is again, the ballfields, the brunt of the use of those ballfields will take place by the City
of Chanhassen, by athletic associations. It's not a city, or school project...
Councilman Senn: I understand that but I thought that's what the percentage was supposed to deal with~ both in
terms of the building and in terms of outside. I thought the percentage was to reflect use. That's ~vhy the cost
sharing arrangement ~vas there.
Todd Hoffman: Sure. If we want to go back after the school district for the additional $10,000.00, I don't have
a problem doing that. Whether or not they'd approve that...
Councilman Senn: Well, my only question is, are we going by that agreement or contract we signed or aren't
we? It doesn't appear to me that xve are, looking at the agreement.
Todd Hoffman: Not in this ease. Not in this proposal.
Don Ashxvorth: If I can jump in. The agreement calls out has two different sections. As it deals with the
building and our square footage of the building in comparison to the school district's and that's where you get
into the 76/24. 74/26 or ~vhatever the percent is. As it dealt ~vith the land, each of us own 20 acres and so for
example the mass grading that occurred out there is a 50/50 split. And so the document calls out for the 50/50
split on literally, I guess I call it items in the open type of thing. Or where there's a clear relationship that this
item really relates more back to we own 20 acres. They o~vn 20 acres and who's benefitting from that'?. I think
you get into certain areas, and maybe this irrigation, you really do flip a coin. If it hadn't previously been
identified as to which category it fell into. And I guess our position was that since these were, these are
improvements that are being done, you might say equally across their 20 acres, our 20 acres, ~ve made the
decision that that should rightly fall into the 50/50 category. Correct?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Senn: So are we not irrigating all the grass on this project through this or not?
Todd Hoffman: Irrigating 5 ballfields, 4 of which are on city property and 1 of which is on the school district's
property.
Councilman Senn: And I'm just curious, how is the rest of the place going to be irrigated? It's not you mean.'?
Todd Hoffman: No.
Councilman Senn: We're just going to irrigate the ballfields and let the rest of the grass go you mean?
63
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Todd Hoffman: Correct. Irrigation includes the ballfields and the surrounding spectator areas. It does not
include the envelope of the school, courtyards. The price estimates, as you can see are fairly reasonable for the
irrigation of the 5 ballfields simply because...simple pattern of irrigation...after the rough final grading, bring the
contractor in to dig the trenches and the black dirt and then final grade and seed it. So the price... Again, those
are estimates.
Councilman Senn: It just seems to me we've been seeing cost splits or sharing arrangements on everything else
that's come through on this. I'm just curious why we're not doing that here. The other question I have is, I
assume we're going to go out to open bids then on a project like this. This size for irrigation. I saw this thing
in here from the one guy out of Excelsior. Is the intention just to use him or are we going to go to bid?
Councilman Berquist: He's a consultant. Would you use him as a consultant? I mean you know enough people
around here to just call and say this is what I want.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. He's just a consultant for a price estimate...
Councilman Berquist: Well it's interesting. He says, price range is very conservative and the bids could come
in slightly to greater lower. I love that.
Mayor Chmiel: They're hungry. Okay. Can I ask a couple of other short questions. You eluded to the
Longacres and the Shenandoah as being boo 'kkeeping items. Maybe being new to this game I'm not sure how
the bookkeeping items work but in the synopsis that you wrote it would appear to me that, didn't you say
something that would make me think that you missed these in your budget projections?
Todd Hoffman: Once the projects was approved, I don't know when they're going to go ahead and initiate
construction. We surely could have put them in as contingencies to go ahead and kick in if the project ,,vas
initiated. But it was money promised at th'e time of the final plat approval as a part of our conditions in our
development contract with those developers so, we could have done it at that time and gone ahead and identified
the contingencies. The Park and Rec...in 1994, this $100,000.00 will come out of that money.
Councilman Berquist: So this isn't going to affect, and again I don't know where a lot of this stuff comes from
but I know that Heritage is being, the Woods in Heritage is being condemned. That's going to have to come out
of this year's fund. That's all.
Todd Hoffman: All in the mix.
Councilman Berquist: All in the mix.
Todd Hoffman: That's not to say we won't hit the end of the road at some point...but these are committed
funds.
Councilman Berquist: That's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Can I have a motion?
Councilman Senn: Can I ask one more question? In terms of the ballfields now, is this a standard we're going
to try to start setting in terms of ballfields?
64
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Todd Hoffman: There aren't too many park sites where it would be advantageous to go ahead and put in. The
amount of play they receive...project xve xvould go ahead and irrigate.
Councilman Senn: I mean I can see it now. I mean as soon as we do this one, the teams and everything are
going to ask for irrigation at all the other fields too.
Todd Hoffman: The only other community park that we have is Lake Ann and it's irrigated. Other than
the...school right here.
Councilman Berquist: In my opinion, it's less costly to maintain an irrigated field than it is a non-irrigated fieId.
