CC Minutes 1996 02 26CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 1996
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRF~ENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Bob Generous, Kate
Aanenson, Elliot Knetsch, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the agenda
as presented. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Sherol Howard: I'm Sherol Hoxvard of the Senior Commission. As you knoxv, on March 11, 1996 the City
Council xvill be holding a public hearing for the use of the 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant
funds. The Senior Commission is conducting a survey in the community to determine the level of need for
congregate dining and Meals on Wheels and we will be presenting our findings at the CDBG hearing. Thank
you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendoff seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
d. Autumn Ridge 2nd Addition, Country Homes:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Plans & Specifications
3) Resolution #96-16: Establish "No Patting" Zone on Coulter BoulevanL
Resolution #96-17: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Oak Ponds 2nd Addition, Project
94-12.
h. Accept Donation of $300.00 from Former Landfill Opposition Committee, A1 Klingelhutz.
i. Accept Donation from Disabled American Veterans Association.
City Council Minutes dated February 12, 1996
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 1996
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 23, 1996
1. Approval of Appraisal of Damages for Lyman Boulevard Project 93-32B.
Resolution #96-18: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction and Lake Riley
Trunk Utility Improvement Project 93-32B.
o. Approve Order to Vacate Dwelling, 1350 Flying Cloud Drive.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
F.=, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS
IN THE A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, SECOND AND FINAL READINGi AND
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES.
Mayor Chmicl: Mark, you had (O.
Councilman Senn: Oh! You want to do this now rather than later?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, rather than go all the way through, I think there's some people here that would like to
address this and no sense in sitting all the way through to the end.
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. (f) I pulled for two reasons. One, I guess I'd like to have a little more
discussion over this versus other solutions to this issue and I guess secondly, if this is the solution, I'd like to
make some language changes that I think will help clear up a lot of potential conflicts in the future in terms of
the suggested ordinance language.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a suggestion then to table this item?
Councihnan Senn: That I guess would be my preference, rather than spend all the time doing that right now.
But if you want to discuss it tonight, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don?
Don Ash;vorth: I agree. I think xve should, everybody should have a cop5' or the suggestions from Mark. Give
staff an opportunity to read through those and to prepare a report addressing the pros and cons, etc.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Halla I believe is present. I don't know if you'd rather see him speak at the tabled meeting
or this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: I think once, it would be better if you once see what the tabled item would be rather than to
maybe make a presentation at this particular time.
Councilman Senn: I'll move to table then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Benluist seconded to table the second and final reading of an amendment
to the City Code for Landscape Nurseries and Garden Centers in the A2 District, AgricuHuml Estate District.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
J. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Councilman Senn: Let's see, on (j) I basically got most of the answers back that I wanted because, I stiI1
haven't really got a whole answer back on our legal. The last agenda we approved a rather large legal, bill. I
think around 20 grand and see another one, 22 grand this pay period. It seems to put us at a rather
extraordinarily high legal expenses for the first two months of '96. Pain's gotten back to me with some of the
details and needs some more time to get me some of the other details so I guess (i) would be fine with me but
I'd like to pull that item until I have those answers and have a chance to talk about that.
Don Ash~vorth: Is that just Grannis and Grannis or I'm not sure if we have any Gravens, Kennedy and Gravens.
Councilman Senn: I have ansxvers, like I say, on most of them. I think it's just CK& F. For the Campbell...
Don Ashworth: We will respond to those but just so you're aware. We have been in court virtually every day
on this arbitration with the school. Secondarily, Gary Fuch's has been putting in an ordinate amount of time in
terms of the condemnation associated with Lyman, so that is an item on tonight's agenda. I think that those are
really the two biggest items out of your office. Are you aware of anything else? Well let me get...
Councilman Senn: Well last month there ~vere or...last meeting there were several large items. One was the
school litigation. One xvas Hoover I believe it was litigation. And then there was some other extraneous stuff
but if you take the school lawsuit stuff, now Pam got back to me with a number 95 here of about 7 or 8 grand
but xve've already spent way more than that in the first two months of this year on the thing and I think
litigation, I guess I think it'd be nice to just talk about and understand a little bit more why we're creating such
heavy expense here. The other thing is, in this particular bill, and this is part of the problem that we have is
there's a breakdown of $8,270.00 for general, which kind of really didn't make a lot of sense to me. I mean I
know our normal monthly is about $2,500.00 you know...so there's a big gap between that and the $8,300.00
almost so as far as what xvould normally be under the general classification so, and that's part of what she didn't
get a chance to get back to me on.
Don Ashworth: 85 is high but on a yearly basis about 65 to 70 is normal. For a total for the year so that
breaks out closer to $5,000.00-$5,500.00 so you're 85 is strong, yes.
Councilman Senn: ...Pam, she didn't get a chance to get all the numbers together so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to approve the agenda in itself and with clarifications as to what you
indicated?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'll move to approve (,i) with a hold on the, I guess what would you call is. 013196
for further explanation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the bills, except for Check #013196
which Councilman Senn requested further explanation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
N.z. AUTHORIZATION TO FORMALLY SUBMIT SITE PLAN TO THE PLANNING COMM/SSION AND
APPROVE BUDGET/FLOOR PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADDITION.
Councilman Senn: (n) I had pulled because I'd really like to ask Council to schedule that for a work session
before we start referring it to other people. Last time we talked about this was in October and direction was to
prepare plans and specs and bring some detail back to us so we could start arriving at a plan, a building plan
and a site plan. This seems to be the first step to that but now I think the discussion should occur and the other
thing is, I ;vent through the numbers and I got some real discrepancies as it relates to the numbers on the project
so, but I think rather than spend a lot of time talking about that here, we could probably best review it all in a
work session anyway.
Don Ash~vorth: Todd Christopherson is present. I guess I'd ask him what time of problem this is going to be
or how quickly we might need to schedule that work session.
Todd Christopherson: Yes, thank you. I guess it'd be nice to keep things moving. If we could address those
issues tonight. If you'd like to do that at a work session... We would like to have any issues addressed in terms
of the plan...as soon as possible so that we know, that we don't get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of
developing a plan and getting ready for bids. Right now, as of the direction that we got I think in October from
Council, staff moved ahead ;vith the plans...if we stay on the schedule that we're on, that should be done in
about 4 weeks. So if you xvant to stop and talk about the layout of the plans, xve should try to do that as soon
as possible.
Councilman Senn: I mean that was my understanding of what was supposed to come back to us next. I mean
in October we had no firm plan in terms of what we were looking at. We were still scampering about a number
of different ideas and we kind of settled on the...but generally as far as the small expansion goes for the public
safety wing. Beyond that, I thought you guys were going to go back to the dra;ving board. Put together some
specific plans that came back to us and showed us how that would in fact be implemented. I guess maybe this
is the first shot at doing it but I'm quite honestly on a reduced 8 1/2 x 11 sheets, I can't tell you a whole lot
about what you're getting rather than here's kind of a diagram. You know so I guess I'd like to see some
detailed plans that I can tell what size things are and what square footage things are as it relates to what areas
and what's being suggested in relationship to the expansion. There were a number of concerns that we worked,
that we addressed in that work session such as more efficient treatment of that courtyard area. I looked at. least
at the sketch and it appears that that courtyard area is untouched. So I mean it's just a number of issues like
that. If you want to get into number issues...
Councilman Berquist: How long do you want to hang around?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, how long do you xvant to hang around?
Todd Christopherson: I don't mean to imply that I want to do it here instead of at a work session. I'm certainly
open to whatever the Council wants to do with this. In terms of it's being scheduled, I'd like to see that...
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what I'd like to do too is to just get a consensus of Council as to where everybody else
is coming from.
Councilman Berquist: My feeling is that there's a lot of, there's a number of things on the plan that I'd like to
discuss but I think it can be done in probably half an hour or 45 minutes times. I would have preferred to have
4
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
seen this as a later item in the agenda but it probably will become that. But I think we could probably handle it
this evening.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not with this agenda. That's my only concern. I mean we're going to be meeting
next Monday anyway. It might be worth dealing ~vith it at that time. You know, we haven't looked at it for
several months. It'd probably be worth it to look at the big blue prints and talk about it.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Don.
Don Astnvorth: If Colleen's point, I mentioned to Colleen, like the last 4 or 5 items on the agenda are basically
non people items and if we get up to like item number 10, it's a good chance it might be 11:00 and we might
take those last 4 or 5 items and put them on for like next Monday as part of a work session. Maybe 6:00 to
8:00 type of thing. If that were the case, that would be a good time to bring this item along with it. But I
know Mike has a problem for next Monday so I thought that, we do have one of the items here with kind of
look at work session date but I don't know if again we're going to get to that tonight. I don't think Todd should
chance it in terms of, I mean he could be sitting here and at 11:30 we all decide to go home. And he's still
sitting here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe what we should do is to just move that up on the agenda yet this evening.
Would that be alright or do you want to do this next Monday?
Councilman Mason: I'd like to be a part of that discussion. Because of all the snoxv days and what not, xve got
our parent teacher conferences rescheduled for Monday and I'll be there at least, I'll be conferencing at least
until 8:00 Monday night so I won't be available until after 8:00. But keeping it on tonight's going to make a
bad night, a late night an even later night.
Don Ashworth: I think what we risk is, they're moving ahead with plans and specs and I don't think anybody
here though is saying that they want to see major changes. I think I'm hearing you say, you want more
information. You want to question some of the dollar amounts. Because if we get back into major redrafting,
we're going to be paying KKE, they're going to be asking for a modification of their contract. Correct?
Todd Christopherson: I would assume so. If we change the size of the building... If ~ve're talking about minor
interior layout...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Todd, do you have...this evening?
Todd Christopherson: I didn't bring a full size set of plans. I have the same 8 1/2 x 1 l's that you have.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: And you're saying they're insufficient for you...?
Don Ashworth: Well I have them upstairs on boards. I mean those were prepared by us taking them over and
having Kinko's shoot them down.
Councilman Senn: Well from my perspective I guess I'm trying to understand xvhat's in there. What we've done
in relationship to previous direction like the courtyard area and other issues like that. Additionally I'm trying to
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
understand xvhy xvhen I take the numbers from October and compare them apples to apples, this budget is noxv
increased $242,000.00. You know unless somebody can show me a different way where my math's wrong. If
that's xvhat xve've gone up since October...
Todd Christopherson: I can address, I think in terms of the major items that have occurred since then.
Councilman Senn: Well, the staff memorandum deals with the elevator and reduction previously but now wants
to be taken back so to speak but that still only accounts for $130,000.00 of the $240 some thousand dollars so
I think we've got some discussing to do here to figure out what's going on.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I mean let's deal with it nor or later and let's figure out when to deal xvith it.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, and that was my question back to Council. We can put that on the agenda right after
item number 10. If we get that far.
Councilman Senn: What was thc one you said earlier you wanted to get through?
Councilman Berquist: 10.
Councilman Mason: I would think any discussion on this would get a lot more even, whether I'm here or not,
would be a lot more rationale next week than it would be at 11:00 tonight.
Councilman Senn: Again, I've got no problem with doing an 8:00 to I0:00 session or something on Monday, if
that's when Mike can make it.
Don Ashworth: How about 7:00 to 9:00 with this item then being on.
Mayor Chmiel: That's good.
Councilman Senn: Let's work around his schedule as much as xve can and do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Let's do that. Let's move that to next Monday's work session and hopefully
conclusions will be reached then and we will table that item to the work session. Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, move to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table authorization to formally submit site plan to
tile Planning Comralssion and approve budget/floor plan for/he Public Safety Addition until a work session on
Monday, March 4, 1996. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Don Ashworth: I will have KKE send out a full set of plans to each of you.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
AWARD OF BIDS: 1996 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT~ PW016DDDo
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. With the staff report tonight you have a list of'
remaining equipment which was not formally presented or awarded a couple of meetings ago. The long and
short of it is, some of the items, basically everything came either within or right around the budget in terms of
the individual line items. The next result of the total purchase for all of the 1996 vehicles and equipment,
including that which was approved and awarded previously, basically comes in at approximately $12,000.00
under the $500,000.00 budget, which is approximately 2 1/2% under budget. With that, staffs recommending
approval of the remaining items to be purchased.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions anyone may have of Charles?
Councilman Senn: I've got one. Charles, could you help? I was able to track everything through except items
1, 3 and 4. Can you tell me where they fall within the budget? They're evidentally part of another line item or
something because they don't appear to be separate line items.
Charles Folch: Item 3, if you look at the very back page.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's xvhat I'm looking at.
Charles Folch: You'll see under the crack sealer there's a blacktop milling machine budgeted for $13,000.00.
That's that item. The plow and the wing.
Councilman Senn: No, not 3. I'm sorry. 1, 2 and 4. If I said 3 I ~vas in error.
Charles Folch: Okay, 1, 2 and 4 actually, I and 2 are actually added to the previously acquired truck chassis
but when we showed it in the budget, we show it as a line item number 1 which is dump truck with plow, wing
and sander for $94,000.00 so basically that item number 1, which is the dump body and sander and the ploxv
and wing, basically add that to the cab chassis which was awarded a couple of meetings ago and that all is
under that budget item for $94,000.00. As is the next one which is a 4 x 4 pick-up with a plow. And the pick-
up's xvere awarded a couple meetings ago. This is the axvard for the plow, which is item number 4.
Councihnan Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any other questions? Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason: Move award of bids for vehicles and equipment, File No. PW-016 DDD.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second it.
Resolution #96-19: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the a~vard of bids for
vehicles and equipment, File No. PW-016 DDD. Ali voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CSM CORPORATION.
Todd Gerhardt: Attached for City CouncWs consideration is approval of the private redevelopment agreement
with CSM Corporation. CSM is requesting to take advantage of the city's 3 year incentive program to develop
two 64,000 square foot office/industrial buildings. Based on this development, CSM Corporation will be
enhancing the tax base by approximately $219,000.00 a year and creating at least 10 new jobs. The estimated
total incentives to CSM Corporation over a 3 year period totals $401,914.60. The contract also calls out for the
CSM Corporation to finish the construction of Dell Road. The city will reimburse CSM Corporation up to
$140,000.00 for the road construction, plus two years of interest carrying costs for 1996 and '97. Totally
$22,400.00. In the redevelopment agreement, the section that dealt with the payment of that interest, it said '97-
'98. That should read '96 and '97 for those payments to occur. On page 2 of my agreement, I kind of have a
break-out of the payment schedule of the incentive program, the road reimbursement and the interest for 1996
and '97 interest. The payments being received in '97-'98. With that, if there's any questions of the City Council
on how this program is going about...reimbursement. If not, staff would recommend that the City Council
approve the private redevelopmeut agreement with CSM Corporation and their request for $401,914.60 and also
the assistance of $140,000.00 for road reimbursement and $22,400.00 in interest carrying costs for 1996-97.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Steve, any questions?
Councilman Berquist: No. The one I had, I talked to Todd earlier today about the tax capacity calculations
which I found to be low, forgetting that this is in Hennepin County...aside from that, it was alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I haven't any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: Nope.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I likewise went through in detail earlier with Todd. I don't really have any additional
questions at this point. By calculation though, this district, based on the actions that we've got in front of us
now will probably generate excess increment of about $4 to $5 million in 3 years so I think it would behoove
us to place a stipulation on these that these properties go back on the tax rolls at the end of the 3 years as per
the city policy.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: If I can make one comment to that. It would go to the end of the district on most dollar
amounts Mark, were my comments. That to the end of the district you xvould have that kind of money.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand.
Councilman Berquist: What's that time frame?
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Todd Gerhardt: This district goes for another 9 years.
Mayor Chmiel: 9 years. It's a total of 11. Okay. I don't have any questions on this either. I think what Mark
said, basically would have been my sentiments if we didn't move on this. It would be the city's loss as well so
I'd like to entertain a motion again.
Councilman Berquist: I would move approval of the private redevelopment contract with CSM and the City of
Chanhassen. Is there a motion back here somexvhere?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: For a redevelopment agreement with CSM Corporation and their request for $401,914.60
in city assistance, and an amount not to exceed $140,000.00 plus $22,400.00 interest for reimbursement to the
construction of Dell Road.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Be~luist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement
with CSM Corporation and their request for $401,914.60 in city assistance and an amount not to exceed
$140,000.00 plus $22,400.00 in interest for reimbmsement of the construction of Dell Rca& All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REQUEST FROM COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL TO AMEND CITY CODE TO ALLOW ON-
SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR SALES WITHOUT FOOD SALES~ AL SCHACKMAN, NATIONAL
LODGING.
