CC Minutes 1996 05 06CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 6, 1996
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting xvas opened xvith the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashxvorth, Tom Scott, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Scott Harr and Beth Hoiseth
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda
as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW.
Mayor Chmiel: The City Council is officially convening as the Board of Equalization and Review at this time.
I would like to know if there are anyone here this evening who would like to address their particular appeals at
this time. And if you'd please come forward. State your name, your parcel number as well as your address and
your concern.
Tom Forest: My name is Tom Forest. Hello Mike.
Councilman Mason: Hi Tom.
Tom Forest: Mike used to be my son's fourth grade teacher in Eden Prairie. The parcel number is
R25.2080150. The address is 88 Castle Ridge Court. I'm asking for a relatively minor adjustment on the
assessed value. I have been dealing with Ann Wise on this. I have there's, in my neighborhood, in the Near
Mountain neighborhood there's three houses the size of mine that are identical construction in architecture. I
bought my house in 1993. Paid $120,000.00 for it. There was another house just like it that sold the same year
for $8,000.00 more yet it's assessed less than mine. Mine's assessed for $133,300.00. This one's assessed for
$132,800.00. There's another that's assessed for $129,700.00 and another one assessed for $132,000.00. I think
a fair assessment 5vould be in the $129,000.00 range. I talked to Ann. She came out and looked at the house.
Said she'd lower it to $132,300.00, is what she told me just now so I guess we're just a few thousand dollars
apart. I just find it hard to believe that a house that's over $8,000.00 more than mine would be assessed less
than mine and it's also on a comer lot which is more desirable than mine. It's a little bit larger. It's basically
the same house. So I'm asking for the assessed value to be reduced to $129,000.00,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Tom. Anyone else?
Virginia Harris: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. I'm Virginia Harris. Parcel number is R25.2031020. It's at
752 Vineland Court. I talked with the County and Craig came out and looked at my house. Said that my
assessment was too high relative to others and I was concerned with the way it has been raised so dramatically
over the past several years. In 1994 it was assessed at $83,700.00. In '95 at $87,900.00. In '96 at $89,700.00
and now this year at $94,200.00. That is a big, big jump every year and I became very concerned about that.
So Craig did come out and I was told in order to find out if he had made any adjustment at all I couldn't find
out until I came to this meeting tonight so I would like to know if he was able to make any kind of an
adjustment at all. I think I pointed out to him when he was out there that I don't have a walkout basement as
most of the other homes in the neighborhood that have sold at higher prices do have. I have the city main,
sewer main running right through my lot so it's right by my walk that goes around by the front door which also
lowers the value of that piece of property. I'm right on the comer. I don't have any amenities in. my back yard.
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
I don't back up to the park. I get the Kerber Boulevard traffic, which also lowers the value of that home. And
so I just ~vould like these things taken into consideration because I just feel that that's too big a jump and I don't
think my house should be valued that high. I didn't get the information what the other homes in my
neighborhood are valued at so I don't know ~vhat I'm comparing to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And what was that last raise Virginia??
Virginia Harris: It was about $4,500.00. From $89,700.00 to $94,200.00 in one year. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you,
Orlin Shafer: Mr. Mayor. We didn't intend to bring the answers to the appeals...tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I understand that.
Orlin Sharer: If anybody else has a question about that.
Steve .9: Hi. I'm Steve... My ID number is R25.7450020. It's Lone Cedar. It's out on Highway 5 by the
Arboretum. I didn't come down to appeal my assessed value tonight, although I think it's over stated. I just
came down as a taxpayer after I received my notices for 1997 taxes. Just to go on record. To let you know as
one taxpayer how upset I am with the property tax rates as well as assessed values as a part of the County. To
date, like the lady in front of me, mine have gone up continuously for several years. I have looked at selling
my property over the last several years and never had any real estate agents or formal appraisals showing the
type of increase that I've received on my notice for property taxes. In fact they've shown it...slightly down from
what I paid 3 or 4 years ago. And I just want to come before the Council as a taxpayer and let you know that I
think you have at least one taxpayer that feels that it's time for this City government who represents the people
to look at ways to reduce taxes as well as to review any of the assessed values of properties and I just want to
go on record tonight to let you know about that. I'm not looking for mine to be re-assessed at all. Alright?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just to make you aware Steve. This past year the City Council, from the city
standpoint, did reduce taxes 4% to 5%. Unless there was a re-evaluation of your property, there's no control
that we can do on that. But the city has done that.
Steve: No, I noticed that it did go down in several areas and I saw the notice that I received telling tonight's the
night to come down and talk .... and when I look at some of the things that money is spent on out there and I
realize that people have different opinions but we've had a lot of difficulty in our area getting services improved
out there such as water pressure and problems with milfoil in lakes and so on, yet every year I see my taxes go
up and we're quite concerned about it. Particularly my neighbors which is about a half a dozen people...
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. You're not alone.
Kevin Wynch: Good evening members of the Council, Mayor. My name is Kevin Wynch. My property
identification number is R25.8090170. My address is 6291 Oxbow Bend. I've been a member of the
community here off and on for the last several years. I had a home in Trappers Pass, which is about a block
and a half away from this house that I purchased last November. The reason I'm here is to ask for a re-
appraisal of my home. While I'm flattered that it's appraised at 100% of the purchase price, my last home in
Trappers Pass was more than 85% of the price. I paid $447,500.00 for my home. It's appraised at $446,000.00.