Councilman Senn: Oh no, but I just wondered what the ultimate cost exposure was if we have to get into
irrigating a number of them. What you're saying is there really aren't any others we're going to have to irrigate
then.
Todd Hoffman: No. Bandimere would be the next°..
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I xvill move approval of 1995 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development budget
amendment as so stated.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Resolution #95-39: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to amend the 1995 Park
Acquisition and Development budget to include:
a. $80,000.00 for trail construction at the Meadows at LongAcres; and
b. $12,000.00 for trail construction at Shenandoah Ridge;
and authorize the following Change Order for Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School:
c. $50,000.00 for ballfield irrigation ($30,000.00 from the city's $100,000.00 contingency; $!5,200.00 from
district portion of seeding deduct; $4,800.00 from the city portion of seeding deduct).
Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously~
CONSENT AGENDA:
(D). APPROVE FINANCIAL POLICIES.
Councilman Senn: On l(d), the financial management policies. I thought when we talked about this, that we
agreed that there was going to be effectively a calendar installed in the financial policies so that we had a
calendar to follow in terms of what was going to start when and finish when and we wanted to, you 'know we
backed up against the rear view xvall and have to act at the last minute type of thing. I thought we agreed we
65
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
were going to actually set out a calendar in here primarily dealing with the budget. With the budget as well as
the auditing and stuff.
Don Ashworth: Councilman Senn is correct. We did that and I don't 'know hoxv, why it didn't get in here. But
you are correct. That was one of the things you had stated. As it dealt with the budget. Tonight's the first time
I've heard you kind of expand it to include auditing.
Councilman Senn: Well we talked about basically putting together a financial calendar so we 'knew at what
points we needed to take what actions and at what points we needed to make determinations. I think we used
budgeting as an example. But I'd like to see it basically be all the actions that we need to look forward in terms
of dates on.
Don Ashxvorth: Well we did prepare a calendar. I don't understand how come it didn't get in here because I
'know it xvas done because I personally worked on part of it. So I xvould suggest we table that item. Let me
take it back as it deals with all aspects of financial. I may not be able to have that back in 2 weeks. It may
take longer.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: And I had a note on, real quickly. Page 6, item 5. The finance director will prepare an
action plan for submission to the City Council on issues raised in the annual audit. Can we put a time frame
on this? 60 to 90 days? A week to 10 days.
Don Ashworth: Sure. What page is that on? I'm sorry.
Councilman Berquist: That's item 5 on page 6. The first item 5. It really doesn't matter hoxv many days as
long as it works.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion to table?
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table action on the approval of Financial Policies
for further information. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
G. CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CREATE A NEW TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 4~ BOWLING
CENTER~ FRONTIER CENTER AND ANIMAL FAIR BUILDING.
Councilman Senn: I asked for l(g) to be removed because prior to authorizing a public hearing, from my
perspective, I guess I'd like to see more definition and information come to us in relationship to the project and
also some estimates of the, in terms of city participation and what's going to be required in relation to the
project. I xvould really like to see the Council consider that information before they put it out for a public
hearing rather than being exposed to it for the first time at the same public hearing that the public is.
66
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Excellent suggestion~
Councilman Senn: So with that I'd like to table l(g) and bring it up again.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn: When we have the info.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table calling for a public heating to create a
new tax increment District No. 4 for the Bowling Center, Frontier Center and Animal Fair Building. All voted
in favor and the motion carded.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARR[ERS~ LAKE ANN PARI~ PARK AND RECREATION
DIRECTOR.
Don Ashworth: No action is required. That was just to kind of respond to the questions from the last Council
meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does everybody have their questions answered with that one? There's no approval with
that, so is there an adjournment?
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question on the administrative section?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: The fourth to the last item. Municipal legislative...dated February 20th. It would appear
from that that we're being asked to substantially up our commitment to it and do we have a budget or anything
as it relates to how that upped commitment's going to be spent and what it's used for and all that sort of thing?
Don Ashworth: They had a meeting at the end of last week. I was unable to attend, but this is all in
recognition of Orfield and what he's attempting to do. The Mayor and I have kind of been working in close
concert in trying to get as many of the suburban communities working together as possible, and I think that's
what you're seeing as a part of those efforts, so.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words, the coalition up north is...
Councilman Senn: Oh no, I understand that. I'm not debating that. I'm just saying, we got the letter from the
lobbyist here saying that, I mean this is a pretty significant increase if you consider it in relationship to just our
contribution versus the other cities so all I'm saying is, at least from my perspective before going to kind of
condone this or okey doke it or bless it or whatever, I'd like to see some type of back up as to what, you 'know
these rather significant increase is going for. Or some type of a budget, because I assume they put something
like that together if they're asking us for that level of increased commitment. Is that unfair7
Don Ashxvorth: No. But again, the meeting that occurred Thursday, hopefully provided some of those answers
but I haven't gotten back what happened.
67
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I couldn't make that one either on that particular day. So with that, is there a
motion for adjournment.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried- The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
68