Don Ashxvorth: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Ownership group for Country Suites has a purchase agreement with
Bloomberg Companies to purchase the old Animal Fair building. They feel that it's critical to their business to
be able to establish meeting rooms that would go along with the hotel. They've attached a site plan of how they
would do that. In the process of analyzing their needs, they feel that this type of a facility where you're
bringing people in during the course of the day for seminar and conference type of thing, that they would like to
be able, at the end of that day to allow people to literally stay in that building and socialize, meaning they
would like to be able to serve liquor to those people who had attended whatever function during the course of
the day. In discussing this item with the City Attorney, there's several ways we could approach, actually
modifying the existing ordinances so as to allow the license to actually be issued to conform with State Statute.
However the basic question is really one of, is the City Council in agreement with the general idea that Country
Suites is presenting so that before I ask Roger Knutson's office to go through expense in terms of having them
make out the application, doing modification ordinances, that we have some sense that the Council generally
supports the concept. So you are not approving this item tonight but more or less telling me whether or not I
should have the City Attorney proceed with the ordinance modification and whether the Country Suites people
should be invited to go through the more lengthy application process. And again, Mr. Schackman is here. I've
asked him, if you make a presentation, if it could be brief.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Mr. Schackman, would you like to do that please?
9
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
A1 Schackman: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Al Schackman and I'm with the
development and construction for National Lodging Companies. I'm not a stranger to Chanhassen. I recently
expanded our 84 room hotel to 120 rooms and the request we have today is merely a further extension of
additional services that we anticipated all along. I'm not sure how familiar all of you might be with National
Lodging Companies. We're a full service hotel development, acquisition and management company based in
Eden Prairie. National Lodging Companies sounds like some large national or international conglomerate and
that we are not. We are a closely held corporation that dates back to about 1987. At that time John
Klinkhammer, the current Chairman of the Board, developed or opened an 89 room motel in Coon Rapids,
Minnesota. It xvas a Travel Suites Motel, and it was a new concept, It was limited service hotel and it had a
totally radical concept in terms of the mix of rooms that were being offered and that hotel caught the attention
of the Carlson Company and within a month of it's opening, it became the first Country Suites Hotel by
Carlson. That effort noxv, through Carlson's franchise efforts and others, has grown to I think about,
approximately 65 similar hotels nationwide. The significance here is that the first one was Coon Rapids, was
developed by the Chairman of our company and subsequently then motels were developed in Fargo, and I think
it was in '89 and '91 when the original 84 room hotel opened here. National Lodging today has 4 hotels that we
own. We oxvn 5 hotels. Chanhassen, White Bear Lake, Hopkins, Fargo and Minot. We manage 13 hotels in
total encompassing about 1,200 motel rooms. So if that helps to understand a little bit xvhat National Lodging is
and may clear some things up. I've gone to other meetings where people have talked of National Lodging
Company was in fact some large company based some place else and doing business worldwide. We're not.
We're home grown independent business people. We currently have six hotels in various stages of development.
Another one in Coon Rapids, Anoka, Hastings, Minneapolis, Vandais Heights and Cripple Creek, Colorado. So
that's a little bit about ~vhat we're up to in addition to what we want to do here. Per the staff report our purpose
here tonight is to continue rounding out the services necessary to solidify and strengthen our lodging position in
Chanhassen. This is not an idea that just came to us recently. It was an idea that xvas integral xvith our
planning when we went into the expansion to go to 120 rooms and our plans will represent that. I will make
this brief but I do have 3 boards that are intended to illustrate how we're going to function. And these are done
for purposes of communication and hope that it does that. This board, I'm positioning this so that if you were
standing across West 78th Street on the curb, you'd be looking at the front of the building. The original hotel
structure is that portion from there over. That's the original 84 rooms. We created a connecting link between
that and built the 36 room addition here and then this cross hatched building, the Animal Fair building that this
proposal is based on. When this is done it will be a block long development from there to here and this will be
connected. Lounges, meeting rooms and banquet space are not new to our hotel effort. We have lounges in
four of other hotels with liquor license and they do a lot to strengthen the effort that we are making by
providing expensive banquet rooms and expensive meeting rooms. This board then is smaller but it gives you
a little bit more of a close up. It only shows a portion of the 84 room motel with the swimming pool in blue,
the connecting link that is used both for access between the two hotel buildings and the additional seating
capacity for our continental breakfast effort and it also will become some pre-function area for the meeting
rooms that are going to occur here. The design of the additional 36 units included an interior walk~vay that now
terminates at this edge of the building, and that was designed anticipating an eventual deal to connect here.
This plan then shows another connecting wing here and we enter into the building and avail ourselves of various
services there. The final, the green areas indicate just that. Those are the areas that separate the building.
Those are the court yards that remain unfinished. We weren't able to get all our plantings in before freeze up
and we opened December 20th, so we have a large opportunity to embellish. We have a letter of credit with the
city for $10,000.00. We've got plenty of money to glorify that. This then shows the additional green space that
we've provided. Now this drawing is colored in, not to suggest carpet colors. But merely to illustrate a little bit
more clearly from where you sit, and I'm going to put it on it's side because this now then orients it the same
way. If you were standing across the street, this is the way you'd be looking at it. We don't have it all on this
10
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
drawing but we would access through another causeway here, into a service area of the building ~vith a men's
and women's, where the men's and ladies' restrooms are. A very convenient accessway into the banquet and
meeting rooms and into the lounge there, here and here.
Mayor Chmiel: For just the viewing audience, people that are looking at it, that was the old AnimaI Fair.
A1 Schackman: That is the old Animal Fair building. This, just what this does physically for us is it provides
the ability to provide a number of services to our customers and the public. We can seat 64 people in this area.
50 here. 24 and 30 so we have about 150 people who can be seated at banquet tables at one time here and if
we went to auditorium type seating or rectangular banquet tables, ~ve could conceivably have more. The lounge
area seats about 67 people so that itself could also be used as a function here. This plan shows the location of
the bar. The existing fireplace accessing here. Table seating. A lounge in front of the fireplace. Easy chairs.
And the fire equipment is all identified here. This portion of the building I think is to service the meeting
rooms and that's the catering kitchen so to speak and where food can be brought in, broke down, set up for
display and served to large groups. Conceptually that's what we're doing. Why is it important to us? Number
one, it's no small fact in our mind that we look at this hotel as being a flagship of our effort. It is. It's a hotel
that out performs all of the other hotels in the chain. It's one that we're proud of. It's one that produces a better
than industry averages. So from that standpoint xve want to round out the service the same as we have in Fargo,
White Bear Lake, etc. This 120 rooms represents a very significant investment for us. We have development
agreements to take at a minimum the value for real estate tax purposes of $2 1/2 million on the original 84
rooms. $1.3 million on the addition so we're a significant taxpayer. And the perpetuation and solidification of
this operation is very important. Another reason that's important to us is that the meetings and banquets
encourage extended stay and thereby enhance our occupancy. They fill rooms that would otherwise be vacant.
It provides a marketing edge for us. We have more to sell. And it will strengthen our overall application so
those are some of the reasons it's important to us. In terms of importance to the city, this function would have
provided for the rehabilitation of a portion of a very aged, run down building that can certainly stand rehab. It
will, from the city's standpoint, provide a first class service highly in demand. It will strengthen the viability of
the downtoxvn businesses. It fits in with the conceptual plan for doxvntown redevelopment. It provides an
additional do~vntown location for fraternal business, social, religious meetings and most certainly for weddings.
So in a quick nutshell, that's what we're doing. That's xvhy we're doing it. That's why we think, and why we
know it's important to us and why we think it's important to the city. I'm available for any questions you may
have and with that ~ve respectfully request your concurrence that this concept is worthy and that we can move
on with our plan. Timing is important to us. We need to keep moving. Lost opportunity exists in every day
we...that goes by. I appreciate your attention. I'm here for any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Steve, do you have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yes sir. I do have a couple. You mentioned, what's your last name again sir?
Al Schackman: Schackman. S-c-h-a-c-k-m-a-n.
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Schackman, you mentioned you have 8 hotels nationwide? Nationwide, your
company has 8 hotels, is that correct?
Al Schackman: No. Our company now owns five hotels.
Councilman Berquist: Five hotels, four of which have liquor and this one does not at this point.
11
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Al Schackman: Right.
Councilman Berquist: You've got an entrance, the existing entrance to the building will remain an entrance. Is
it the plan to.
A1 Schackman: Are you talking about this entrance7
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
A1 Schack~nan: Yeah. This plan shows a modification of it and please appreciate that these are early on
conceptual.
Councilman Berquist: Well the question is, if I wanted to walk in there and enjoy the lounge and I wasn't a
guest at the hotel, I have that ability?
A1 Schackman: Absolutely.
Councilman Berquist: Anyone can walk in there and partake if they so choose.
A1 Schackman: Absolutely.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, that was one question. Let's see here. Well I can't think of a hotel that I've been
in that did not offer some form of a lounge area. The ordinance modification expenses. On the back of the
city?
Don Ashworth: Typically.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. That's all the questions I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well my only question was, Steve's as well, just further clarification. You plan on
this being open at all times, not .just specifically related to conferences? I mean it will be a functioning bar
open to hotel clientele at all times?
Al Schackman: Yes. Yes it will.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And also open to the public.
A1 Schaekman: And also to the public, yes. Now under whatever hours are permissible by ordinance and by
law. And we certainly aren't going to expand on that. We may contract that somewhat.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you planning on doing advertisement as such as a new bar in town or is it, be
more low key just really geared to your hotel clientele?
A1 Schackman: Well our promotion and our marketing effort would be to market it as a full service banquet
and conference facility. So the emphasis will not be on liquor. The emphasis will be on the full function. No,
12
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
~ve don't intend to operate a specific purpose bar. Now certainly it's a money making venture but we're not
creating a place for the hand around's to sit from the time they open until the time they close. That's a part of
the business. We like the idea that the amendment to the ordinance and the restrictions under law prohibit us
from room service in the hotel and prohibit anyone from taking drinks off of this licensed premise. And that
makes it a lot easier for us to manage and we believe manage a clean house. If we didn't do that, the rest of
our business would suffer.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well my questions xvere the questions that have been stated. Obviously there's going to be
some discussion. Yeah, I have some concerns about general public and guests and whether we want to open a
new bar in town but my specific questions have been answered so we'll xvait on that, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Question wise, just one I guess that hasn't already been asked. How do you, I guess how do
you plan on stopping your hotel patrons from taking liquor back? I mean, you know to me that puts you in a
situation you're never going to be able to enforce. I mean ~vhat are you going to do, tell hotel guests no you
can't?
A1 Schackman: I'd be foolish Councilman Senn to say that there won't be bar people who may intend to do that
but we're going to manage it to the extent that we're not going to allow the glasses to be carried to the pool.
We're not going to alloxv people that we knowingly see taking drinks to their rooms. And that's the xvay ~ve
manage. But I'd be more than foolish if I tried to convince you that someone wouldn't tuck one under his coat
when he walked out. That may happen. We're going to police it to the fullest extent that ~ve can possible. We
are prohibited by law in serving liquor in any other portion of this property than this premise. This is what
would be licensed and we're going to do everything we can to not be in violation of any of the restrictions on
our activity. From the standpoint of complying with law and also from the standpoint of attention to detail and
managing our business. We don't seem to have a problem ~vith that in other locations. At least we have not
had any incidences where it's come to our attention that there's been any brushes with the law or any hotel
patrons or hotel guests who may have caused a raucous because of it. It gives us teeth in our policy.
Councilman Senn: The rest I have is for discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: The other thing, just one other thing with that. The time that's being spent on this Don, and
cost associated xvith this. Would this be picked up by the proposer?
Don Ashworth: The Council could establish that as a condition. I see most of the cost being associated with
the hotel themself in the actual preparation of the application. Most of the work completed by the City
Attorney's office is going to be in terms of verifying that there won't be any other ordinances I think the Council
may recall 4-5 years ago we established zones in that area and I think there needs to be some additional
research as to whether or not those zones need to be modified. Maybe it was less time than that. Maybe it was
2 to 3 years but generally when you make those kinds of, I'll call it general ordinance amendments, the city
typically stands behind it. You should also realize there will be a fairly good fee associated with this. I mean
13
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
we're going to come out vet5, xvell. If Council would like, I think it's fair to say that I can ask Roger's office to
ensure that costs associated with modification would be kept under $500.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So we're at a point whether this concept is acceptable. And whether the partnership
should really go through that time and effort to make a formal application. If Council does approve the concept,
as Don has mentioned, we would have the City Attorney draft the necessary language to either accept or not
accept, according to Council's wishes. So with that, is it consensus to proceed with that concept?
Councilman Berquist: I xvould be in favor of them pertaining a liquor license application.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As would I. I mean it's not inconsistent with what the Dinner Theater allows and I
think it's part of hotel business.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: I would agree.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I have to say this isn't what I expected tonight. I mean basically, based on the
information we have in the report, I really thought what we were dealing with here was something that was
going to be tied to the meetings and conferences. You know a place for people after meetings and conferences
to meet afterwards, as it says in the report and stuff. You know I guess I've said it in the past and I guess I'll
say it again, generally I have some concerns over granting additional liquor licenses without food service and
that effectively is what xve're opening the door here to. And I guess lastly, if I can work through those problems
and make it work, I guess I have a real hard time understanding how we can say yes to something like this
when we just said no to a local restaurant who wanted liquor.
Mayor Chmiel: A little different location.
Councilman Senn: Well, a little different location. You know a lot of the same concerns. I mean I heard
concerns about kids being around the shopping center. Well I can tell you, I've stayed in this hotel and there's a
ton of kids around this hotel all the time. Especially on weekends. And stuff like that and I just have a real
hard time separating where we draw the line on those sort of things.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's normally why Council makes those decisions as they do. I guess, pardon. Yes Al?
A1 Schackman: I believe I might comment, respectfully Councilman Senn. We're not proposing anything
different than any other large, similar hotel would not be requesting. And in terms of setting a precedent, and I
appreciate that it does that. However, I think restrictions could be placed on this approval ~vhereby it's only by
virtue of the 120 room adjacent hotel that this action would be taken. The other point that I'd like to make is
that we would not do the conference and meeting rooms unless we had the lounge service available. Not at this
location. Economically it just doesn't work for us. We need the influence that that lounge will have in
enhancing longer stays and promoting conferences where we have people occupying rooms that would not
14
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
otherwise be occupied. It's a service that's necessary for us to move ahead with the proposal. So that, I think
I've given you all the information I can to base your deliberations on.
Councilman Senn: Well, I'll take exception with your remark because I've stayed in many, many limited service
hotels, none of which have lounges. Limited service hotels...say, I find lacking lounges as much as I find
having them so to say that all hotels of this size have major lounges I think is a mis°statement.
A1 Schackman: I think it is a mis-statement. What I meant to say is that all hotels of this size that have
significant meeting room space. Banquet space.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Considering what I'm sensing from the rest of the Council, I think that's kind of a moot
point anyway at this point.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I do have a question however of our attorney. Can xve put any limitations on
how advertising is done? My concern is that you'll want to go head to head xvith Pauly's or one of the other
bars.
A1 Schackman: I guess I'll stand here before you and stake my professional reputation on the statement that
we're not going to have glitzy beer signs in the windoxvs. We're not going to advertise hot dogs and brats with
your...It's totally a different operation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But can we put any kind of stipulation?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure we can.
Elliott Knetsch: We can be more restrictive than State law when it comes to liquor licensing. Advertising is an
area that is now regulated by the State but I don't think that's an area, because of First Amendment concerns,
that we could, you can't say no 2 for 1 advertising. That sort of thing. But you could address it in other ways,
such as hours that it could be open. Things of that nature which would try to be, allow it to be used for the
conference banquet type things but perhaps not open the full range of hours that bars are.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess Council has given their position on this and we'll proceed with that and come
back xvith something to see whether or not it's going to be fully accepted by Council. So I guess the next
procedure would be to provide that information back to us. Okay.
Al Schackman: I'm leaving here then...that we have Council's concurrence that the concept is ~vorkable for the
issuance of the license?
Mayor Chmiel: Until the final issuance of that license and full revie~v of it prior that time, yes.