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
That to me is a little tight. When we budgeted the home, typically xve talked to real estate agents and my past
experience being a member of the community, living right doxvn the hill, that home was appraised at 82% of the
purchase price of the home and what we saw an appraisal of the home we sold it, our first home, I truly believe
that this home is over valued with respect to our neighbors, and I talked with them a bit about it. Most people
feel the same way that their house is between 80% and 85% of their purchase price as the tax appraised value.
We budgeted that and frankly I can't, at this point afford to pay the taxes at that rate on this home. It puts it in
the range of $13,000.00 a year, which is pretty expensive for us to budget for taxes. So from that standpoint, I
can go into why the property is worth less. Obviously the best measure of what a property is worth is what it
trades for on the open market. I don't feel since, in my experience that in owning a home in this community
that this home is worth more relative to appraised values of purchase price of the other homes so that's the main
reason for my surprise...but there are other reasons...so that's really the reason for my expectations. I would
think that a more accurate valuation of the home would be in the $390 to $395 range. Not $446 so I'm asking
for that type of...thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? This is your opportunity. Okay. If not, Orlin. Will you state the
amount of appeals that we've had at this time. Well why don't you go up there so that can be picked up.
Orlin Shafer: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. We have had 122 appeals, written appeals into our office. That
included the ones we picked up on May 15th, or April 15th... We have been working on them. Some have been
resolved. Others have not. We're hoping to make conclusions of all of them within this next week. We have a
few more here this evening. We should have it back to you for your packet prior to your May 20th meeting in
order to conclude this hearing. I would suggest that if there are any more appeals submitted to the city between
now and Wednesday or Thursday, that they be faxed over to us or at least let us know immediately and we'll
pick them up. Then we would have to terminate the appeals. Otherwise we...if that's agreeable with the Board.
Just a couple bits of information. If you look at our property that we looked at in the city this year. We
viewed, or we adjusted about 72% to 74% of the pieces of property in Chanhassen. So that many had some
kind of value adjustment. Ironically we had fewer appeals thus far this year than we've had in the last 8 years
I've been here. This is the lowest number I've ever dealt with for the city so it's a good surprise I guess. We
review approximately 1,900 parcels. That includes the...and the new construction homes. The values achieved
this year ~vas just under $100 million. A total of $98 million. Increase in value. Of that, $73,000.00 is new
construction.
Councilman Berquist: And that's all within the city of Chanhassen?
Orlin Shafer: Yes. Yes. We did approximately $25 million in, I'm sorry, $73 million ~vas new construction.
About $25 million in...of our assessment. So the numbers that we do are getting less and less each year. The
first fexv years I was here we were doing almost equal, if not even a little more in total assessment effort and
new construction. That has leveled out. We're able now to just stay even...while we're giving increases in most
cases, it's lesser amounts. Smaller amounts.
Councilman Berquist: So you're saying that out of that $98 million, $73 million was new construction.
Orlin Shafer: New construction.
Couneilman Berquist: That $25 million was an increased in valuation of the existing homesteads.
Orlin Shafer: Yes.
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Is that homesteads only or is that commercial as well?
Orlin Shafer: Not just homes, everything. Yeah. And we did have some in the commercial and industrial
sector also. So it's all properties. I did not split it up by class.
Councilman Berquist: Just out of curiosity, what does that represent as a percent increase? Factoring out the
new construction. Any idea?
Orlin Sharer: No. I didn't run those numbers in. Kind of meaningless for us. The sales were...that we have
determined based on our assessment is about 93%. So while some of the appeals that we're dealing with, the
written appeals that we have deal xvith 85% to 90% ratios, the true ratio for most properties is 93%. 92% to
93%. Right in that neighborhood. So we're maintaining that. Now that's a third year in a row that we've been
consistently with that number. Between 92% and 93 1/2% so it's been very good. Our average selling price
currently is $181,000.00 for a home.
Councilman Berquist: 1817
Orlin Sharer: 181. Two years ago it was 162. So it's gone up roughly $20,000.00 in two assessment...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's not in, when he's saying in selling price and we were quoted the median
price for a home in Chanhassen was what? 151 or something like that, do you recall what it was? Yeah, the
census?
Kate Aanenson: The census. Met Council's census.
Orlin Shafer: They deal with year old numbers. That would have been correct in '95.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's gone up that much?
Orlin Shafer: Oh yeah.
Councilman Berquist: That 180 has got to be skewed by new construction.
Orlin Shafer: 180 is just selling price. That's not corrected for time and the financing. That's just taking the
average selling price. Do you recall how many sales that was Ann? 240 something? 245. Something like
that,.. Anything else?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I think that's fine. Unless anyone has any questions. If not, then the Board will be
closing the hearing this evening and we'll reconvene on May 20th. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I move to recess the hearing at this time until we re-open it on the 20th of May,
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
4
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Benluist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to recess the Board of Equalization heating and
reconvcnc on May 20, 1996. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Don Ashworth: Clarification Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Are we looking at a 7:00 start on the 20th as well?
Orlin Shafer: We'll fit into your agenda as you see fit.
Don Ashworth: It probably would be better.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should. 7:00 on May 20th.
Orlin Sharer: To clarify it for anyone in the audience that's curious. We will deliver the packet to the Council
so they can get the information with their regular packet and have the weekend to go over it and decide what
they want to do. The final decisions on all these values rests with this Board so even though we might make
the recommendation and talk to you as a property owner and say well, if you're satisfied with that and we think
that the Council or Board will be satisfied, we let them know that you're satisfied. It helps them somewhat.
But at the 20th meeting, that's when those decisions ~vill be made.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And in between time, any of these additional new ones that have come, they can also
have discussions with your area and either have them resolved or meet a happy medium or whatever. Okay,
good.