A1 Schackman: Thank you for your time and attention. Looking for~vard to continuing to work with...
strengthening business here in Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
15
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CiTY CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RAISING OF FUR
BEARING ANIMALS~ OPERATION OF RIDING ACADEMIES~ COMMERCIAL STABLES AND KENNELS
IN THE BF~ FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT~ FIRST READING~ NANCY LEE,
Sharmin A1-Jaff: I will go through a brief background as to how we got to this point. Staff was approached by
the applicant and they requested a zoning ordinance amendment to allow them to build a multi-faceted facility
that would include kennels and stables. In other words, a humane society service. They requested this change
to take place through the amendment of definition of agriculture. Currently the definition of agriculture
excludes the commercial raising of fur bearing animals, the operation of riding academies, the commercial
stables and commercial kennels. We looked at areas where agriculture is permitted. This included the fringe
business district where the applicant owns a parcel of 15 acres. The agricultural estate district and the rural
residential district. So xvhat you see in green shows the areas where agriculture is permitted. So as a permitted
use in all of those areas you could potentially have commercial kennels and stables. As an alternative we
approached the Planning Commission and suggested an amendment to the BF District only, Staff suggested that
commercial kennels and commercial stables be permitted as a conditional use. With a conditional use you
~vould be able to regulate the operation. You could expect the applicant to provide you with a quality building
since this is going to be a permanent structure on the site. We went ahead and developed standards to regulate
the commercial kennels and commercial stables. These standards we believe will protect the natural
environment. We provided controls and regulations on noise. We also believe that it will protect and ensure
the safety of animals. Since the applicant requested a humane society establishment, staff did not develop
standards for riding academies or fur bearing animals. These types of uses are not typically associated with
humane societies so it has been left out. We are recommending approval of the zoning ordinance amendment
with the exception of one change to the ordinance as submitted to you. If you would kindly turn to page 8.
Earlier this afternoon Mayor Chmiel stopped at the office and requested a clarification on Section 5-22,
Issuance. Under number 9. We're just adding five words right at the beginning. It will read, facility employees
shall ensure that dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as defined by the
city code or nuisance ordinance. And with that we're recommending approval of the amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just ask you one other question I thought about afterwards too. Our existing standards
that we have now, do those have enough meat in them?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: No they don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Should other standards be adopted for this prior to the acceptance of this? Or standards
established.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. This will remedy the situation. These standards will actually provide the regulations
that we need.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And by that I'm thinking that if there were any others that may want to come within the
community, those standards that are established for this proposal, would then take care of that?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: Correct.
16
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Alrighty. Steve, do you have any questions7
Councilman Berquist: No I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. This is coming under a CUP because everything in business fringe is CLIP,
is it not?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: There are some permitted uses within.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the reason we're doing it this way as opposed to a permitted use is?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: To give us more control and regulations.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Control over, for lack of a better term. And it's the intent of the applicant, I
mean I don't understand the term humane society. It's kennels, right?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: It's commercial kennels as ~vell as commercial stables. In the future it will be built in phases
the xvay we.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: So it's not raising mink?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, it's not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's my only question.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No, I didn't have any questions. A couple of puns maybe but no questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess, how do you assure containing and how do you enforce the noise problem? I mean
if you take these business fringe areas, they are adjacent to residential areas. Granted there's some grade
separation but most spring, summer and fall days I ride that trail and I'll tell you what. The sound bali comes
up. It doesn't go down. So what if that's not working? How are you going, what are you going to do about it?
What can you do about it?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: They would have to meet the noise ordinance that we have in place right now.
Councilman Senn: I understand that. And if they don't is kind of my question.
Kate Aanenson: Then they're not following the conditions of the conditional use standard and they could, it
could be revoked. If they agreed to those conditions. Then we'd go through the process to revoke the
conditional use permit. And it's our understanding that the dogs are predominantly kept inside the building and
17
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
that they're taken out just for exercising. They're predominantly inside a building. They're not left outside so
they're outside for the exercising. They're generally housed indoors.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So effectively if it's not adhered to, you remove the CUP and put them out of
business then?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening'?. Is there anything that you'd like to say? If you'd
come up please.
Nancy Lee: My name is Nancy Lee. I'm the applicant. I do have a couple of things under the conditional
uses. And what happens...in number 1 and number 4. This is my concern. With the acreage I have there right
now...convenient. It makes sense for me to be able to build multi buildings without subdividing my property
into multiple pieces... When ! talked to Sharmin today she did send me general code number 23 that shows that
in commercial areas, grouping of buildings may be permitted by conditional use permit and with the conditional
use permit that we have listed right here is limited to one principle structure. My concern I guess is, what's the
definition of principle and accessory structure because I don't want the same building for horses that I do for
dogs because that promote barking. So I'm trying to keep them separate in separate buildings and with the way
it's written right here, I'm not going to be able to do it with... So ! guess ;vhat I'm driving at is what if, number
1, having no more than one principle structure, Maybe allowing it to be a general code...able to have a
grouping of buildings... The reason that affects me is because number 4, at the Planning Commission meeting
last time, is that the structure would be a minimum and...that makes a difference in accessory and principle
structure... I guess that's my biggest concern right now just so that I don't want to have to have multiple parcels
by subdividing and having multiple tax statements...
Kate Aanenson: Sure, xve can address that first issue. Certainly under the BF district you can ask for, under a
conditional use, to have two principle structures. So right now what you're doing is just looking at the
ordinance itself. What would be under, the rules you ;vould apply if they were to come in. Certainly as a part
of that request you could ask for a conditional use to have two principle structures on one and we certainly
understand but we feel like this standard should still be in place. But that doesn't preclude her from requesting
that. We can certainly evaluate that and understand the reason why. The second issue, as far as the restriction
from the wetland. Being more restrictive than our wetland ordinance right now. Again, we feel based on the
nature of those types of buildings, that they probably should be a little bit further back than our normal wetland
standards, which even under a natural wetland, 100 feet. So xve're just looking at that additional setback based
on the size and type of use of those buildings.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So those issues about her structures can be dealt with at the time she comes in for
building permit.
Kate Aanenson: We're not precluding that. Certainly she has the right when she comes back for the application
to ask for two buildings under a conditional use. That seems to make some merit so.
Councilman Mason: And what's your rationale? I'm sort5,.
18
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Is that, no. Do you understand that part of it?
Nancy Lee: Yeah. My concern is that if it's denied then...several thousand dollars ~vorth of ~vork, and that's a
gamble I'm hoping I don't have to take.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Again, what's the rationale for having, for exceeding the wetland ordinance? The setbacks
on number 4.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: These are the areas where the dogs xvould be alloxved to run outdoors, as ~vell as horses and
we just want to make sure that the wetlands are not polluted.
Councilman Mason: Well, right.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: The main structures, the primary structures where the animals are kept indoors, those areas
would have to maintain the required setbacks by the wetland ordinance. It's the areas that are open where the
animals will be outdoors that we're trying to push as far as possible from the wetland. That's our rationale
behind the additional setback.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm confused, and that shouldn't be too big a surprise. But how is having an
accessory structure 200 feet away from a wetland going to keep a horse from running around in the wetland?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: They're corralled in.
Councilman Mason: So the corral is the accessory structure?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Mason: Ah, thank you. I'm no longer confused. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Mark. Do you have anything else?
Councilman Senn: No other questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Well we have the application before us. Is there any other discussion of
items that you'd like to talk about with regards to this before I will call a question on this? Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. Just to say that I think we can certainly work out the, where the buildings are
so it makes it easiest for all concerned. I don't think that should be an issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
19
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Senn: None other than the concern over the noise and the fact that these districts border on
residential property.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess those were the three that I had. Odor, noise and barking dogs. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did we hear from any near-by residents concerning this?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: There xvas one neighbor that was at the Planning Commission meeting and just wanted
clarification on what the conditional use permit means and we met with the neighbor and no concerns.
Councilman Senn: Most the residential areas adjacent to these properties are not yet developed.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's true.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well then you want to keep your eyes wide open.
Kate Aanenson: That's not quite true.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, take the property that's there? Clarify.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: The area to the north, where Lakota is located, there are three homes in that area. The area to
the east is a car dealership. The area to the west is the existing Brookside Motel, and there are eight trailers
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve. Did you have any specifics or concerns that you have.
Councilman Berquist: I'm concerned about the noise and the inherent nuisance of a commercial kenneI but I
don't know that my concerns are enough to warrant my refusal to allow it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Is there's no other discussion then, I'd ask for a motion.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Well I would move that we approve the City Code amendment to the BF, Fringe
Business District to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial
stables and kennels.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the City Code Amendment to the
BF, Fringe Business District to allow eonunercial raising of fur-beating anlmals, operation of tiding aeademles,
conunercial stables and kermels. AIl voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to I.
20
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED
RIGHT-OF-WAYI A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10°/o~ AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND
SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE
CHANHASSEN/SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS, KNOB HILL, JOHN KNOBLAUCH.
Public Present:
Name Address
Michael Reid 1328 Ithilien
Jane & Eric Danser 21640 Lilac Lane
Clayton and Tim Emmer 6321 Yosemite Avenue
Mark Bastiansen 6301 Yosemite Avenue
Sharon & John Knoblauch 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie
Tom Ryan 6390 Teton Lane
Jeff' Smith 1368 Ithilien
Jennifer & Tom Wilder 21740 Lilac Lane
Joanne Dake 1336 Ithilien
Mike & Ann Preble 1352 Ithilien
Bob Hansen 1344 Ithlien
Jim Donovan 1375 Lilac Lane
Robert S. 1320 Ithilien
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. As you stated, this is a request for preliminary plat
approval to subdivide the property into 12 lots. This property is located on Yosemite Boulevard, at the
Chanhassen and corporate limits to Shorewood. The applicant originally had submitted a plan that cul-de-sac'd
his, the roadway into his property approximately here. With discussions with staff he, we requested that he
provide a connection to the adjacent property to provide a future access point for the Donovan piece, which is
located to the east. The applicant has done that and in the process has reduced, eliminate the need for a
variance to the street grade that was originally a part of their original proposal. Also staff, as part of our
recommendation staff is recommending that Outlot A be eliminated and combined with the abutting lots in that
a private street easement be provided there and so there xvould not be any outlots in this development. The one
area of contention and the one that I believe that most of the discussion will be on tonight is providing a
potential alternate access for the Donovan property to the east. This is the Knoblauch property here and this is
the Donovan property here. Currently there's a 50 foot wide easement to Lilac Lane for the Donovan property.
This is a private easement for purposes of accessing that property. It cannot be used for public purpose. In
addition, as part of the final plat for the Ithilien subdivision, the city had dedicated an additional 17 feet of
right-of-way xvithin the subdivision to bring Lilac Lane right-of-way width up to 50 feet, the minimum that the
city had a few years ago. This is just to show the corner of Ithilien, that northeast, the northwestern lot. 28.51
feet of the private driveway actually goes in the back yard of a house that's located on that home. This was to
be used for a private, for a driveway purposes. The existing house would be very near to whatever roadway
was put in there. As part of the conditions of approval, staff is recommending that a 30 foot right-of-way be
dedicated in the northeast comer of Lot 5. This is to provide a potential alternate access for the Donovan piece.
This property could be used simply to provide access to the Donovan property. It could be connected to the
roadway that is within the Knob Hill subdivision, either through a continuous road or as a T intersection. When
we look at subdivisions we try to look at future development potentials and the ability to provide alternate
means of access. At this time we are requiring that the applicant build any roadway there. Rather that they
21
City Council Meeting ~ February 26, 1996
provide the right-of~way in and with, if the city should at the time of the Donovan plat determine that we'd like
to have access for the Donovan piece up to Lilac Lane. This is an area, a ravine area that's located partially on
the Knoblauch property and partially within Shorewood. As you can see, the right-of-way would not go into
this ravine area. In addition, this entire area is covered with canopy coverage and approximately 16 trees that
are within the easement area so if a roadway xvere to be developed, there's some trees would need to be
removed but however the majority of the trees would remain. Staff is recommending approval of the
subdivision based on the conditions of approval. The variance request for the front setback, or the wetland
setback, staff is recommending that a compromise be made to provide a 40 foot setback from the wetland which
would be a 10 foot buffer strip and a 30 foot setback from the edge of the buffer strip and a 10 foot front
setback for Lots 5 and 6 on Block 2 rather than having all the setback on the front and then the house closer to
the wetland. That way we're able to maintain the buffer there. Buffer vegetation within the setback. With that
staff is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to our report. If be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Do you have any questions at this time Steve?
Councilman Berquist: There was something in the staff report regarding a driveway access for Lot 3 and 4.
The developer was going to negotiate with the adjacent landowner and maybe you've already addressed this and
I missed it.
Bob Generous: Well no, I'm sorry. The applicant did contact the adjoining property owner to see if they'd be
interested in providing a private street easement on the south side of the property using, there's an existing
driveway here serving two homes and we would have been able to provide access to 3, Lots 3 and Lot 2 via
that way. However, the neighboring property showed no interest in that and so the private street would be from
the east instead. With an area of landscape buffer maintained along that common property line.
Councilman Berquist: And that common property line, that's the line that... There was also some discussion at
the Planning Commission level regarding the proximity of the road to the property line. There was some
concern about negatively impacting the value of the Donovan parcel by the encroachment of that road. That
road is going to have to remain the way the plat is shown now?
Bob Generous: Well it would be xvithin the 30 foot easement but they could be off set within that easement. It
doesn't have to be, usually they put them down the middle but it could be on one side or the other in this case.
The other issue that the Planning Cornmission had was moving the cul-de-sac bubble or the temporary turn
around as far away from the property line as practical and still provide access to that private driveway, and at
the engineering level and construction level we'd be able to look at how that exactly will work out.
Councilman Berquist: I've got lots of notes on this so if someone wants to jump in here, go ahead.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen, did you have anything?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could you put up the overhead that shows all the surrounding parcels? That isn't
showing how this plat however. The access to the Donovan property would come, the primary access would
come through that road.
Bob Generous: Through Knob Hill.
22
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Would it be feasible to put a secondary access through what you're
requesting the easement be? I mean they seem so close.
Bob Generous: Well it'd be feasible. Continuous...might be a little tight. As a T intersection within the
Donovan piece, it'd probably work out better. The geometries would be better.
Council~voman Doekendorf: So you've done some sketches for the Donovan property?
Bob Generous: Just some preliminary.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But there wouldn't be any proposals for the Donovan property to connect to either
Ithilien or Curry Farms or anything like that?
Bob Generous: We haven't looked at that. There is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's what I was looking at Ashton Court.
Bob Generous: Through Ashton Court might be a possibility. However, that would require two additional
property owners to provide right-of-way. If they ever were either joined and subdivided. And then ~ve...across
the property. The house, Mr. Donovan's house is located up in the northwest comer of the site.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And his current access is through that easement. There's a driveway.
Bob Generous: Through his driveway, yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Actually Colleen essentially asked my question about access to the Donovan property.
There are, as without that potential easement. No, without the potential access of that easement, there would
only be one, there is essentially only one feasible way to get into the Donovan property then right?
Bob Generous: With the public road, correct.
Councilman Mason: Without that easement and that's through the Knob Hill development.
Bob Generous: Correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And how many parcels are possible on that site? Donovan's.
Bob Generous:
Mayor Chmiel:
Bob Generous:
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
That's approximately 9 acres so.
27.
Max. You know 15.
You think 157
23
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Kate Aanenson: That'd be the high end. We have generally averaged at least an acre and a half per lot with
some wetlands and topography.
Councilman Mason: So 15's high then, right?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: I don't want to...
Councilman Mason: Right. No, I know. I'm just kind of ballpark here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions Mark?
Councilman Senn: The existing easement on the parcel on Lot, what is it, Lot 5 up there?
Bob Generous: Correet~
Councilman Senn: Okay. That's the placement of the easement right now?
Bob Generous: Right. There's a 50 foot. It's 28 feet on Lot 5 and then the remainder on Mr. Donovan's piece.
He has a narrow neck...Lilac Lane.
Councilman Senn: And effectively what you're suggesting is to move that easement over so it goes onto the
Knoblauch's property?
Bob Generous: Yes. So if we wanted public right-of-way, that 30 feet of the right-of-way would be on the
Knoblauch piece. And then he has 21 1/2 feet I believe is the width of the Donovan piece at that point.
Councilman Senn: Would you put your other.
Bob Generous: The one of the lots?
Councilman Senn: No, the other one. The detail with the lots. Okay. Noxv would you show me on there how
this road and easement xvould come through?
Bob Generous: Hoxv the road would?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Bob Generous: It would just come down from Lilac Lane in this way. So it'd take all of, the 21 1/2 feet on
this side and the 30 feet on the other. Come in and take all of the...and then within the development, that
would have to be determined at the time of platting. It could bisect the property with a T intersection like that.
It could curve ~vithin it. It could follow the property lines all the way down and have single loaded lots off of
it.
Councilman Senn: So your expectation either way then is to somehow or another get a thru street?
24
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Kate Aanenson: It's an option.
Bob Generous: It's an option that if they decided to come in and they ~vant that connection. They could aisc
just bring this in as a cul-de-sac into the development and the city could...determine that the second access is
not necessary or desirable and at that point we could vacate the right-of-way.
Councilman Senn: When Mr. Knoblauch's already providing effectively that whole section of public street
servicing in through his development, how is it legitimate for us to go up and require, for us to require him to
give us the other lane without compensation for access to another property where there's already access but we
don't like it.
Bob Generous: Well is it sufficient? We look from a public safety standpoint, we try to provide at least two
points of access.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but the second access is there and there's nothing wrong with it from a
public safety standpoint.
Bob Generous: The first access. The second access.
Councilman Senn: You also have the easement up there.
Bob Generous: That's a private one.
Kate Aanenson: It's a private easement.
Bob Generous: We can't put a public road in there.
Councilman Senn: But that's Mr. Donovan's problem to resolve when he develops his property, ~s it not?
Charles Folch: Even if that 28 feet, which is currently there was given as public or title as public right-of-way...
Councilman Senn: I mean that's what, I'm not tracking. I hear numbers 30, 28 and I hear 50 feet of easement.
If you've got 50 feet to put a road in, I don't understand.
Charles Folch: Well you've got 28 that's actually on his property but the other part is actually cutting across the
corner of that other lot.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but the easement's there. I mean that's up to, you know again, it seems to
me that's up to Mr. Donovan to resolve at the time he develops his property. He's the one with the easement to
access his property. I mean I don't understand why we're getting ahead of him so to speak.
Charles Folch: Again, xve're trying to maintain a policy or premise if you will with developments that we've
been doing in the past, which is to maintain, or at least preserve. We're not saying right now anyone has to
decide whether the road should go through or not. But we're just basically maintaining options open in the
future to determine whether it's needed or not needed at that point.
25
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Senn: But if we need it in the future, why don't we go in and condemn it and take it the right way
versus requiring him to noxv furnish an easement on somebody else's property?
Charles Folch: And again, I guess that's a matter of opinion as to whether, what dedications associated with the
plat are reasonable as a part of the plat. Approval of the plat. I mean we deal with that with every plat that
comes through. You could ask ever), developer whether they feel dedications that are required are reasonable or
not but most often if they want to get the plat approved, it's a matter of providing what's required and what
meets the city standards so.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than going through condemnation and the court system.
Councilman Senn: Yeah but I mean wouldn't you agree he's already providing significant? I mean if I looked
at this very small subdivision, I mean the fact that we're already putting effectively a city street through it.
Seems to me he's providing a higher standard of dedication than I generally see in projects coming through here.
Charles Folch: Again, I guess that's a matter of opinion I guess.
Councilman Berquist: We're talking about 30 feet by roughly 160 feet up in the northeast corner.
Councilman Senn: No but Steve you're also talking about, if you go with this, you're also talking about
requiring him to dedicate area here, here and all along here. ! mean that's a city street coming through there.
We're requiring him to dedicate that. We're also requiring him to dedicate along here. I mean there's significant
dedication already in this project. Now we're saying, not only dedicate here. Not only dedicate there. We want
you to dedicate up here too.
Councihnan Berquist: Hoxv do you propose that he access the site without the dedication of roadway?
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with him, with this dedication and this access
because it does take care of his site. But ! have a real hard time then jumping from that and saying, he should
also be required to dedicate another part of his property up here to service somebody else's property. I just have
a hard time with that.
Mayor Chmiel: With the contours and grading of that proposed street going through there, what, and I don't
remember looking at that. What were the grades, xvhat would the grades be? We're coming from Donovan and
going back up.
Charles Folch: I don't recall exactly. Looking at it in the field last week, it's not going to be a problem where
xve're going to be exceeding any standards or like that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I had seen too and I gness I didn't see that as a given problem.
Charles Foleh: I don't know if the other, Bob if you'd like to put that other diagram up there that actually
shows.
Bob Generous: Lot 5?
26
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Bob Generous:
Charles Folch:
Bob Generous:
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilman Berquist: 5.
Mayor Chmiel: 5.
Charles Folch: Well it shows the Knob outlot development. Okay that area up in the northeast comer of the
development, that would remain as outlot at this point in time?
This would be dedicated as right-of-way. 30 x 160 approximately.
So you're going to have one large lot then basically up in that northeast comer?
Right.
Yeah, that's Lot number 6 I believe.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, I had another couple of quick questions. In the staff report you make mention of
the fact that when the Ithilien Addition, Donovan sold the land to whoever developed the Ithilien Addition. The
city at that time required and received the 17 foot easement along the entire length of Lilac. The entire length
from ~vhere Teton intersects over to Donovan's property, is that correct?
Bob Generous: Yeah. The area in blue.
Councilman Berquist: And those easements were recorded on the plats, or on the deeds of everyone that lives
there?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: And the primary reason for that easement being taken was?
Bob Generous: To get sufficient right-of-way width if that roadway was ever to be Upgraded.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. In the event that all access to Donovan's property, in the event that the easement
is not pursued, and all access to Donovan's property came through at his 50 foot easement. The home at the
corner of Lilac and Donovan's property would tend to be much more seriously affected.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: In terms of, so if Donovan did choose to pursue, or his heir's or whoever ends up with
that land in 39 years I think, according to the Planning Commission report. He's going to live to 100. In 39
years that house that's on that northwest comer, the four season porch that's there would probably have to come
down because the footings would be so undermined.
Resident: That's my house.
Councilman Berquist: Well, whatever. So allowing that...
Mayor Chmiel: Hold it. Hold it. We'll give you a chance to talk later.
27
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Berquist: ...to forcing that is probably not in that owner's best interest.
Kate Aanenson: Right. It's our understanding that that was just a driveway easement for his home only and if
it was ever developed, that that could not be used. That's why it's an easement in his name only and not for
future development. That's why we're trying to pursue another option.
Councilman Berquist: There was also some discussion at the Planning Commission level regarding the salability
of that easement?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's what I'm talking about. That's our interpretation. Now there's obviously
people here that have a different understanding of that interpretation but we believe that it's only for Mr.
Donovan and not to be subdivided. He believes that he could use it that way, which when you look at our
private driveway, you could still even have four homes on that street, which would still require it to be the 30
foot wide with 7 ton design so.
Councilman Berquist: Well, that can be changed. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that it?
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: One more.'? When Ithilien was developed and that was what, 3-4 years ago. Was
consideration given to how Donovan, how the rest of his parcel was going to be developed? Did we try to push
through a street at that time?
Bob Oenerous: The 17 foot right-of-way, it must have been assumed that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it was done to the Lilac. It wasn't ever considered going to the center of the
development?
Bob Oenerous: That's xvhat it appears.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: A question for Charles. Is 17 feet that was taken on Lilac, and that xvas just taken on the
Chan side.
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you still really don't have enough right-of-way for a regular city street, correct?
Because you have to get.
Charles Folch: There's an existing 33 feet on the Shorewood side so you have a total of 50 now that's out there
dedicated.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you do have the full 33?
Charles Folch: We have 33 north of our corporate limits. 17 on our, south of our corporate limits. You have a
total right-of-way wide of 50 feet out there on Lilac.
28
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you have the 50 feet coming down Lilac and you also have the 50 feet on the
private easement.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Charles, I assume you had discussion ~vith the city, and of course
we have a letter back from Shorewood where they are not welcoming anything for an addition on that specific
street. I know there's some other things that we're still working with the city in relationship to that. As far as
the other improvements that xve did at that particular time, is that correct?
Charles Folch: Are you referring to the improvements to a portion of Lilac7
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Charles Folch: Yeah, that's correct. Those improvements were completed a couple years ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is the applicant here? Would you care to make your comment and we have an awful
long agenda and I'd appreciate probably about no more than 10 minutes.
John Knoblaueh: Okay. I appreciate it. I'm John Knoblauch. I'm the applicant for the Knob Hill project. I
live at 16921 Weston Bay Road in Eden Prairie. If we can, I'd just like to clarify a couple of things real
quickly. The 17 feet that is on the south end of Lilac Lane here and I need, I'm 90% sure that this 17 feet was
dedicated originally with Lilac Lane. As you can see the half section shows over into my property, which isn't
even platted yet, the 17 foot expansion. That was the Ithilien property abutted that 17 feet, so I'm almost 100%
sure that that was not a requirement of the Ithilien plat. If you go to the half section map, before Ithilien was
platted, that 17 feet is already there. So Ithilien was butted up to that. The 50 foot easement, and I've been
informed, it is a private easement. Mr. Donovan has a 20 foot area there now with a driveway and it could be
easily brought in there to service 4 homes off of that drivexvay that there's now. It could be upgraded I'm sure.
A little bit wider. He's got a couple brick monuments and so 4 homes could come off of there. A better
scenario that I'm a little curious that hasn't been looked at more seriously is there's a home that's for sale right
here right now and Mr. Donovan owns this outlet that butts up to that. He is the owner of that outlet and
Ashton Court, to service, this is a steep ravine on this side of Clasen Lake and I've been told by my engineer
that this is going to be a difficult piece to develop. If it ever gets developed. Mr. Donovan's house is kind of
in the center. He's got a pond and tennis court. Basically my road could come down easily and come to a T
with Ashton Court. Ashton Court could come down here and only service enough room here for walkouts on
Clasen Lake looking that way. It's probably very unlikely the road can come down here, split this area here and
have lots on both sides. I would say the maximum use on this piece, if he takes that estate area out xvould
probably be between 8 and 10 lots. Usage just isn't there and doesn't conform like a piece, a wider piece like
mine to maximize, to get up to 15,000 square foot lots. Back to a more positive note. This property has been
three, I'm the fourth generation. My kids are going to be the fifth. My great-great grandfather got this
property...Carver. He gave it to my great grandfather William. He lost a lot of the land in the Depression and
this is all that's left. All 9 acres with the homestead...my family, my Aunt... lived there for about 86 years and
she passed axvay recently and had to leave the property this year. I'm proud to move out here. We're going to
basically raise our kids out here and hopefully I'll be taken out of there in a pine box. That's kind of a my goal.
We're planning to live there for a long time. We're going to live on that Lot 5, which is why I left it 2 acres
with trees. It's the original homestead site and we want to... I've also got two friends that are going to move out
here. Hopefully Tom, Tom Ryan...join us out there and we're going to try to bring this neighborhood back
differently than the Lundgren's and the Mason's and the other guys that have come into town. I'm a builder.
I'm going to build all the houses. We're basically going to return this thing to the days of when neighbors
29
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
knexv, you know where neighbor's spare key was to get in their house. That kind of a friendly deal. So we're
trying to, I guess step back in time and get a little more roots. People moving all the time and xve're going to
try to do something differently and we invite families that are interested in that type of a setting. So that's kind
of been our dream. We've got, we're going to do some nice monuments out front and we've got about 40 trees
we're going to have planted for the ones we have to replace. So I think we've got, we're going to have 12
people out there that are going to definitely be, you know givers rather than takers for the city of Chanhassen.
So there's lots of positive things that are going on with the piece. We've got obviously one, the one and only
issue that's kind of risen as more of a distraction really for me, and that's the Lilac Lane right-of-way. We had
a cul-de-sac plan. Obviously the grades didn't work but I thought it was a good plan. We could have changed
the grades and gone with a cul-de-sac. I have the idea that we would go with a cul-de-sac. I mean basically
Donovan's, I'd give him the 30 feet on the northeast end if that's what Donovan needed for access. I've tried to
cooperate to give him basically one access. And so I guess I'd like to put up some, we've got some issues that
we've brought along and I don't need any engineers or lax~5, ers to stand up here and tell you xvhat the issues are,
but we did jot some down. And these are just neighborhood concerns, and I didn't want to take all your time
with these but basically, you know obviously I grew up on a 14 house neighborhood in Minnetonka and nobody
moved for 15 years. I mean it was just that way. I know that isn't the ease now but that's what we want to do
and we didn't have any traffic. I mean there just wasn't, it wasn't the case and I live on a 24 house cul-de-sac
now in Eden Prairie. Same thing. Definitely increase in crime. I guess, you know I lock my doors at night but
I don't check my smoke detector and stuff like that so I'm looking at that as a pretty big issue really because
that's completely the opposite of what I'm trying to do xvith this neighborhood. Obviously kids, that doesn't
need to be real talked about other than that .... property values. I mean I'm a developer. I look on MLS. They
have actually an MLS form, a cul-de-sac is actually broken down as a feature and so definitely a thru street's
going to affect those type of things. I brought up a number of things to the city and originally a couple things
obviously a necessity. This right-of~way. And in a letter to the city of Shorewood, Bob himself mentioned with
the implementation of staff's concept of Knob Hill, which basically xvas me, coming up to Mr. Donovan's
property and dead ending, the need to upgrade Lilac Lane is reduced significantly. Also, I believe in the
exchange last meeting, our Planning Commission Chair did mention that she took some trips up Lilac Lane and
I brought this up a number of times to staff. That the grade on Lilac Lane is over 8% coming up the hill. She
said she tried five times but couldn't get up the hill, and I'm not sure I would be in favor, just for public record,
in the future for connecting this into Lilac Lane. And that's right in the record from thc February 7th meeting.
The other really big thing is benefits. Obviously for you guys it's what do we get out of it. The February 7th
meeting again, Dave Hempel, Assistant Engineer mentioned right in his responses that Chanhassen would not
benefit from the road being upgraded. And that's true. Actually Shorewood has probably more to gain and they
basically said they don't want it improved. The cost, probably between $150,000.00 and $200,000.00 to upgrade
Lilac Lane. A road that basically isn't going to help anybody probably except the snowplow. For $150,000.00
to $200,000.00 you can buy a couple of probably pretty good snowplows. The precedent. I mean there's
basically been approved, I don't know how man5, cul-de-sacs but at least 4 or 5 in the last 3-4 years in the area.
And of course the future... Nobody really knows what's going to happen to Donovan's property so I've seen the
staff's concern for the right-of-way but there's more scenarios to the Donovan property than meets the eye.
More than 4 that's been mentioned in the staff report. I tried to negotiate kind of a happy ending to this thing
on probably four different occasions. I even went as far as to say that in the developers agreement I'll put in
there you can condemn it later and it won't cost you a dime. And that was my most recent conversation with
Bob. The question is, does the right-of-xvay, do you really need it that much? I guess what I'm saying is, my
offer basically was off thc table. Now basically we're looking at condemnation as far as I'm concerned. And I
look at it, if you look at it from your perspective, it's almost like, my wife's got the third kid on the way. It's
almost like, we don't know what we're having but we're going to buy a prom dress and we're going to buy a
tuxedo and xve don't know xvhat size to buy and we don't know what fashions are going to be 20 years from
30
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
now but you know what, xve're going to go out and buy both and hang them in the closest and just wait to see
what happens. I guess that's really the problem that I have with it. So I'm looking basically, I'd like to move
on with my project. I think we've obviously I've got a good thing going but if the city has interest in this right-
of-way, I'd like the condemnation proceedings to start as soon as.possible. Basically the only thing I'm really
willing to do right now, and I think I talked to Mark about this, was I would put in my covenants or in my
homeowners association the fact for these 12 new property owners, that at some time Knob Hill Road could be
extended into the Donovan property. And basically that's what I'm willing to do. Are there any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Steve? Do you have any specific questions?
Councilman Berquist: On your first overhead you were talking about Ashton Court and you were talking about
an outlot there that Donovan owns on Ashton Court.
John Knoblauch: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: Do I understand this correctly? Were you making the point that the Donovan property
was accessible via extending Ashton Court through the outlot?
John Knoblauch: There is an old home inbetween Ashton Court and that outlot. Ashton Court is upgraded to
that property. To the edge of that property.
Councilman Berquist: Yes, that's, I can't remember the gentleman's name but.
John Knoblauch: Yeah, he's selling right now.
Councilman Berquist: That outlot that abuts his land and Donovan's is what Donovan owns? Okay. So there
really is no additional access through Ashton Court then short of buying that lot. Okay. Alright. Come back to
me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions.
John Knoblauch: It is pretty clear to me that ~vhen the Ithilien property was developed, I think everybody
realizes that now, and it's probably no fault of anybody's. Basically it just wasn't thought about at that time. It
could have been easily, this whole thing could have been easily handled with...Ithilien at that time owned the
plat back, provided that 50 feet. By the way, the city recommends 60 foot right-of-way and that's what I'm
being required to put in. Lilac Lane is only 50 foot right-of-way.
31
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you John.
John Knoblauch: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate it. ! know we have an awful lot of residents that are here this evening and from the
phone calls that I've received and the different signatures that were placed on the list of support of not putting
this in, I don't want to not give you the opportunity. But as time is progressing, we do have a Iong agenda. Is
there anyone who really feels strongly about this to either bring up something new other than what has already
been brought forward to us? And I'd be acceptable to that, And if you would, just please state your name and
your address.
Mike Preble: Hi. I'm Mike Preble. I live at 1352 Ithilien, which is Lot 5. I guess I'm wondering if there's
something new. Councilmau Berquist mentioned that maybe my porch would be torn down, is a new item that I
hadn't considered. I don't know if that was meant in sincerity or not. Is that a possibility?
Councilman Berquist: I don't, I said it more in jest that anything else but you've got a 50 foot easement that
runs through your back, through your side yard. If that 50 foot easement were to be used and a public road be
put in, heaveu forbid, I don't think that porch would stand, do you?