Orlin Sharer: Very good, thank you.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilman Senn: (e) is just a quick question that Don may have thc answer to but I kept trying to hook up
today and we never could.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Why don't you address that one now.
Councilman Senn: In the agreement, as I understand it, there's really two issues. There's the issue of the
protective permanent easement and the issue of the temporary construction easement. The term of temporary
construction easement is for 2 years, which would appear to cover what we're doing in relationship to utilities
but does that mean we're going to need to purchase a new temporary construction easement for the roadway
construction, which probably won't happen within that two year period? Or should we clarify that before we.
Don Ashworth: I don't recall. I see Mr. Klingelhutz is present. And I guess the question that Councilman
Senn is posing is we all believe that reconstruction of Highxvay 101 will occur but as Councilman Senn stated, it
probably will not occur within this 2 year window. Do you know whether or not the temporary easement that
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
we have acquired from you, or proposing to acquire, would include any areas that would require additional
easements if TH 101 is built?
A1 Klingelhutz: The temporary, the way I understand it, in speaking with Charles and looking at the easement
back and where the road alignment's going to be. The 40 foot permanent easement will be part of the road. 20
feet of it will be outside of any part of the road. The other 20 feet will be directly in the road. So as far as the
temporary easement goes, the 20 foot on the east side will be part of the permanent road in the future. So that
~vould not have to be repurchased as a temporary easement. It would have to be repurchased as a permanent
easement.
Councilman Senn: Now what about the, I mean at the time you come back and construct the roadway versus
the utilities that are being constructed now, we will need to impact...temporary construction easement area
again? And the agreement, at least as I'm reading it here, our temporary easement only lasted two years.
A1 Klingelhutz: If and when the road gets constructed, that portion, the temporary easement on the east side of
the 40 foot easement, or the 40 foot permanent easement will have to be a permanent easement because as far as
I can know, there's a 200 foot permanent easement required for the road. Right in that area. In the 40 foot
easement, the permanent easement will be directly on the west side of the permanent. West side of the
permanent easement on the road. The 20 foot temporary easement on the west side won't be a part of the road.
That xvas for constructing the sewer. The 20 foot permanent, the temporary easement on the east side will at
that time, if and when the road is constructed, will be a permanent easement. So that will have to be acquired
as a permanent easement as a part of the 200 feet that is going to be a road.
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, I'm reading a few sentences. I'm reading a few sentences. The easement being
acquired is for both utility and roadway purposes. And it says in addition, there is a two year temporary
easement over another 40,748 square feet. The construction activity has started on the property. You know if
you go down in here later they're assigning a value to that 40,748 but there's a time period on it for two years
and yet above here it says it's for roadway and for utility purposes xvhich to me means it's going to have to last
more than two years.
A1 Klingelhutz: Well, the 40 foot permanent one will last forever. The temporary one, the two year
construction period of any utility. If you're putting utilities past your home, which I hope you never have to
see, there xvill end up being a permanent easement and a temporary easement. The temporary easement is for
the work past your property...and if there's no easement at all, but the permanent easement will stay there
forever.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, excuse me Mark. Couldn't it be that it's a temporary roadway in order to
re-route traffic while they're working on the utilities? I don't know.
Councilman Senn: Like Al says, it takes them this whole area plus more really.
A1 Klingelhutz: Well yeah I guess originally the easement was going to go past the barn and the house and the
permanent easement came within 4 feet of the house. Then they decided that digging a 36 foot trench there
with no place to put the dirt, you'd have to haul the dirt out and haul it back in. Or they would have to drill
the, and my understanding is ~vhen they came in for the second easement which severs my property, they were
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
saving $300,000.00 for the city by going that route. The drilling and what they'd have to do in order to go past
the barn, there was some concern that digging a trench that deep and that close to the house, the basement wall
might cave in. But if you could see what they've been doing do~vn there...40 foot permanent and a 40 foot
temporary and I had my son, Mike go out there and measure it. In some places that easement is between 250
and 260 feet. Now there was no easement on anything over 80 feet. So they take them wherever they want.
I've got pictures of it. I've got verification...and as far as the total price you're offering me, I came down. The
city came up. If it's anything different than that, I'm going through condemnation and I know it will be well
worth it for doing it.
Councilman Senn: No, I'm not questioning the amount. What I'm trying to understand is, you get impacted a
second time when the road is constructed in a broader area than what you're giving as an easement.
A1 Klingelhutz: That's right.
Councilman Senn: So you lose.
A1 Klingelhutz: Oh yeah. So it will be a 200 feet...permanent and 40 feet temporary.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, go ahead.
Don Ashworth: The City Attorney, specifically Gary Fuchs is aware of the fact that we are looking to the
future for TH 101. Any time that, in most cases, actually three appraisals ~vere completed. One for just the
utilities. One for TH 101, the total easement. And the third dealing with the impact of severance on the
remainder of the property. And that's the reason for example from two weeks ago you had in front of you the
Kline property. Because the severance on that was going to be at a point where it made more sense to take the
entire parcel and to do it now. And ~ve feel very comfortable that, I shouldn't put it very comfortable. We
believe that we have established agreements between thc County and MnDot to insure that we get that money
back for those various acquisitions. But I also think that in various areas, and I think Al's is probably one, if
Gary saw a future acquisition as not costing us more or less if we did it now versus insuring that we had the
state dollars in our pocket, that he took let's say like part of this one as a temporary versus trying to take a full
easement and then not be able to reach agreement with the property owner during this time frame that we're
waiting until TH 101 is built. Is that a fair explanation Al?