Mike Preble: I'm not an engineer so I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: The only point I was making was that your, the proximity to your structure is already
impacted by what's there and is in essence of no value because it so severely impacts your structure.
Mike Preble: I'm going to make this statement, and I think I speak for everyone. At least the people I've
spoken with. We're very much in favor of Mr. Knoblauch developing his property. What he's shown looks fun.
Looks nice. Looks interesting. The way he has drawn in the road for potential access for Donovan, fits with all
of us. We're all against any upgrade of Lilac. We're all talking, we're not talking anything against Mr.
Knoblauch...his development.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Tom Wilder: I'm Tom Wilder, 21740 Lilac Lane. I'll try not to be redundant. I finally kind of, you know I
was disappointed with the whole Planning Commission process as it related to the Knob Hill development and
basically it all boils down to that one condition of the Knob Hill development being subjected to dedicating a
30 by 160 foot easement. I think it's, you know let's call a spade a spade. It's extortion and I really find it hard
to believe that I can't get some empathy from the Planning Commission and the City Council members. I did a
little check. 83% of them, all these members live on cul-de-sacs, deadends or non through streets and you
know, I just can't believe that we can't have an understanding of why that might be the neighborhood that's
pretty upset about giving away some land, even though they had the 100 year vision. Maybe ~ve should talk to
the Japanese about that. Lilac Lane is a substandard street, except for the little bit that was improved that goes
into Powers Boulevard. It's a dangerous street. It doesn't need any more traffic and to grant this easement is
nothing more than basically, you know the handwriting's on the wall after that. We heard about Nancy and her
difficulty about getting up the, she didn't get up that street after the recent ice storm. Tried five times so why
would you want to make that kind of street a thru street? It's ridiculous. Not to mention the problem with the
city of Shore~vood. They own 2/3 of the street already. They've xvritten to you. Said they're opposed to ever
being connected. Tax dollars could be spent much more wisely....what is now a beautiful and quaint dead end,
32
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
and then turn it into a dangerous outlet ~vhich will only eventually end in some bloodshed at Powers Boulevard
intersection. You knoxv this type of logic fell on deaf ears at the Planning Commission and it's my hope that
you approve the plan as a whole but you delete that condition. You know, by requiring this condition the doors
are being left wide open for the city to ram rod the connection through eventually. And very large trees would
have to be cut down. Beautiful ravine that drains into a neighboring wetland would need to be traversed. It's
not your best street spot and you can come visit and take a look at it for yourselves. And the safety of many
children would be thrown into jeopardy by this connection. In summary...you know forth right thinking. You
should be listening to the concerns of the constituents. I recommend you delete the right-of-way condition for
the Knob Hill proposal. It should, you know grant approval on the proposal. Let's forget about the stupid
condition. To do otherwise would simply confirm our neighborhood's grooving belief that we have absolutely no
say in our city plan. We simply have to sit back and be steamrolled over by what seems to be some hidden
agenda. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I don't think xve normally have hidden agendas, nor do I ever feel the Council goes
to extortion at any given time in my eight years sitting here so I guess I have a little concern about those two
statements. Yes sir.
Jim Donovan: My name is Jim Donovan. I've heard my name mentioned a lot this evening here. I'd just Iike
to say a few words. If you would put up one of those...shoxving this property. Yeah, that's it. First of all I'd
like to say that, do you have a pointer. I'm a little short guy. This area where the road would abut my property
here, and the Planning Commission was talking about putting a T here. There's a very, very steep grade that
goes from here up to my house that sits on a hill. It's a lot steeper grade than where Lilac Lane comes in from
Highway 17. It's approximately 15 degrees to come up this hill that my house sits on. Secondly, as far as
Ashton Court is concerned, right here, my property is. I can't even find it here now. It's right here. That's been
sold. The Planning Commission is asking that there be a road put in here abutting my property and that another
road down here towards these homes that are going to be built here. Now that is right along my lot line on here
and the road that would be put in here would have to either go up this very steep grade or be connected through
my property, through my drive~vay, approximately 300 to 400 feet down to connect ~vith this easement down
here. That's in the future after my 39 more years left on this earth. So what I'm saying here is that John came
to the Planning Commission with a very sensible plan. Their big complaint or big thing for him was that the
grade over here xvas too great. Now xve're talking about a much steeper grade here. We're talking about a much
steeper grade down here to widen Lilac. The Planning Commission has absolutely not taken into consideration
any of the wishes of any of the people xvho live in and around Lilac Lane. They came and said this is what we
want. This is what we're going to recommend, and that's it. There has been no give by the Planning
Commission whatsoever. In spite of three meetings that the residents of our area came to and expressed our
wishes. In spite of the petitions. In spite of the calls to the members. Me being on this piece of property here,
of course I can say to you I have no intentions of developing it. That doesn't mean anything, I understand that.
But the idea that you would bring in a road here and T it or whatever here, up a very steep hill, makes a lot less
sense than anything. I mean obviously the Planning Commission has not taken that into consideration at all.
The pond is here. I don't know what they do with the pond. Do you see that there? This is ~vhere the road°s
going to come in. Here's the pond here. Here's the very steep grade coming up to my house. My house is
right here. Top of the hill. This is a very steep grade that comes up here. Very steep. Thank you. That's all I
have to say, thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Okay, yes.
33
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Eric Danser: I'll keep it short. My name is Eric Danser and I live on Lilac Lane. 21640 Lilac Lane and I'm
going to, not get into any of the pictures or drawings or anything like that. I'm just approaching you on a
human level. I want to say that I've lived on Lilac Lane for at least about 20 years no~v and it's always been a
very peaceful neighborhood. It's been a dead end street. It's always been a substandard street and ! think now
I've had two kids who are 9 years old and 6 years old and we enjoy the freedom and safety of having a dead
end street. And we would just like to see it stay that way. Maybe I'm dreaming but ! think there are plenty of'
alternatives to xvhat's been suggested by the Planning Commission to let us neighbors of Lilac Lane keep what
we have and enjoy it rather than having this new subdivision and all these requirements for egress and whatever
you call it, entrances and exits. It just seems to me we're making a big mountain out of a molehill just because
the Planning Commission doesn't like the grade of the original proposed subdivision to have a cul-de-sac that is
slightly higher pitch than what the city likes to have. I'm going off on tangents now. On the human level we
ask, all of us ask you to really weigh the residents wishes against xvhat the Planning Commission has to suggest.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. I'd like to bring it back to Council then. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I might be a little long winded.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I'll give you 3 minutes. No, go ahead. That's what you get paid all that big bucks for.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah... This is one of the, this is one of those projects where one has a tendency to go
back and forth and back and forth and any time I read a long staff report I have a tendency, I write. I type. I'm
a much better typist than I am a writer and I type out a series of thoughts that I have and I've talked to many
people on the telephone in the past few days and one thing that I've continued to bring up, and I don't want
anybody to pre-judge my remarks until I'm done. But as I contemplate this project and I try to remove the
emotional considerations that everyone that lives there has, and myself, I have to ask the question. If I had
received no phone calls or letters concerning this easement, would it make sense to request it of the developer.
And I think in my own mind I have to ansxver that, yes. It would make sense to request that of the developer.
No one likes change in their home areas. I had a very similar situation to this occur in my area back in 1988
and I was upset. That what I considered to be a cul-de-sac was in fact turned into a thru street so I don't know
if I'm in your 83% but if I am, take me out. The Itbilien development made changes to an area that was not
residential. So land that xvas not residential. It was zoned residential but it wasn't residential. Mr. Knoblauch's
aunt made no changes to her homestead during her life time. Mr. Knoblauch is the felloxv driving these changes
that are taking place. The city of Chanhassen is forced into a position of trying to react and provide services
and yet try and keep it's options open. Everyone seems to think that there is a, vendetta isn't the right word but
some hidden agenda. That word was used. That phrase xvas used. But a primary function of any state, county
or city planning staff is to explore options. The reason being to provide alternatives and flexibility as change
occurs. I understand the emotional effects any potential for change has, when the change may possibly alter
neighborhoods. Mr. Knoblauch is choosing to change the land that he now owns. Jim Donovan chose to
change the land that became Ithilien Lane. The need for flexibility was demonstrated when Ithilien Lane was
approved and an easement xvas requested for the potential upgrading of Lilac Lane. Lake Ann Highlands and
Windmill Run is a development that is occurring over off of Galpin Road. Galpin Lake Road. It's a
preliminary plat. The Council, the Planning Commission, the planning staff chose to keep a thru road closed
but we kept the easement option open to permit the opening of the road at any time it was deemed necessary.
The reason you want a thru road, obviously is the emergency vehicles, school buses, resident convenience,
although there are those here that would argue against that. Snowplows, and any utility vehicles. What
paragraph am I on? Mr. Preble in his remarks to the Planning Commission on January 3rd said he was very
34
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
much in favor of the proposed cul-de-sac serving the Knob Hill property from Yosemite. He also said he was
in favor of Jim Donovan being able to keep his property as it is. Nothing we do here tonight's going to deviate
from those wishes in the foreseeable future. I don't desire to see Lilac Lane become a thru street. I do not
desire to see Lilac Lane upgraded. I would prefer, frankly, to see the Knoblauch property remain as it is but
insofar as Mr. Knoblauch has chosen to pursue another route and develop the property, the responsibility falls to
us to try and anticipate possible future area needs. On the other hand. Everyone here lives in the area.
Everyone here is a resident of Chanhassen and for that I have to respect your presence and your wishes.
Basically I think that what we're elected to do is to try and lead, but ~ve're also elected to try and follow the
wishes of the constituency. Whether or not this easement is affected, will not affect the rest of Chanhassen one
iota. Limitations inherent with any non-thru street neighborhoods, snowplowing, trash, police vehicles, etc, will
be the choice of the neighborhood. The Donovan property is going to be very difficult to develop. I've been up
there 3 times in the last Saturday, Sunday and today and Jim, if that alarm went off, that was me. Saturday
morning, Sunday morning and tonight. Anyway, the Donovan property is going to be very difficult to develop
and I honestly don't see how the property can be developed into any more than probably 8 homes and I really
think that that would probably be pushing it short of tearing down the house that's already there. I xvas almost
completely convinced that when I walked in here tonight I was going to vote in favor of continuing the
easement. On the other hand, again, everyone here lives in Chanhassen. The only people directly affected by
not making that a thru street will be the people that surround, that are on Ithilien. The people that will be on
Knob Hill and if adequate access can be provided through the continuation of the cul-de-sac, I would vote in
favor of that. I don't want any applause.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Council~voman Dockendorf: Well I won't be as eloquent as my colleague. We face this exact situation a lot
more often than you xvould think, and I'm always uncomfortable because it's this exact issue that first, was my
first exposure to local government and which really prompted me to run for Council. So I've been on that side
of the podium and left that blood rush and I know it's an extremely personal issue and emotions do get heated
and it's unfortunate that it does, I think degenerate to this us versus them and you're out to get me and there's a
hidden agenda and that, and I think you know we're all rationale people here and I think the Planning
Commission, in their defense, are all rationale people. We're trying to do what's best for the city. That is what
xve're charged with. Fortunately on this one, you know it's a pretty easy decision, and that has to do with the
number of lots that are being accessed. If we're talking maximum 25 residences that will be accessed on a cuI-
de-sac, to be very short and sweet, I think that's completely feasible. If xve need a couple of lots to the northern
part of Donovan's property to be accessed via private street through that easement, I think that's doable as well.
A maximum of 4 so fortunately on this one it's a fairly easy decision for me. However, I certainly very strongly
defend the reasons why staff is bringing this up as an option and the reasons xvhy the Planning Commission
voted as they did. They are charged xvith looking out for the best interest of the city. Follo~ving our ordinances
to the letter. It's the City Council that makes these, for lack of a better term, judgment calls. So I guess I'll
shut up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: The reason I was smiling at Councilman Berquist when he made the comments about how
many times he's changed his mind, I tried to count how many times you've changed and I suspect we're fairly
close on that. A fexv comments about the discussion that's gone on tonight. Some of the phone calls I've, some
of the phone calls I've received, and I guess I'd like to paint a little broader brush on this whole issue and then I
too will be quiet. A couple of comments on some things I've heard tonight. I heard stupid. I heard ridiculous.
35
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
I heard hidden agenda. Quite honestly I resent that. I have been in public government in this city for about 6
years now and I've certainly been involved in what's going on in the city of Chanhassen longer than that and I
don't know how people feel when they hear the word stupid, ridiculous, or extortion at them, and maybe not at
me in particular but at anyone that's involved in what's going on here. You're certainly not doing anything to
win your argument when you talk like that and I think that's really unfortunate that that was said. The other
side of that, Mr. Danser's comments I thought, quite honestly, were to the point. Very humanist and nothing
negative. Just this is how we think it should be and those are the things I have a tendency to listen to, quite
honestly. Last Tuesday in the Star and Tribune, John Brandall had a commentary on the editorial page. I
frequently disagree with John Brandall. More often than not. However, if you haven't read it, it was in
Tuesday's paper and I hope you do because he talks about the selfishness of public discourse and how we have
turned discussion into if you disagree with me, you're stupid. You're ridiculous. You're guilty of extortion.
That's not the point of public discourse and I think it's too bad that it frequently turns into that and my
neighborhood, like Mr. Berquist's neighborhood, has been adversely affected by the growth in this city. That is
part of the price we pay for living in Chanhassen. The Planning Commission, in my opinion, I agree with, I'm
not saying whether I'm going to vote with or against but I agree xvith their report. We, Mr. Knoblauch said,
used the analogy of the prom dress or the tux. I guess my response to that would be, when I had my home
built I didn't have enough money to put a deck in back but I thought you know, as long as the house is a mess,
why don't we put the pilings back in there and get stuff roughed in, in case we want to do it. If I don't do that,
then I'm going to pay a lot more for it later. So if xve, you knoxv, if we don't plan ahead we're stupid. You
guys and gals don't know anything. Why didn't you think about this 2 years from now? Well, we do plan
ahead. You guys and gals are stupid. You don't know what's going on. Come on, what's the deal. So I think
we all need to look at this with a little more, with a little more open view here. The issue here is not whether a
road is going throngh or not. The issue is, do we need this for possible future access. When I first got this, no
brainer. The access should be there. Even since this meeting has gone on tonight, I quite honestly have
changed my mind four different times, and I appreciated the call I got from somebody else when they made the
comment about, ~vell I hope you haven't made your mind up yet and I said, well. I try not to make up my mind
until everything's said and done I certainly think that's the case for, hopefully most of the people on Council
tonight. I happen to agree xvith Colleen's comments. We're talking about a maximum of 20 homes here and it
sounds like it will be far, far less than that. We certainly have given approval to cul-de-sacs and dead end roads
that have a lot more homes than that. If this were a bigger area, if this were a more centrally located area, I
would be extremely hard pressed to deny that access. As it stands, in spite of what I think the Planning
Commission did correctly, I can live xvith not having that access there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I went out and basically drove and walked this area Sunday morning. I
think you all have a very beautiful area out there. I guess one comment I should make is yeah, xve all heard the
words tonight but I guess I want to thank the 8 calls I got. They were all very courteous and cordial and it
helped me kind of put things into perspective. I guess given the fact that I came with notes written down
tonight, I think I'm just going to read them because I haven't really heard, anything at least in my case that's
changed my mind at this point. First is, I don't believe we can legitimately require Mr. Knoblauch to provide
that additional dedication when he's already providing the access effectively over from Yosemite to, let's call it a
potential future Donovan access or whatever you want to call it that I think he's already providing. I don't think
the one in the northeast is necessary. Another thing is, I don't see a need for these two, I don't know, I'm going
to call them areas but I mean to me I look at them as basically neighborhoods but I don't really see a need for
these two neighborhoods to be connected. I think to do so would be a very difficult process at best, given the
landforn~s out there and that's one of the things I really struggled with because every direction I looked and
36
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
every way I looked at it, I didn't see a good way to do it. But even put that aside for a minute, my past votes
on these issues have been very clear and my mind I'm not sure will ever be changed on that but I believe if
neighborhoods want cul-de-sacs and believe that they'd just as soon cul-de-sacs, I'd just as soon see them have
cul-de-sacs because I believe in cul-de-sacs. I think they're safer and I think they promote higher property
values. I think they promote a much greater sense of neighborhood, and I think those are all benefits to
Chanhassen. Lastly, I do want to however see, and I talked to Mr. Knoblauch about this earlier. I do however
want to see a covenant added just so we're not back here with misunderstandings down the road however that a
covenant be added that clearly tells all of the purchasers in Knob Hill that Knob Hill could potentially be a thru
access effectively or you know, an access to Mr. Donovan's property and the development that may occur there.
Essentially I'm for Mr. Knoblauch's project. I think he's done a very nice job of laying it out. I think between
him and staff and Planning Commission, they've come up with a real nice way to do it, with as little impact as
possible. Especially with that private drive arrangement and everything else. I guess I can't compliment him
enough on that but I don't think we need to, nor would I support the requirement of the easement or dedication
in the northeast.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'm not going to reiterate anything that's been said because our time is really
getting short. Basically what the Council has indicated are much my feelings as well, and I would like to
request a motion on this proposal.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the final plat, or preliminary plat approval. Is that ~vhat xve're doing
Kate?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Move preliminary plat approval deleting the requirement of the easement or
dedication of the northeast but adding the additional requirement that a covenant be included to inform
purchasers of Knob Hill that that street could be an access point through to Mr. Donovan's property in the
future.
Mayor Chmiel: We also have the variance for the wetland setbacks.
Councilman Senn: Approval. And approval on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Just real quickly on the wetland setbacks. Staff is okay with that, right?
Bob Generous: Yeah...10 and 10.
Councilman Mason: That's what, yeah. Right. Okay. I just, that one slip by me.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, any other discussion?
37
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Benluist seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-20
for 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way, plans dated J~'muary, 1996, prepared by William R.
Engelhmxlt and Associates, Inc.; and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a variance to the wetland
setback of 10 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, subject to the following conditions:
11.
12.
Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication.
A minimum 40 foot building setback (10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback from buffer line) shall be
maintained from the wetland on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2.
A Tree Conservation Easement shall be designated on the southern and eastern wooded areas on Lot 5,
Block 1. The applicant shall prepare a legal description and survey for this easement for city approval.
Fifteen foot tree removal limits shall be required around the building pads on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2.
This tree removal limit shall be shown on the building permit application for each lot. All lots shall
shoxv existing trees on building permit application surveys,
The applicant is required to plant 37 trees as replacement and reforestation plantings. Trees must be
selected from the City's Approved Tree List.
Any proposed entrance monument must comply xvith city code. A separate sign permit must be submitted
to the city.
Submit street names and turning radius dimensions to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division
for review prior to final plat approval.
Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard
designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
The applicant xvill 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 I erosion
control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type III erosion
control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and
maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a hitmninous surface.
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.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm se;ver calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City
Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-
38
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
developed and post developed stormxvater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins
are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's
Pondnet model. The sediment pond shall be designed adjacent to the wetland on Lot 5, Block 2 outside
the street right-of-way. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around
the wetland.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed
District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with
their conditions of approval.
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 ~vidth shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The
City will install wetland buffer signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00
per sign.
The loxvest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2
feet above the 100 year high water level.
Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to city and
Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations.
The proposed single family residential development of 7.69 developable acres is responsible for a water
quality connection charge of $6,152.00 and a water quantity fee of $15,226.00. These fees are based on
the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final
plat review.
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.
Retaining walls shall be employed in the rear yards of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and street grades modified
to be more conducive with existing grades.
Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for Lots I, 2,
and 5, Block 1, and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 at the time of building permit application for the city to
review and approve.
The public street and utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city's street and utility
standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed
39
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
construction plaus and specificatious shall be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest
edition of the city's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon
approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council.
24. Fire hydrants shall be installed with 300 feet maximum spacing. A ten foot clear space must be
maintained around fire hydrants.
25. Delete Outlot A and combine with the adjacent lots and dedicate a 30 foot private street easement over
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 for ingress and egress.
26. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to minimize grading
on the site.
27. The cul-de-sac be made to look permanent and set back the appropriate amount, i.e.30 feet, from the
Donovan property.
28. The developer include a covenant to inform future property owners of the possible mad connection into
the Donovan pmpe~'.
All voted in favor and the motion carried ummimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5~500 SQ. FT. APPLEBEE~ RESTAURANT1 A SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR TWO WALL SIGNSi AND A VARIANCE TO SITE COVERAGE OF 5% TO PERMIT 70% SITE
COVERAGE; LOT 4~ BLOCK 1~ CROSSROADS PLAZA TI-ffRD ADDITIQN~ APPLEBEEnB
INTERNATIONAL.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, City Council members. As you stated, the applicant is requesting site
plan review for a 5,500 square foot building. As far as the site plan goes, there are very few issues that staff
had. We were looking at the requiring additional landscaping groupings or tree groupings on the southeast
comer of the site and then along the western property line. This will help to soften the building and to provide
a little bit of shading in the parking lot area in the evening hours. The other issue, and I provided you a
handout, a fax that we received from the applicant's architect regarding condition number 9 that the applicant
provide a slope roof element over the cooling area. Well they came back and said that we don't want it over the
cooling area. We'll put it where it can actually serve some function and so there's a small xvalkway in the
middle of the eastern side xvithin the enclosure for the trash can and so they're proposing approximately a 16
foot wide canopy area over that. Staff has reviewed that. We believe that's an acceptable alternative. As part
of the request, the applicant is also requesting a variance to provide a sign on t;vo building elevations....soutl;
elevation and they're permitted a wall sign on that. The western frontage, while it's near the roadway, is
actually a side elevation or side property line. So staff believes that the applicant has adequate ability to
advertise his property with the wall signs and with the monument sign that's located in the front of this site and
is therefore recommending denial of the sign variance request. The third item is a request for a site coverage
variance to go from 65% to 75% of the site plan. The applicant was working, or...site coverage. However, we
do xvith this application we found that we were approximately 2,700 square feet short. As part of the Tires Plus
application, we were approximately 400 square feet short and so we basically, what we're doing is pushing all
the required green space into the last two lots and rather than burden those sites, we're recommending that a
variance be provided on this lot for the 70% site coverage. With that, staff is recommending approval of the
40
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
site plan and the site coverage variance and denial of the wall sign variance based on, subject to the conditions
of the staff report. I'd be happy to ansxver any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Bob. Does anyone have any questions? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Regarding the site coverage. Comp plan allows 70%. The code says 65%. Is it
consistent that ~ve change one or the other of those things so that we don't end up arguing about this?
Bob Generous: We had this discussion at the Planning Commission and they believe, or at least part of their
discussion was I think they're compensating for the central business district which has no coverage minimum.
And also because of it's proximity to the high~vay, that ~ve wanted to present this more landscape or green
presentation on at least the frontage side.
Councilman Berquist: I'm looking at this, these elevations and in the staff report you ask for pitch roof, or
condition number 9. Pitched roof over the cooler units, and I can understand why they don't want to provide a
roof over a cooling unit, but I don't understand how the canopy, the 16 foot canopy addresses the pitched roof
over the cooling units.
Bob Generous: Well it's, I don't have it on there but it's actually over the enclosure on the eastern side. We
just xvanted another architectural.
Councilman Berquist: Do me a favor Bob. The plans are drawn 180 degrees opposed from hoxv you've got that
thing. Okay.
Bob Generous: The cooling units are in the southeast corner. They're proposing that xve put it, they put it all
basically in the middle of the eastern side. As part of that condition, we were just looking for another
architectural feature for that eastern elevation of the building so by moving it over, that serves that function.
Councilman Berquist: Condition number 10. Wherever it is here. Let me just read it. You're talking, we're
talking about park benches. The park site benches. Removing the paving blocks from under those so we're, in
order to maximize the.
Bob Generous: To add additional green area.
Councilman Berquist: To add additional green area for ground?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: To minimize the coverage.
Bob Generous: Site coverage.
Councilman Berquist: Do we really want park benches sitting on what will become earth? Or will it be what,
Class V? Decorative rock? What are you proposing? I'm not sure why, where that would come from.
Bob Generous: Basically on that I was looking for any area that we wouldn't actually need a hard surface. And
right under the two little bench areas, it could be just a stem in the ground. I don't know.
41
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Anchored into the ground with concrete posts?
Bob Generous: Yes. Just something under the legging.
Councilman Berquist: I visualize that looking worse than it being on paving block. And I understand but I
also, I understand xvhat he's trying to provide too. The same question regarding eliminating the sidewalk to the
north. And from a practical point of view, it would seem to me to be very desirous to have the sidewalk remain
and sacrifice the permeable soil, rather than force people at this time of the year, especially to walk on virtually
frozen grass or slush or whatever. I mean do you agree?
Bob Generous: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Those are the only two or three things that I noticed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf; Condition number 16 that the Planning Commission added. Aren't we a little after
the fact or have the other subdivision applicants already come in? I'm sorry, I'm not letting you know what I'm
talking about. About the pole lighting.
Bob Generous: The pole lighting. The only one is Tires Plus that has come in, and xve can require that they
match that and that would establish basically the look.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So it's not too late?
Bob Generous: No. And they want it to be compatible with the bank.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. No, I thought that was a very good idea. I don't have any questions at this
time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Quickly. I noticed the condition for more landscaping on the east side. It's been a long
time since this conversation has reared it's ugly head but I guess I want to, just real quickly. And I looked
through the notes and I couldn't see much about it. Planning Commission and staff are, the internal landscaping
looks, you know we talk about green coverage and how we're heating things up and all that. Are you folks
happy with the landscaping on the parking lot? I mean does that kind of meet what we're looking for?
Bob Generous: Yeah. It meets, as far as the parking lot area. That met code requirements. I'm adding the
three on the west side so we get the evening sun...
Councilman Mason: Right, right. Okay, okay.
Bob Generous: Basically they were, under that condition they were like shrubs or maybe even some ornamental
trees along the wall of the enclosure to help soften that one wall.
Councilman Mason: Okay. So that's what you're looking for on the east side then?
42
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. That's fine, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. I share Steve's comments on the sidewalk. The only other question I have in
addition, did you get into any discussion or consideration of trading off the monument for the west sign? West
wall sign.
Bob Generous: I think the applicant addressed that. He did mention that was an option.
Councilman Senn: So I mean you didn't really.
Kate Aanenson: An additional monument...?
Councilman Senn: No. I'm saying deleting the monument in favor of the west ~vall sign.
Bob Generous: It xvas just mentioned today.
Councilman Mason: Are there other potential signs on that monument, or not?
Bob Generous: There would be the Tires Plus and the Applebee's.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So Tires Plus would be on it too?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Plus the other two lots at some point.
Councilman Senn: So it's a multiple tenant pylon versus...
Bob Generous: Yeah, that's the way that Todd has structured it.
Mayor Chmiei: Okay. I don't have any questions in regard to this. The applicant care to make a statement in
regards to the proposal?
Gary Fisher: Good evening. My name is Gary Fisher. I'm with Applebee's International, Overland Park,
Kansas. I wanted to answer any questions you might have xvith regards to our operation or proposed operation.
Our site plan. We have our architect and our engineer here in case you do have any questions at this point.
With regards to the variance for the second building sign, I just took the liberty to take some photographs this
afternoon. I'm sure you're all very familiar with the property but basically I took two shots of the property.
One from Highway 5 and the other from Market Street. And we feel that, nice piece of property isn't it?
Councilman Mason: It's going to be.
43
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
GaD' Fisher: I'd like to thank the individual that conveniently left his 50 ton transformer there on the site,
which is basically where our building is sitting.
Councilman Senn: I bet you Todd didn't even charge them rent either.
Gary Fisher: But as you can see, the two shots I took. One was from Highway 5, looking at the site. Slightly
from the east and then the other from Market Street towards the site at the corner. Because of the configuration
of 79th Street, the way it winds around the property, we feel that it would be very important for us to have two
building signs in this instance because you have traffic approaching the building from Market. Possibly from in
town that ~vould not be out on Highway 5 to see the elevation from the highway. We feel that is also very
important...to be located to have the exposure from the highway. We did mention this afternoon the possibility
of deleting our monument sign in lieu of a building sign. That's something we would consider. The sign that's,
the monument sign that's being proposed at this time is shared by Tires Plus. It was done as a special
arrangement with us and that was subject to our approval for our building sign so. But ~ve really feel like two
building signs are very important to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else?
Gary Fisher: Any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions.'? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: The way the building orients and the way Highway 5 curves from over on the raiIroad
bridge all the way down past the motel, and given the fact that the land between West 79th and Highway 5 will
always in perpetuality be, perpetuity? Will be green space. Will be there. I really question the, I mean can
you explain to me xvhy a second sign is that vital? Or vital period.
GaD' Fisher: Well we feel there's two major exposures here to our building. One is from the highway, and the
other is from Market Street and people that are approaching the site from the north, or from the north. From in
town, to approach the building, you would not come around and see the front of the building facing the south,
the south side of the building until you were completely past the site. Or completely up to the side of the
building. As you're approaching Market, you come around. This is actually, the west side of our building is
actually what we consider the front of our building and we feel that that, there's a signage on the front of our
building is a vital design element. We feel like it does finish off the building. Very rarely do xve not put a sign
on the front of our building, on the west side. But on the other hand, to be facing the building, the side of the
building and xve looked at various site layouts for this site. It was not an easy site to layout because of the
configuration of the side and the internal layout. We worked a long time with Mr. Gerhardt to try and get this
worked out. This was the best way we came up with but it's just the way it is, there's a real need to have the
exposure off of Highway 5 and also the exposure off Market Street coming off to the site. Because you just
would not see this sign facing the highway, approaching the building until you were past the building and you're
turning in.
Councilman Berquist: On the other hand, if you're going that way on West 79th, you're either going to be
going to that building or past that building. And if you're going to it, you don't need the sign and if you're
going past it, you have no choice but to see the sign.
Gar5, Fisher: If you were going to the building this way?
44
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councihnan Berquist: Yes. Even though, I mean my point is, even though there's no signage on that side,
anyone traveling that road xvill be forced to pass in front of and therefore look at.
Gary Fisher: To see the front of the building.
Councilman Berquist: Right.
Gary Fisher: It's just that, from the highway we feel it's important passing on the highway, if you're looking at
an elevation that's prominent as this would be, we feel'that it would just be not a completed elevation without
having some identification on the building as you're approaching the site from the angle that I took coming
from the east. You're just getting a lot of exposure from passing by traffic there and to not put a sign on the
south side of the building ~ve think would be a big mistake also. It's just this site, we feel there's a sufficient
enough hardship because of the configuration of the property and the access and ;vhere ;ve're trying to draw
from and xve feel enough about it to where we would be willing to by pass any free standing sign, monument
sign that xve have because we feel the building is identifying...but to not put the two signs on it xve feel would
be a mistake.
Councilman Senn: I'm just curious when you saying you're willing to by pass the monument, what does that
mean?
Gary Fisher: Not have it at all.
Councilman Senn: And xvhat about Tires Plus then?
Gary Fisher: Well, they do not, because the property we're buying is I guess they don't really have the right to
be on that sign and we actually said we'll work with you to be on that sign as long as we get that. As long as
we end up having that sign.
Councilman Senn: So what you're saying is you control that monument sign location and you're willing to give
that up totally in relationship to that for the wall sign?
Gary Fisher: Because we feel the monument sign doesn't really benefit us as much as just finishing out our
building. The look of our building. The monument's very low profile.
Councilman Senn: Well that's kind of why I brought it up in the first place because I mean when I look at your
building, I mean both, maybe I care to describe it as both sides to me look like a front. I mean to me that's real
hard to delineate. I mean your entrance is split between them and everything. So I was just thinking of that as
a potential solution.
Gary Fisher: If we just deal, because of traffic patterns here that once, as you're approaching the building from
the two different directions, those are the two elevations you're going to see the most and it's not like you can
see part of one and not the other. There's an instance there where you will see all of one or all of the other.
Either approaching from the east or approaching the north and.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's kind of xvhat I tried to do is put it in perspective. I mean if you go out there
and look at Americana Bank, same thing. I mean you've got it this side and you've got it that side. You've got
down at Perkins and you've got this side and you're got that side.
45
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Mason: Doesn't Americana have two roads that it fronts on?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Mason: That's why there's two signs.
Councilman Senn: But they also, no. No, but they also have a sign on the east side where there isn't a road so.
Kate Aanenson: Just so you're aware, the Tires Plus is in for a variance. They ~vere before the Planning
Commission last week so they want not only the monument but two additional signs. I mean one additional
sign besides the one they get.
Councilman Senn: One of the difficulties I was having with this one was again, you take the configuration of
the road and how the building sits to the road. If we were dealing with a straight road and if this building, the
corner of it came up to the closest point of the road, what do you use as the front of the building? I mean that's
what I'm having a hard time dealing with in my mind. I mean here you have an angle road that effectively
creates the same situation where really, the most forward portion of the building is a corner. And I mean is that
what you do under the ordinance, is just pick one or you pick the other?
Kate Aanenson: Well they have frontage one on public street. That's the frontage is the public street.
Councilman Senn: But that's xvhat I'm saying. How do you define that when the corner is the point closest to
the public frontage. How do you...which side is which?