Al Klingelhutz: Yeah, that's a pretty fair explanation. Actually where the sewer line is going~ there's a
considerable amount of land that's virtually going to be worthless outside of the easement. It's too narrow to
ever build anything in. And I think we figured that out and half valued it so really figure any part of a piece of
land at half value, I think is pretty good consideration to the city and I did agree to that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you Al. Is there a motion to accept 2(e)?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Settlement Agreement, Lyman
Boulevard/Lake Riley Utilities Project, Al and Mary Klingelhutz. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the follo~ving Consent Agenda items
pursuant to fl~e City Manager's recommendations:
Chanhassen East Business Center, CSM Development:
1) Final Plat and Site Plan Amendment Approval.
2) Approve Development Contract and Plans & Specifications, Project No. 95-23.
Oak Ridge of Minnewashta, Greg Hahn:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Development Contract and Plans & Specifications, Project No. 96-9.
g. Approve Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Ski Club.
i. Resolution #96-39: Call for a Public Hearing to Create a Tax Increment Housing Financing District.
Approval of a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the Minnehaha Watershed
District.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
BICYCLE HELMET PROGRAM~ BETH HOISETH.
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. It's nice to be able to bring up an item in front of the Council
that's truly a win/win situation for everyone concerned. This is the first full year that we've had the Public
Safety Education Specialist in place and operational, and Beth has been doing a number of the traditional crime
prevention, public safety related programs. Operation Identification, Neighborhood Watch and that sort of thing,
but in getting out and talking to the community to find out what their concerns were, including meeting with the
Sheriff's Department and paramedics and emergency room staff...but has been incredibly successful and for a
very inexpensive investment to protect one self and family members, I think it's a spectacular opportunity. Beth,
could you tell them a little bit about the program and the costs.
Beth Hoiseth: Sure. As of today we've sold 474 helmets...3 weeks right now. It all really started when I
received a flyer from a non-profit organization called Merit and Safety Awareness and they were advertising
these helmets for $8.00 and it includes the shipping costs. And when I called them they were very flexible.
They said they'll send as many helmets as we'd like and we can pay as we sell the helmets and that's exactly
what we're doing. I ordered 1,200 helmets. Was very optimistic about the program and we're just paying the
bill when we receive the money so there's not out of pocket cost to us at all. Also we really, as Scott had said,
we just want to get the word out that...bicycle equipment includes a bicycle helmet and for $8.00 a piece, every
one in the family can afford a bicycle helmet. I received a lot of support and encouragement from Scott and the
Mayor and Don Ashworth have been very supportive as well. Our support staff has been working very hard and
they're excited about the program. They're the ones that are assisting the public with the sale and they say they
really enjoy it because there's a lot of positive interaction with the public and we've also had some seniors from
-;
City Council l~leeting - May 6, 1996
our senior center sign up to assist our support staff during lunch hours and busy hours so we had Betty Kline
and Maryann Littfin up helping and they're real enthusiastic about the program also. And then also Dr. Dave
McCollum is our city health official and he has assisted in some input to get the program off the ground. Our
biggest customers are children but I'm surprised to see how many adults are buying helmets also. A lot of
parents are coming in and saying well you know, our kids have helmets but I'd never go out and buy one for
myself up until now. And I had a senior citizen come in and she said she bicycles with her granddaughter a lot
and thc granddaughter...you 'know gramma you should have a bicycle helmet on so she came in and bought one
so, we've had a lot of fun stories to share with one another. As you can see, these are a couple of samples of
what the helmets are like. We also have some other colors. We've got a special pattern for the toddlers as well
and these come with assorted pads so you can custom fit them. We advertised with a flyer, as you see. That's
gone out in the Villager and that's going out to every school in Chanhassen's jurisdiction so every child will
bring that flyer home. We've also got it posted at the fire station sign and I've got it advertised on cable as welI
as an advertisement going into the city newsletter as well as I have it attached in my neighborhood watch letters
so we've got it well advertised. We really should be getting the word out. We're real excited about the
response we've received from the program and we plan on continuing this to the end of June.
Scott Harr: ...every one that comes in for a helmet also gets a packet of crime prevention material that Beth has
put together. I'm really proud of Beth. This is a spectacular program.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. You're doing a great job.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE~ THE ItIGH
TIMBER LOUNGE AND MEETING ROOMS~ 575 WEST 78TH STREET~ KI)F CORPORATION.
Don Ashworth: This is the application that you had briefly reviewed from approximately a month ago. Karen
has continued to work with the attorney's office and A1 Schackman from National Lodging. So the application
has been put together. It's been reviewed by Public Safety and we're recommending approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Would you like to make a presentation at this particular time to Council?
Al Sehaekman: Mr. Mayor, I think we covered all of the reasons a month ago that we requested this. If there's
any questions, I'm certainly here to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm just not sure if some of the people who hadn't been here, this being a public hearing, gives
that opportunity for people to ask some questions.
Al Schac 'kman: I will just take a minute just to illustrate that we have moved the plan along, and that's not to
say that we're anticipating any kind of resolution beyond the recommendation of staff and I'I1 just use this to
illustrate that. We have our finishes determined and we have.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you'd like to put those up on the easel up front here.
A1 Schackman: We have a rendition of what we expect the lounge area to look like. This does not include of
course the banquet space. It's also beyond the drawings, what you saw before, we have advanced the plan to
that extent. This is merely the color selections and finishes.
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this particular time7 If so,
please come forward and state your name and your address and your concerns. If seeing none, I'd like a motion
to close the public hearing.
Councilman Berqulst moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion ca,ed. The public heating ~vas closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, do you have any concerns in regard to the proposal?
Councilman Berquist: Well I went back to the February 26th Minutes and I was reading a couple of my
questions and I was fairly specific in asking whether or not it was going to be a public lounge as opposed to
being restricted to hotel guests or conferees or wedding parties or anything else. I did that because I was having
some second thoughts in approving another public establishment and in reading the cover letter that was
submitted with the report, there was a sentence that, the last, second to last sentence in the first paragraph is this
establishment would be open to the general public and that the first sentence of the second paragraph is the
license being sought is for an exclusive liquor establishment and only catered food service would be available.
To me exclusive means restricted to certain persons so I've got a, there's a little bit of an opposite definition
there within the context of the memo. And then in the notice of public hearing we have a reference to selling
intoxicating liquor for catered banquets, wedding receptions and conferences and to hotel guests and then lastly,
almost as an after thought, and the public. Now I 'know when I had specifically asked the question as to
whether or not I could walk into the lounge without staying in the hotel and purchase a mixed drink you said
yes. That has not changed? What I'd like to do Mr. Schackman, and I'm certainly going to listen to what the
other council members have to say but I would really like to explore the types of limitations that would allow
the facility to be workable and yet restrict hours and accessibility. I'd like to talk about that some but that's the
extent of my comments for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well my biggest hang-up is also being open to the general public and opening
another bar in town is certainly not foremost on our list of things to accomplish this year. And I recognize and
appreciate the business need for it, and I think our community needs businesses like the hotel and we need to
help you thrive. Like I said, our hang-up is it being open to the public and I certainly wouldn't want to close
down the exterior entrance. I think we need that. That secondary entrance that doesn't go through the hotel.
But I guess I agree with Steve that, I don't know whether, I mean last time I asked about advertising limitations
and you certainly gave your word that it wasn't your intention to advertise the bar uniquely but to advertise the
catering aspect of it instead. And you had also mentioned that the hours would probably be even more
restricted than what we currently allow. I'm still having a problem so I don't know what solutions, if any,
would make me feel more comfortable with this but if there are any, I'd certainly like to explore them.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Don. Maybe you can make a clarification on it as far as what exclusive means.
Don Ash~vorth: That is a term that is out of city ordinance and I believe it's directly out of State Statute. It
represents the type of liquor establishment so that the statute differentiates an exclusive liquor establishment,
which really is a bar, from a operation where 60% of the sales occur from food which is prepared by the owner
and sold on site. A good portion of the business actually could come from food sales but it would be probably
to a firm that would cater it in so it would not really be a part of the hotel, and so therefore the only...we really
had to look to was putting them as an exclusive liquor operation. I know that the City Council doesn't like to
10
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
hear that but those are the two choices under State Statute. As it would deal with the general public, and this is
dealing ~vith comments back xvith Public Safety. Staff at least considers this application will operate very much
like the Dinner Theater. I mean there is a bar within the Dinner Theater proper and you can go in there and
purchase a drink and not in any way attend a production, but I've never seen it happen. I'm sure people have
done that, but you don't get regular drop-ins that I'm aware of at the Dinner Theater. So I do not believe you're
going to get the massive public. Those are staff comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Is Applebee's going to have a liquor license, do you know?
Don Ashworth: Kate is shaking her head yes.
Councilman Mason: I do see this operation as extremely similar to that of the Dinner Theater and I don't know.
The issue of where to put bars and where not to put bars and where to allow drinking and where not to allow
drinking is always pretty contentious. In view of the fact that I do see this as very similar to what's going on at
the Dinner Theater, I'd be hard pressed to be opposed or quite honestly to look for any changes in itt
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Mark.
Councilman Senn: When the applicant was in before I guess I made a comment and I guess I'll just repeat it
and that is I find it difficult to support another, I'm going to say exclusive bar. Under that term in town. I feel
strongly that if we're going to have additional liquor establishments, they should be in effect as an adjunct to
food and restaurant. I don't like the idea of this being open to the public and the way it's basically being
approved, it can very easily be opened to the public and marketed very heavily to the public. We have no
controls on it at all that way. I'd much rather see this be approved in relationship to liquor served along with
catering banquets for business purposes only or in relationship to hotel functions where there's also food present.
That's pretty much what I'm looking at...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I think some of my concerns have really been addressed. The only thing
that I see is, I recall this was going to be leasing of hotel guests not taking drinks to their rooms. The question
I have is, how will that be done other than visually seeing those people. Will there be any kind of watch area
by someone within that particular location?
A1 Schackman: From our point of view as operators, I don't believe the question's going to be one necessarily
of policing it. It's a matter that by law and by licensing that we're prohibited from serving room service.
Consequently, should we be granted the privilege of having a license, we're going to most certainly operate that
facility in a way that would preclude us in losing the right to do so. It's very important that we have the ability
to serve liquor through that lounge. It's a tremendous investment there. The traveling public, in most hotels,
particularly when you start exceeding 100 rooms, look to have a lounge of some sort and that's been our
experience in Fargo. It's been our experience in White Bear Lake. It's been our experience in Northwest Inn.
Hence the reason here, the whole concept of the banquet, meeting room type space is integral to the ability to
serve liquor as a part of those functions. To restrict the public would be extremely detrimental to our operating
costs and believe me, we would not be proceeding, we would not be able to proceed with the banquet meeting
space without...within the parameters of the law that allowed as an additional income source. The charge seems
to be one Mr. Berquist that we have attempted to conceal the fact that we're going to sell to the public...