Bob Generous: Well we have two. In this instance xve have two side lots.. We can define.
Councilman Senn: So you can pick one is what you're saying.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Councilman Senn: You have two sides but you pick one.
Bob Generous: Well we pick the orientation that's perpendicular to our side lot line. In this instance.
Councilman Senn: Okay, versus the road. Okay.
Bob Generous: So we know, those are the two sides so that's perpendicular.
Councilman Senn: Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Steve, do you have any comments?
Councilman Berquist: No, nothing new.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
46
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I can tell you once the restaurant goes up, there's going to be no problem
finding it. People are going to know. Word will spread quickly. But I am trying to envision ~vhat that
elevation would look like without the sign, and if people were approaching from the north going south on
Market, they may look over and really there would be nothing to identify that side. And of course you want the
Highway 5 frontage, or exposure. I don't think there's any question that if you had to give up one, which one
you would give up. Oh, I don't know. I've got to make up my mind.
Mayor Chmiel: Alrighty. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, I don't -know if by signage, signage is probably one of the single biggest issues we
deal with, and I don't know quite why. Well I do know why, I take that back. I'm glad they're here and I'm
certainly ready to move on this. Just because I know Tires Plus is going to want a sign variance and I knoxv
everyone else there is going to xvant a sign variance and you know, it seems to me that the reason for a variance
is (a) for hardship or (b), a really, certainly an extenuating circumstance and while I am sympathetic to their
need for advertisement and they're right. Coming in that one way, they're not, people aren't going to know and
I would guess that Colleen's probably right that within 2 weeks after that restaurant goes up, they could drape it
with garbage bags and it xvould be full the whole time. People are going to want to be eating there. I mean we
grant this variance. We grant Tires Plus. What do we have any kind of sign ordinances at all for so I don't
think it's going to make or break this project but I'm for everything in this report with the exception of the sign
variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: No problems xvith the 70% coverage. On the signage, I really don't have a problem what's
being proposed on the two sides if the monument or pylon or whatever you want to call it is ridded. I know
that's going to open the door on Tires Plus but if Tires Plus is tastefully signed, both elements and eliminate the
Clutter. I mean quite honestly, I mean I look at a monument sign and all that's going to be out there is clutter.
I mean I don't know what it's going to accomplish for anybody anywhere because by.the time somebody's going
to utilize that monument sign, they're going to be sitting in front of the place anyxvay. So I view it really as just
kind of really tasteless clutter and I'd rather see tasteful signage incorporated like this and if the same thing
could be done on Tires Plus, I don't think I have a problem xvith that either. I don't think it means throwing out
the sign ordinance. I think it means, you know every situation will be different and every location is different
and sometimes some things make sense more in one place that don't make sense in another. To me I'd just as
soon rid us of the monument.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other thoughts by any of the other Council?
Councilman Berquist: Well this is silly but I just took this site map and tried to draw some sight lines from
Highxvay 5 and I honestly thing that the front of that building is going to be very, very visible from a long ways
away and I don't see that there's any hardship in the application for a west facing sign. Regardless of whether
or not the monument sign goes away, I don't think I'd be in favor of a west facing sign.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: So I will motion approval on the, are you ready for this'?.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm ready.
47
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval on the site plan as contained within the staff report. I would entertain
changing condition number 9 to read, the applicant shall incorporate a pitched roof element over the service
walkway on the east side of the building. Scratch cooler units. And on condition number 10. Eliminate one of
the parking spaces in the southwest corner of the site, period. I don't see what is gained by eliminating the
paving squares and eliminating the sidexvalk. I think it's more detrimental to the site than advantageous.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? With those conditions.
Councilman Mason: Yes. Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any diseussion?
Councilman Be~uist moved, Councilman Mason secomled to approve Site Plan #95-20 for a 5,500 square foot
restaurant building on Lot 4, Block 1, Cross~oads Plaza 3hi Addition, based on the site plan dated 12/4/95 and
revised 12/13/95, and a 5% variance to the lot area coverage to pemait site coverage of 70% subject to the
following conditions:
1. Install aeration tubes in the 8 1/2 foot center islands.
2. Replace the pin oaks xvith red oaks on the proposed landscaping plan.
3. Provide ornamental plantings in the sodded area in front of the north side of the building.
4. Incorporate trees in the landscaping on the south side of the building.
5. Install three trees adjacent to the xvestern property line xvest of the parking lot. These trees shall be
selected from the approved tree list and must be overstory trees suitable for parking lots.
6, Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint the curbing yellow. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact
location.
7. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance.
8. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement for the property and provide the necessary
security to meet the conditions of approval.
9. The applicant shall incorporate a pitched roof element over the service walkway on the east side of the
building.
10. Eliminate one of the parking spaces in the southwest corner of the site.
11. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit for all signage on the site. Signage shall comply with
city code requirements.
12. The joint parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
48
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
13. Staff recommends that the radiuses on the parking lot islands adjacent to the main drive aisles be
increased from 10 feet to 20 feet.
14. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for adjusting any existing storm sewer manholes and
cleaning the city storm sewer system as needed in conjunction with this site development.
15. Rock construction entrances should be included xvith the site plan drawings. All catch basins shall be
protected with silt fence and/or hay bales until the parking lot is paved.
16. A subdivision standard be established for the height and color of the pole lighting.
17. Additional landscaping and architectural features be added to enhance the east side of the building,
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously~
PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CHANHASSEN AND
VICTORIA AND LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION REGARDING THE BOLEY PROPERTY.
Mayor Chmiel: I think this is one that we have had for so long and I think we can probably...if there's a motion
on the floor, I ~vould even accept that.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Masou: Second.
Resolution #96-20: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the cooperative
agreement bet~veen the City of Chanhassen, City of Victoria and Lundgren Brothers Construction, anti resolution
of the Boley Pmpen'y Annexation and Detachment of Property. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Berquist: Before xve move on can I ask one question regarding that? The obviously substantial'
cost of the attorneys to clean that mess up and the staff time. What was the cost of that?
Kate Aanenson: It's written in the contract that Lundgren Brothers pay those costs. It's written right into the
contract.
1996 PARK TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS.
Jay Kronick: Good evening Mr. Mayor, Council members. Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you this
evening. We've had a long evening and we've laid out some recommendations in the memo dated February
20th, which I believe you all have in front of you. I'd like to just briefly highlight those and then I'll answer
your questions. Item 1, we're again requesting your support in forwarding a referendum to the voters this year.
We regrouped after the holidays and the repercussions of the District 112 school referendum not passing and
decided that it was still incumbent upon us to do what we were charged with, and that is bring this thing to the
voters of the city. It is a different issue than the school bond referendum. The time is not and we feel the
people of this community have the right to decide whether they want to set aside some land...issues we talked
about. The second item in our memo, we had three members of our task force resign and one of them, Frank
49
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Scott is on the Park and Rec Commission. He's been attending our meetings. We're asking for your approval of
his appointment as well as that of Richard Wing and Mike Lynch to allow the task force so we can go forward
and continue our work. The only note I would make there, in addition to the qualifications of these individuals,
they come from geographic areas of the community where we lost members so ~ve're still diverse in terms of
attempting to represent all members, or all groups in the community. Item 3, the potential voting date. In
contrast to what you have in the memo, xve are still wavering between the September 10th primary and the
November 5th general election date for having the referendum. Several factors we still want to consider and
examine. We would appreciate your thoughts on that as well. But we do, we remain committed to having the
referendum on one of those two dates. It will be more expensive...both these times where people are out and
voting in good numbers hopefully. In addition to what's, so the three items there we're asking for your approval
this evening. In addition to that, I'd like to just keep you posted on what we're going to be moving forward
with here in the next few weeks. We have re-established contact with the Trust of Public Lands and we are
working toward potentially having them become involved in assisting us. They've bring a lot of expertise. The
concern we have at this point with that group's involvement concern, the nature of the agreement that the city
would enter into with them and xve need to do some more work on that before xve can report back to you. If
you have any questions at this point, I can talk to you about those. The other thing we'll be working on in the
next few weeks is...flush out the issues might be behind the open space referendum. Just kind of get an idea of
what people want and how we can tailor this thing so it's successful, meets the needs and desires of the
community. That's all I have to say. I'll answer your questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, questions'?.
Councilman Berquist: No. As everyone knows I'm the liaison for the Council on the Park Task Force and I
don't have any questions of Jay but I do know that the group that has stayed with it is committed to bringing
the referendum to the citizens of Chanhassen. Regardless of ~vhether it proves to be successful or unsuccessful,
the need to allow the citizens to choose whether or not we purchase additional open space for parkland, for now
and in the future, is very important. My wife and I ~vere talking about it earlier today and she's very aware of
the mood of the populous. She thinks.
Mayor Chmiel: I hope she's not going to watch this.
Councilman Berquist: I hope she's not either. Well, the point that I made to her was that if not noxv, then
when. When should we do this? Should we wait until land escalates to $45,000.00-$50,000.00 an acre and
then attempt to float a referendum to buy parkland because people are screaming because they need and the kids
don't have places to play? Or should we attempt to be pro-active and convince the citizens that this something
that they really need to invest in, and then it's up to them. If the citizens are foresighted enough to believe in
this need, ~vonderful. If they're not, then that's their choice as well but if we don't act now, we're foolish. In
my opinion. And that's my...
Mayor Chmiel: You know and I guess some of the things that you're also looking for is new appointments and
I xvould concur with that. With those three.
Jay Kronick: The first two items there, we're looking for your approval. The voting date, we'll come back to
you the next time...but we're looking specifically for your approval on the appointments and just to support us
on going forward.
50
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And I think that stands as I think we've seen. I just want to mention one thing. That
normally I like the November 5th general election myself because there are a lot of people that don't get out in
primary voting that will get out for the general election. And if everybody sees the basic need for what has to
be done within the city, that ~vill be an affirmative, positive vote for this proposal.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How much did they put aside in the budget to finance the effort and how will that
be impacted by starting up discussions with that group?
Jay Kronick: The Trust for Public Lands?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Jay Kronick: The first part of your question, $25,000.00 is what I think did get approved for our organizational
efforts. The Trust for Public Lands has offered to support the survey efforts to the tune of $5,000.00. Our
preliminary estimates, we got a report from Decision Resources, I think it was $7,000.00 to do a survey. So it
conceivably could cover significant amount of those costs. The strings that would be attached are what we have
to look at.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I would just be really leery.
Jay Kronick: Well, we are.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, I know. I don't know, I have a problem xvith this Richard Wing. No other
comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: Let's do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I surely don't want to see the referendum go to the voters. My preference is still a
separate local election but I don't think that's in the cards.
Councilman Berquist: Why would you advocate that?
Councilman Senn: Simply because Steve I think it's that important an issue and I think it deserves the attention
and I think it's going to get lost in the other. Of course my own opinion is the local official election should be
moved to off years like many communities are doing now too to make that separate from the other issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's expensive.
Councilman Senn: Yeah it is but it's also the grass roots of government too. I mean you know, when you look
at the last National Election, 60% of the people that voted in this town voted for President and left the booth. It
became one of the highest voter turn out ever...xvell they were there but I'm just saying, local government really
wasn't impacted much. I'd rather see it impacted I guess but that's again, a personal opinion. My own opinion
is no on using Trust for Public Land.
51
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Jay Kronick: And your reason would be?
Councihnan Senn: Reason is that generally I see a very negative reaction to spending taxpayers money to hire
an organization to help you sell a position. I've seen very negative reaction to that in both school district deals,
as well as other ones and I think it's a local effort and if this is going to pass, it's going to pass on a local effort.
Not by bringing in outsiders. That's just my opinion again. The other thing is, I think as far as your new
appointment members, they look fine to me. I'm only going to tell you've lost two members on the east side of
Lotus Lake and you're replacing them with none and I think that's a mistake. You're not going to have anybody
on the whole east side over there and you've lost txvo from that area that were....north of Lotus. And really kind
of a different, you know very different neighborhood area and stuff like that. You've had two very, I'm going to
say vocal and fairly involved people on the east side and I think you should get somebody involved from that
side.
Jay Kronick: I think their support may still be there as our efforts.
Councilman Senn: I'd be happy to even help you come up with some names.
Jay Kronick: Great, we'd really appreciate that.
Councilman Senn: And just on the last thing, in terms of the thing at the bottom. I xvould sincerely hope that
this is not a vote yes deal. That it's a get out and vote deal and the function of this is on our part to educate
the voters and let the voter make their own decision on whether they want to vote yes or no.
Jay Kronick: That's certainly the position we've got.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think again the other thing's the negative reaction and it seems to me that the
negatives all add up very quickly if you do it that way so it's far better in my mind to do it the other xvay, so
that's it for comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And I think you've indicated in here that more workers are needed as well as.
Jay Kronick: Contact any of us, please.
Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Great. I don't think a motion is required on this or is there a motion required?
Don Ashxvorth: What about for the selection of members? Is the Council happy with kind of an informal
recognition that these are going to be the members?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we approved the first slate of them so xve may as well do it formally.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's what I was trying to remember. Whether we did or not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we did, yeah.
Jay Kronick: It was appointments.
Mayor Chmiel: Was it? Okay.
52
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Councilman Mason: I xvill certainly move approval of the new appointments.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendoff seconded to appoint Fnmk Scoff, Richard Wing and
Mike Lynch as new members to the Park Referendum Task Force. All voted in favor and the motion carded
unanimously.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF CITY CODE REQUIRING uNDERGROUND OF
ELECTRICAL AND OTHER UTILITY LINES~ M~NNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC~ FIRST READING.
Public Present:
Name Address
Leu Howard
Stefan Hanke
Mel Hentges
Daryl Hoffman
Craig Turner
NSP, Shorewood Area Office
1002 Columbus Avenue, MVEC
MVEC, Jordan
MVEC, Jordan
1002 Columbus Avenue, MVEC
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. The impetus for this item is to try and
resolve an issue that has come up a few times in the past, but is likely to come up a number of more times
again in the near future. The primary aspects of this issue involve defining the cost responsibility for relocating
overhead electrical wires to underground in conjunction with the reconstruction of local streets from rural to
urban roadways. In the past it has been the city's desire to relocate these lines underground as a part of the road
improvement project that xvas done on a couple of times with the phases of the downto~vn improvement project
here. For those projects the city upfronted the cost for those relocations to underground with an agreement that
there was a future rebate and repayment made back to the city over a period of time as additional commercial
customers come on line. The city currently has three projects scheduled, road projects this year. Lyman
Boulevard, the extension of West 78th Street out to Lake Ann Park and also the phase II of Galpin Boulevard
from Timberwood south to Lyman, which the County is going to finish up which will all potentially involve,
will involve the relocation of the overhead lines. The question becomes, should they be put underground. And
if so, who bears the cost. The power companies have indicated their desire to see the city pay for these costs.
Hoxvever, these numbers can be significant. For example the Lyman project, that would add an additional
$132,000.00 to the overall project cost and legally xve're not sure that we can actually assess these costs as a
benefit back to the properties in the improvement area. Basically because 429 requirements, the test of benefit
is that the property value has to increase and I don't know whether it legitimize the benefit, increase in benefit
to the property of having overhead versus underground line but, so that becomes a real challenge from that
aspect. Staff has had a meeting today ~vith the representatives of the power companies in town here and these
representatives are here tonight to express some of their concerns that they have regarding this proposed
ordinance amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions of Charles? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: You referenced Minnesota Valley Electric Coop specifically. I'm assuming that this also
applies to NSP, since NSP's represented?
53
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: It also applies to the cable and the voice communications people?
Charles Folch: Yes. Only because how the3, are affected is typically if there's an overhead line set up, they
typically also string overhead so when the lines get moved back or put underground, the pole's come down and
as such, they need to also be following the program.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: This is only for, I'm trying to understand when this happens.
Charles Folch: This is only really an issue when ~ve're taking an existing roadway that's probably rural right
no~v with ditches...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So this only refers to roadways?
Charles Folch: When we're doing reconstruction. All the new construction, except for the primary high voItage
line as we indicated, except for those which will remain overhead. Typically in nexv construction the feeder
lines and things like that that service those areas are all done underground. It's just a matter of dealing with the
issue of, when you've got an existing line that's overhead and has a remaining useful life to that service area.
And now with the road improvement project, there's some cost to relocate those poles back. Is it a good time at
that point to put them underground as a part of the urban roadway improvement.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. So the lines between, that run down Bluff Creek right next to Creekside,
between Timberxvood and Creekside division.
Charles Folch: Those xvould not be affected.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Those are high voltage.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I don't have any either.
Councilman Berquist: Have underground service lines become as reliable as the overhead systems? I mean I
know that for years they xvere prone to.