11
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Oh no. No, I'm not.
Al Schackman: Never has it been secondary. Never has it been.
Councilman Berquist: As evidenced by my questions to you on the 26th of February, I am not intimating that
in the least.
A1 Schackman: So I mean we've been straight forward and that's our intent. That's our plan. We submitted a
lengthy explanation as to how this facility was going to operate. We feel that we're certainly a less than
insignificant corporate entity in Chanhassen. We have a tremendous investment in the hotel and the expansion.
The continued economic health of that hotel will certainly depend upon our ability to do the banquet, dual
meeting room space and to do a lounge and we respectfully request your approval of this application. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you have your question answered? The one that you had prior. At the end of your
discussion. That's why I was asking you.
A1 Schackman: Maybe I didn't answer the question as to how we police taking drinks to rooms.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you covered it. And it is by State Statute and that's what I was wanting to hear you
say.
Councilman Berquist: And in essence, my last comment before I passed to Councilwoman Dockendorf was the
discussion of limitations that would allow the facility to be workable and yet restricted in terms of hours of
availability. You've already pretty much already answered that by saying that unless it is a public facility, you'll
be unable to make it work. Was that what I heard?
Al Schackman: I don't want to make it sound that harsh. The idea is that we need the ability to operate it as a
public facility to satisfy the needs of a 120 room hotel. And I don't know how to shorten that up. To my guess
they're going to be upset if they don't have the right to go to the lounge and have a drink in the absence of my
having a function at that point.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm not, I have no problem with your ability to serve your guests at any time of day
or night, depending upon what your operating hours are. My concern, and I think a lot of the other members
here concern is the precedent we set by allowing a liquor establishment, an on-sale liquor establishment to be
open to the general public in the city of Chanhassen with no food service available. Well I think that sums it
up. So if in fact there are some limitations that can be tied to the operation of the facility that allows you to
serve your patrons in a manner that you see fit, that's the direction I would like to take.
A1 Schackman: I guess from our standpoint sir, again I don't know I can serve my guest that may check in at
2:30 in the afternoon and want to go to the lounge and have a drink and not be able to serve anybody else who
walks in the door. I think there could be policing provisions and the regulations as established by law and as it
relates to an exclusive liquor license. The law provides for what we're attempting to do.
Councilman Berquist: I understand.
12
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
A1 Schackman: Then it becomes up to us to manage this thing from a standpoint that it does not become a
dive. As you can see from what we're proposing to do, this is probably going to be, this if approved, would
probably be the nicest lounge facility in the city of Chanhassen.
Councilman Berquist: I don't doubt it for a moment.
Al Sehaekman: And we intend to operate it that way.
Mayor Chmiel: Don. Would you make a clarification?
Don Ashworth: The city attorney has previously stated, and too bad this evening. Tom is present. I think the
liquor aspect is one that typically has been more Roger's area of expertise but my recollection of his statements
back to the City Council has been that the City Council has a great deal of discretion as it deals with the
issuance of a liquor license and making a determination as to whether or not the applicant has followed
whatever rules you've established. Accordingly I feel comfortable that if the City Council were to approve this,
and in doing so establish or instruct the city attorney to prepare conditions that would limit advertising to the
general public, which would prohibit any type of signage saying "Band Playing Tonight". I think we've seen
some of that over here at Filly's. And potentially even, I don't really like the restriction you know where no
more than 25% of the business shall be general public not staying overnight because it's virtually impossible to
take and enforce. But if you ~vere to establish reasonable conditions like that, I am sure that that would be
sustained.
A1 Schackman: If I may Mr. Mayor. If I may, I'm somewhat at a loss as to why the operation of this facility
should be subjected to regulations beyond what is already law when there are other liquor licenses that are not,
and they're certainly not as nice of facilities. And they certainly don't embody the type of investment that we
have here.
Mayor Chmiel: I think Council has some concerns because of a denial for a liquor license within a given
restaurant in one of the centers. It's not ~vhat your facility is. I think it's very complimentary and would serve
you very ~vell by having this located within that proposed location. I think that as Don has mentioned the fact
too that conditions may cover some of those concerns in regard to this proposal and maybe if there are no other
questions, I would entertain a motion in regard to this. I can see this as a very positive, for the hotel as a
business. As he's mentioned, the many dollars invested in there~ There's also going to be much. Well I
shouldn't say much need but for those who will stay at that particular hotel, will want to have something of just
maybe a casual drink or even pop, whatever and they don't have that availability there for them to be very
casual and to sit back and just relax. I guess that's at least where I feel I'm coming from.
Al Schackman: Mr. Mayor. One of the other points that I made last February is that this also serves another
purpose and it's totally incidental to the question that you're examining as it relates to liquor. That I believe that
it most certainly addresses the problem of taking an existing building that is totally obsolete, totally non-
functional and creating something that becomes from the standpoint of real estate. Being a piece of real estate
that is again a functional, valuable piece of real estate and putting it to use and that's been the plan all along. If
this doesn't happen, most certainly it's not the end of the world. Some other use may become realistic for that
property. This is a use in hand that would make it work now. And in terms of precedent, I could see a
condition attached to this, or to this approach whereby anybody else who wants to spend between $400,000.00
and $500,000.00 for a hotel. Another $200,000.00 for the lease hold improvements to do this kind of deal.
That those would be the conditions for somebody else getting the same kind of a license. We're putting
13
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
ourselves on the line. We're taking on a lot of risk. We're willing to do that. We see the payoff being down
the road.
Councilman Berquist: I don't, you know I understand what you're saying and you made that same comment
within the Minutes on 2/26, And I agree with you. I think perhaps that you're taking us a little too personally.
Al Schackman: Oh I don't take it personal.
Councilman Berquist: This isn't against the motel. This isn't against the old Animal Fair building. Well it's not
against anything. You're trying to build a bar. You 'know we're trying to do what's right, believe it or not, for
the overall community and if in fact we have questions regarding on-sale liquor, you'll just have to bear with us.
A1 Schac'kman: I appreciate that. I'm merely trying to debate the question. It's important to us to have a
decision. If this doesn't apply, we can drop what we're doing and move on to something different elsewhere.
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: One of the things I tried to think about in relationship to this decision, and I do quite a bit
of traveling. I was hard pressed to think of another hotel anywhere in the United States that has purely a liquor
lounge without any food service or restaurant available somewhere on the same premises. And to me this is
creating a situation that I'm sorry, I've never encountered before. And I have some problems with that. To me
you knoxv I agree that it's a strong element to your hotel, or any hotel, okay. And most hotels I've stayed in
have lounges but they also have restaurants that serve food with it. I've never seen the two separated before.
This is the first time I've seen it.
A1 Schackman: Does that make it bad sir?
Councilman Senn: I think it makes it effectively creating a public type of bar in this community that ! would
just as soon not see one which effectively starts a series of such facilities, yeah. Because if I give it to you, that
means I have to start giving it to everybody else.
Councilman Berquist: It doesn't make it bad but it makes it less attractive. That's the real bone I think. That it
simply makes it less attractive. So now it's something we have to figure out.
A1 Schackman: Well certainly we'll listen but in my mind, from an operating standpoint, it's very, very hard for
me to imagine how we can restrain our operations beyond those conditions already established by law. We
think that you're well protected. We also look at ourselves as not being somebody who's trying to create a dive.
Trying to create that kind of a liquor operation. This is to be a support service to a 120 room hotel and it is
key to the creation of the meeting and banquet room space...
Councilman Senn: Which is going to effectively only function as it relates to catering food.
Al Schac'kman: Correct.
Councilman Senn: So what's the problem with serving liquor only in conjunction with catering food?
14
City Council l~leeting - May 6, 1996
Al Schackman:
a function.
So then my hotel customers can't go to the lounge to buy a drink unless ! happen to be catering
Councilman Senn: Well sir, I mean you've had a hotel operating there for years without a bar in it.
Al Schackman: Well there's a lot of changes in the hotel industry and the current hot button if you will in the
hotel development is limited service needs hotel. That's what we operate...
Councilman Senn: I stay in them all the time but I don't see lounges by themselves sitting in any of them. Not
one...
A1 Schackman: Well maybe this should be the first.
Councilman Berquist: Well, I'd like to make a motion to table this and give the Council a chance to cogitate on
it.
Councilman Mason: It's a public hearing still.
Mayor Chmiel: No, we closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to see a list of ideas, perhaps from the City Attorney, in terms of how we
can put some constraints.
Councilman Berquist: Work with the applicant.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely.
Councilman Berquist: See what's workable. If it proves to be workable, great. If it proves to be something
that we're, that we have some serious concerns with which I, I want to see it, believe me. I want to see it
happen but I also want to see it done in a manner that I am comfortable with. I mean if I wasn't sitting here on
this board. If I was in any other town and I did not have to pass judgment on it, I'd say hey. Sounds like a
great idea. Why don't those guys, why can't those clowns approve it. Well, this clown has a hard time just
arbitrarily saying yes to on-sale liquor in the city of Chanhassen at the present time.
Al Schac 'kman: I hope that we have not said anything, certainly that I've not said anything that suggests that
there are clowns acting.
Councilman Berquist: No, that's my word only.
Al Schackman: Because I sincerely respect the right of this particular Council to pass judgment on a proposal.
My job here is to sell you on the fact that we're going to need to operate this in a manner that does not create a
problem for anybody who may have approved that. It is truly a most important step for us to achieve because
we don't create this banquet space, if we don't create the meeting room space, if we don't create the lounge~
another hotel is going to be looking very, very closely at doing that in this town. Now they provide food.
That's fine, but we think we've demonstrated a track record from the time that we've been here as a good
corporate citizen, that we should be worthy of your consideration and I would again, we respectfully request
that.
15
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: We do have a motion on the floor for tabling.
Councilman Berquist: Is it specific enough?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think that, well I appreciate the fact that this would be a great addition to
downtown. If it's going to happen, it should happen there. I mean I realize the City's benefitting from this
proposal as xvell so...beneficial but there's just a couple things we need to get comfortable with.
Councilman Benluist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the request for the on-sale
intoxicating liquor license for The High Timber Lounge and Meeting Rooms at 575 West 78th Street, KDF
Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 38~948 SQ. Fr. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY; LOT 1~ BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION~ TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES 1I~ RAY
COLLINGS.
Kate Aanenson: This is a lot located in the Chan Business Center 2nd Addition. Just over here off of Audubon
Road and Lake Drive East. The applicant is proposing an industrial...it is consistent with the PUD standards we
developed for this industrial park. The architecture we believe is well conceived. There was a modification that
the Planning Commission had along one large spans of wall. There was additional windows put in here. They
felt that that wall was too long... We also believe that the materials selected for the project are also consistent
and of high quality. One of the concerns that the Planning Commission did have and the staff had put in the
report was that we believe that additional landscaping still needs to be put in the project to buffer the, especially
buffer the loading dock areas in this area. That is a condition of approval. Again with that, I'll let the architect
speak to more specifics of the building but we believe it is consistent with the PUD and are recommending
approval with the modifications and conditions of the staff report.