Charles Folch: We were just debating that today. I guess it comes some difference in whether you define the
reliability based on near term or long term. From my perspective, as I expressed today to the representatives
from the power companies, whenever there's a thunder storm, quite often any areas in town that would lose
power are typically the ones that are overhead. Okay, so in terms of near term reliability, our experience is that
these underground cables aren't as prone to the wind and lightening and things like that that you have with these
thunderstorms. However, they take the position that these underground cables from a long term standpoint, are
much more difficult to replace after 20 years when you start having splices and other sort of things.
54
City Council Meeting -February 26, 1996
Deterioration in the insulation and rodents and things like that that chexv into cables. It becomes much more
difficult on the end side of the life cycle to replace so.
Mayor Chmiel: Pros and cons to the issue. Okay. Would Minn Valley like to start this?
Craig Turner: Let me introduce myself. My name is Craig Turner, an engineer with Minnesota Valley Electric.
I guess I'm here in opposition for the amendment as it's written. We first heard about this Tuesday or
Wednesday of last week. We had the Minutes from the City Council meeting and ~ve saw our name on it. That
surprised us. So we referred to staff and asked to get some more information. Today we had a meeting with
staff to express some of our concerns in the way the ordinance has been written. And talked about a few other
xvays to maybe meet the other city's needs and to meet the, cxcuse me. I do stutter in situations. To meet the
needs of Minnesota Valley and NSP to serve a reliable, economical power. We had a real good discussion
today and I think we laid our ground work for future conversations xvith the city and the electric and utilities
involved. I think the issues we talked about are not just economic versus the aesthetics. There's also a
reliability issue. If you look to your neighbor to the east, this summer Eden Prairie got a significant outage due
to underground facility. It wasn't the way NSP operated it. It's just the nature of the beast. I'd like to propose
that the city, and NSP and Minnesota Valley, get together and work over the next fe~v weeks to look at a way
of structuring this to make it xvork for both the city and the utilities. I ~vant to hand out a copy of a letter that
NSP did send. the city. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. It was just handed to the city on Friday.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I ask you one quick question?
Craig Turner: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: In most of your lines running through the community, what are your voltages ~vithin your
secondary, or your primary?
Craig Turner: We're 7,200 volts, line to ground. Or 12,470...volts. NSP is at 13,000 volts. We're about the
same class.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Craig Turner: I think the only issue with Minnesota Valley right now is we'd like to work with the city to try
to resolve this issue. The way the ordinance is written right now, the change does impact the franchising
agreement that we have with the city. We have a 20 year agreement and it requires, or provides for Minnesota
Valley to provide a written consent to any changes to that. The ~vay it's written right now, Minnesota Valley
could not provide that written consent. So if there are any other questions.
Councilman Berquist: What does that question have to do with...?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I was just wondering as to any other three phase lines or things of that nature which is
normally about a 3045 or something of that. I was looking at the 15,000 volts, which is normally what feeds
into the residential areas. Into partial areas as well. One other thought that I had in mind, are most of your
lines within right-of-ways of either the County or the City7
Craig Turner: Yes.
55
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: They're located within. To relocate those existing lines to another location, if you're asked to
move those, what associated costs xvould you have from overhead to underground?
Craig Turner: You're basically building a new line.
Mayor Chmiel: Well you'd have to relocate the existing line within the right-of-way and it would be basically
new line that you'd be putting in.
Craig Turner: ...overhead facilities, you couldn't re-use underground. Along the Lyman Boulevard, xve have a
line that's about 20 years old there now. Overhead line has a 40 year life, or longer. Underground, our typical
experience has been 20 to 30 years. We have an existing line that's adequate to serve the facilities and the
growth in the area. Our plan would be to just move those poles out. I believe it'd be a more reliable system
over the long haul. And converting that to an underground would be a significant cost increase over just
moving the poles.
Mayor Chmiel: What is the cost per mile? On underground. As opposed to overhead.
Craig Turner: Versus overhead? Usually you factor about twice. Twice the cost of underground.
Mayor Chmiel: 2 to 17
Craig Turner: Yeah. Due to the increased cost of the wire itself, for the conductor, there's increased cost where
wherever you xvant to tap off of that wire, you have to put in a switching box...Those are about $15,000.00 a
piece to install including labor. You also have development costs of simply one mile of underground versus one
mile of overhead. There's additional cost whenever you build underground...other facilities. So you want to
make sure that if there's a problem, that you can back feed that area. With overhead you don't need that
because if you have a problem, you're...see where the problem is and fix it fairly quick. With underground, if
it's the middle of winter and the ground's frozen. Trying to fix that could take much longer than...
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Yeah, I understand.
Councilman Senn: Before you leave, I'm confused. I understand xvhat you're saying as it relates to new
installation of underground versus overhead, okay. But when you're talking about a situation such as this where
you're required to relocate the overhead, I mean generally it's been my experience, at least when I've witnessed
it, that a new line is run and the old line is taken down when you have to relocate. You don't simply come in
and move it over.
Craig Turner: If you had to upgrade your facility, if your conductor is too small...and then you would just
simply abandon the old line. In many cases, like along Lyman, our conductor size is plenty fine where we can
simply pick the poles up with the wire on the poles. Move it out 20 feet, 30 feet. We do a pole ahead of time.
Our costs...I've heard numbers $5,000.00 or $10,000.00 to move that existing line. And that would be the whole
mile to go to undergrounds, $135,000.00 to $140,000.00 in that range.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Bottom line. What are you advocating, overhead?
Craig Turner: That's something we'd like to xvork xvith the city. I thiuk there's certain facilities, the majority of
public facilities we put them underground...this main line should be underground. We think the main feeders
56
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
we work with most the cities and the one main feeder overhead, the second main feeder underground...so we're
only talking about our main feeder and our main overhead...
Councilman Senn: And main feeder again being defined as?
Craig Turner: ...I don't know if NSP has a definition for it. We've...
Councilman Senn: And what is that typically?
Craig Turner's answer was not picked up by the microphone.
Councilman Senn: Which means you effectively would be staying out of any neighborhoods, but effectively
would be confined to major street right-of-ways?
Craig Turner: Most of the time.
Mayor Chmiel: Those existing lines that are there.
Councilman Senn: Most of the time but not all of the time.
Craig Turner: I know lines xvhere they've gone through a neighborhood just as the nature of the beast...but the
majority of them go along main roads. Main thoroughfares. Using existing...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Lou.
Lou Howard: Good evening. My name is Lou Howard. I'm Community Service Manager at Northern State
Power Company out in the Shorexvood Office and I'm here tonight primarily to voice my, or NSP's objection to
the Section 17-46, paragraph (b). The replacement of overhead facilities. And the reason that...NSP, as of
2/15/96 our franchise with the city expires. We're in the process of coming to Don and staff and discussing the
new franchise. In that situation I know that you would like to see some type of language in there addressing
this particular point, because we have no franchise with you guys right no~v. But in coming to you in another
circumstance, the 15,000 volts that you have here, has put us...a limit on our distribution. Our distribution now
goes as high as 30 45 and we will be constructing some of that from our west gate sub...go onto the Waconia
sub. So that, this here language prohibits that. We have...numerous cities on our system that require us to put
or replace our existing system, overhead system underground when they move, and they have a road
construction and under those circumstances we normally charge the city the difference between appreciated costs
and the cost of moving the overhead and the cost of installing underground. Over the last several years, and
specifically in the last several months we have studied this particular underground, overhead, underground issue
extensively and we have... We will put underground in all new residential areas. We will provide underground
to commercial areas, and that is nothing but virgin land but when it comes to our line feeders, that's overhead,
we prefer to keep those up. There is an economic advantage there, not only to us as a company but to our
customers. And I think we can't get around the issue of economics here. Minnesota Valley has a certain
criteria in which they build their feeder lines and NSP has a different one. But our costs usually run 3 1/2 times
as much for underground as overhead. So consequently, you're talking about a significant figure when we start
looking at our overall distribution system and the many communities that we serve. We ran into the situation
like this in every single community, I would doubt if NSP would be in business very long because it would be
an horrendous cost to go back, from my observations, there's not enough labor in the metropolitan area to take
57
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
on this type of load that would be._ There's road projects throughout the metropolitan area, and every city that
has an underground ordinance, they're trying to, as they do road pavements and street widenings, they would
want it underground at NSP's cost and quite frankly our rates are based on overhead distribution. And that's by
State law, state policy. So xvhat you're doing now is, what you're proposing is coming out with an ordinance
that would put us in direct conflict with the city and...on every road improvement project that you have and we
don't want to pay for that. We would rather try to sit down with you and work out some kind of solution that
xvould serve the city, serve NSP and our customers and serve Minnesota Valley.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Lou. Any questions?
Councilman Berquist: Charles. Tell me how this came about.
Charles Folch: Well. Recently how this came about is, with the Lyman project, well xvith the Galpin project
too, we made requests that these existing service lines be, well first of all with the project we typically notify
the utility companies. If there are any conflicts with existing lines with the proposed improvement project and
taking that a step further, with these two particular projects, there's overhead lines involved and again, it has
been my observation on past projects that whenever we changed a road from a rural section to an urban
roadxvay, we typically would like to have the lines underground also. And in making that request, Minnesota
Valley's cost estimate of xvhat xvould be involved for those projects. They submitted that information back to us
and made it pretty clear that this was a cost that they could not bear. That they would expect the city to pay for
and as such, we decided to take a look at this issue as to, and again, from our standpoint, I don't believe
personally it's a cost. Maybe it's a decision the courts would have to decide, if we have potential but I don't
personally believe that we could assess any of the costs associated xvith relocating power service to underground
as a benefit. Assessable benefit associated xvith an improvement project. I personally think it'd be pretty tough.
Councilman Berquist: In that line, in that line of thinking then, the next logical question that comes to mind is,
hoxv has it gotten this far? I mean if in fact you begin to explore the possibilities and you realize that one of
the grid providers is going to charge us $133,000.00 to do a short piece of road improvement, hoxv did we begin
to entertain this even being amended? I'm not following this. There's something I'm missing here, or aren't 1.9
Charles Folch: Well in a previous ordinance there's no language requiring, basically in the existing ordinance of
the franchise agreement requires whenever we do an improvement project that the utility companies that have
line conflicts, basically move them out of the way at their expense. Okay. This would propose to take it a step
further and say, where we deem appropriate, where we're improving again a road to an urban roadway section
with landscaping and lighting and all those types of elements, overhead xvires is not typically something we
desire to see in an urban design. And as such, I guess we were attempting to take the language a step further
and require that these company basically bear the cost of that undergrounding.
Councilman Berquist: Did you anticipate the type of extraordinary expenditures that apparently we're seeing.9
Charles Folch: Well, I mean basically this comes about after seeing the two estimates for both Galpin and
Lyman. So we knexv ahead of time that this isn't a cost that we were anticipating associated with these projects.
Don Ashxvorth: And if I may add. This is not the first time, and I'm happy to see that the city has taken a
positive position. I think to think that Kerber Boulevard would have poles lined up both sides of that roadway,
I think as I drive to Chaska and I see the poles on either side I'm sitting there saying, somebody kind of missed
the boat on this, I think. We've been very fortunate in that most of the major roadways have been within tax
58
City Council Meeting ~ February 26, 1996
increment districts. And tax increment has been available to take and help ease the pain as it deals with both
power companies in the city. Audubon, Galpin, downtown. In fact downtown, well I'll move backwards. In
downtown, we saw the vision for nexv larger buildings total under utilization and we approached NSP and that's
literally when Don was on the other side of the table, and I've got to thank Don for his help in that whole...but
it cost us $500,000.00 and NSP basically agreed that if we generate additional developments along 78th Street,
we couldn't tell them well there's going to be a Byerly's, there'd be a Target. We had no idea. But we said this
is our vision. We think that you should take and look to the additional electric services that you're going to be
selling and so we did. We entered into a contract with like a 10 year period. The first year we paid $50,000.00
but every year after that they generated more money in terms of electrical sales than what that initial investment
has been. I was kind of hoping that with the Minnesota Valley, because I really do look at it. If we don't do
the sewer and water down there, if we don't do the roadway, you're not going to see the 500 homes that
basically are going to be served by that roadway. And I guess my pitch back to them was, you know you're
going to be selling electricity to 500 homes and if we don't do anything, that roadway and that property could
sit blank for 5 years. They're going to, over the course of the next week, look at some things. Maybe this cost
share and maybe some other format. I don't know if we're going to take and have an impasse. I don't know if,
oh by the way. They are taking the position that this isn't legal. They're got a franchise. We can't do this.
City Attorney is saying, yes you can do this. You just put through this ordinance and say you pay. To me,
rather than potentially ending up with some type of court battle, we should be able, as reasonable adults, to kind
of work this whole out. That's what I ~vould recommend and I think we can do something. I don't know that
we necessarily have the tools that we had on some of these other projects but I would sure hate to see a
roadway that's going to be designed at an urban standard the way we're proposing for Lyman, recognizing, that
that's going to be a major gateway for every, all of those new developments down there. To see the thing lined
with poles, it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Councilman Senn: Is it fair to say that the issue here really isn't whether you do it or not. The issue here is
whether, who pays?
Don Ashxvorth: Yes.
Councilman Senn: I mean otherwise I xvant to underscore what Charles said earlier. I mean I don't know'how
we can improve these urban roadways and not be in conflict with overhead wires because I mean to me the two
just aren't going to mix. I mean otherwise are we planting all these trees and everything else that are just going
to run into the wires and everything else if we're going to go overhead. So I mean the real issue seems to come
back to who's going to pay.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: So what do you xvant? A week to try to negotiate it out and if you don't, then we'll decide?
Don Ashworth: Yep.
Councilman Senn: Oh, okay.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll move.
Councilman Senn: Michael moved, I'll second.
59
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table xvith a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the first reading of an ontinance amending
Chapter 17 of City Code requiting undergrounding of electrical and other utility lines for further discussion
between the utility companies and staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. If you can bring us back something, maybe we can talk. Okay. We have gone
beyond, does everybody want to keep going?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Councilman Senn: It's the bewitching hour.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. It's 11:20. There's no one in the place except you and me.
Councilman Mason: Besides that, I need this explained. This buffer yard ordinance.
Don Ashworth: For the record, we should again repeat that xve're going to pick up and take on the last items,
starting at 7:00 next Monday night. Hopefully being done by about 9:00 with the item on City Hall being
scheduled sometime after 8:00.
Councilman Senn: And we are not adjourning, we are recessing, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: We would be recessing.
AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN~ BRIMEYER
GROUP.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You know if you guys would indulge me. I would really like to address item 13
on the development of a strategic plan. Please.
Mayor Chmiel: Be my guest. I thought maybe you wanted to leave.
Council~voman Dockendorf: Well I do. But I don't want to waste another week. I'm still not happy with our
choices and I would, I'd ask you Don to explore a couple other options.
Councilman Mason: Why aren't you happy, just out of curiosity?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I didn't particularly like this proposal letter. You know I'm sorry.
Councilman Senn: All I can tell you is I'm elated with Brimeyer because Pve been through this process with
them twice in two other cities and he does a fantastic job.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that right?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
60
City Council Meeting - February 26, 1996
Don Ashworth: He's a very dynamic individual.
Councilman Senn: Oh, he certainly is. I mean you're talking about a guy here seriously who was a city
manager for a number of years. He's been in private business for a number of years. He's been a consultant
back to cities for a number of years. I mean he's got every aspect of this, how would I say, every angle on
what we're trying to do that you could ask for.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: What was your take on him Don?
Don Ashworth: Oh, I've known Jim for years and I totally agree with Mark.
Councilman Mason: Well, that takes care of that as far as I'm concerned.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I mean you know. Then maybe I spoke out of turn. I mean I ~vant someone
to tell me that, I mean because I wasn't overly impressed with what I saw.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe with this being brought up before, would there be a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'I1 move approval of the recommendation and agreement?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: In the packet, are there references besides his and your's?
Councilman Senn: I'll withdraxv my motion then. Excuse me.
Don Ashworth: He was, I called him like a Wednesday-Thursday and they were scheduled to be gone the
following week. He dictated stuff before he left and gave it to his secretary. So I guess what I'm saying is, he
did not even get to proof the report...so I'm sure it's sketchy. Sketchier than he would liked to have seen it.
Councilman Berquist: Before I ~vould approve that, I would like to see some references...to people that he has
done this work with because my sense is that, I like his price but you get what you pay for. Well, timeliness is
important. It's more important to do this thing right. If we're going to do it, I'd prefer to make it progress
slowly...not too happy ~vith the results.
Don Ashworth: I will furnish those next Monday night, or for the packet for next Monday night.
Mayor Chmiel: There was a motion on the floor,
Councilman Senn: I withdrew.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We will do the discussion of these last four items at Monday's work session.
The City Council meeting was recessed at 11:25 p.m. until a work session to be held on Monday, Man:h 4,
1996 at 7:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashxvorth, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim
61