Rick Wesling: Hi, my name is Rick Wesling with TSP/EOS Architects and Engineers. The building you see
before you is, as you stated, roughly a 40,000 square foot building. We're looking at a warehouse office
building with roughly a 14 foot...building. It's not a tall warehouse office building like you might see on a
much larger piece of property. It's roughly 250 feet by 160 feet deep. As discussed, we've chosen materials
which are consistent in the PUD intent. Basically it deals with the building, and I'm going to put it back down
here to the elevation. The feel of the building is lighter color. It will be a smooth face, concrete block unit.
The color of this block is integral. That is it goes all the way through, and it will be accented with horizontal
band and chevrons, if you will for lack of a better term, over rock faced block of this darkest color. As the
building meets the ground, or the base of the building, from this darker band on down will be this lighter rock
faced block right here. At the entry we've chosen to accent the architecture by using what's called a standing
seam metal roof. This is this red color right here. This deep red and as well as adding some face brick of these
two colors. The majority of the face brick at the column will be this lighter red and then the darker color tying
in with the horizontal rock faced band will happen right about this height as the band travels all the way around
the building. In addition to, and at staff's suggestion to articulate this facade more, it is 120 foot long facade.
16
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
We have added windows and we've added them at the locations I'm pointing to right here. 6 windows
approximately 4 feet wide and approximately 6 feet tall.
Kate Aanenson: I just ~vant to interject. Those are shown on the plans that were submitted in your packet on
Sheet A2, just so you know the change xvas made.
Rick Wesling: One change that we have not made at this elevation but I will point out is, we've shown the roof
coping as being a light tan color. We feel that that's a little weak in terms of articulating the facade and change
to a darker color here. I think that adds more...to the building as we discussed. A common concern on
warehouse office building...warehouse office building like this is roof top units. This site from I believe
Audubon Road as you look down on this site, it's going to be impossible to shield those units from traveling on
Audubon Road and that's common for this building and every other building that sits in this development.
That's unfortunate but we're paying for our nice...to be here in this part of Minnesota. What we have chosen to
do versus building a parapet was simply building a fence or some other structure around the roof top units.
We've moved the roof top units towards the center of the building as far as ~ve reasonably can and still access
the office areas which are the only areas of the building which are conditioned in the summer. And the plan,
these units will be roughly along this location. About from the center of the building. I've taken liberty to draw
sight sections through the building A, B and C respectively, of vehicles traveling on Commerce or Lake Drive
West and from all those locations, the best way we can predict at this point, you shouldn't be able to see those
units. We've been fairly conservative. That is estimating the height quite high of those units versus what we
anticipate they'll be. The one area or weak point that in all honesty I wanted to make sure that we may have to
adjust is from C. As you turn onto Commerce Drive, where the lower roof and the higher roof meet, that's our
area of least certainty if you will, in terms of blocking the unit. But from what we can tell from our sections
no,v, you shouldn't be able to see those units from the roads immediately adjacent to the site. Further in regards
to the landscaping and shielding the truck apron at the rear of the building. There's two approaches xve're going
to take to that. One, staff has indicated they would like to see more trees. We will implement that into a
landscape plan. In addition to that, we're going to increase the height of the berms in these areas to further
shield that from traffic driving by and from the neighbors. In a nutshell, that's where we're at. We're embracing
the suggestions that staff has given as very reasonable in working with us in terms of developing this plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Rick, just one quick question in relationship to your sight lines. What heights did you
take that from? Sitting in a vehicle? Standing? What was the distance?
Rick Wesling: Sitting in a vehicle. Roughly sitting in a vehicle you're probably 48 inches off the ground where
standing eye height typically is around 5 foot 6. The advantage of...from the vehicle height, is that you are
farther away. You're on the road. For a pedestrian walking by, being another 15-20 maybe even 25 feet closer.
Their sight lines may even be more severe. I doubt if they would even be able to see it at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen, do you have any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I mean, that wasn't a number one concern because you can see all the units
out there now and I'm thinking from Heritage or what's it called now, Creekside Subdivision, it's probably going
to be even more visible, albeit further away. And probably Berquist could answer this question even better.
How do we get these units to, can you paint them? Is that the plan?
Kate Aanenson: That's xvhat we recommended.
17
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Rick Wesling: That's xvhat xve would hope to do is paint them and hopefully that xvould be a factory applied
paint so it ~vould be above average...peeling is worse than if you hadn't done anything at all. But to pick a
color that will help it blend in more. It's not uncommon...ballast on it of rocks to keep the wind from blowing
the roof off~ And you pick a color that's at least sympathetic to that, it becomes more of the background.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that is the intention?
Rick Wesling: That is the intent to get a unit that has a color that's sympathetic to the ballast...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: No, it seems to me like the applicant picked an architect that knew what they were doing
when they designed this and xvorking with staff. It all looks good to me. Planning Commission's happy.
Stall's happy. It sounds like the applicant and the architect's happy so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not I would request a motion, which is on page 12 under
recommendation.
Councilman Mason: I will make that motion to City Council approve Site Plan #96-2 for a 38,948 square foot
industrial office building located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition as shoxvn on the
plans dated Received April 30, 1996 and subject to the following conditions as stated in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Council~voman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan #96-2 for a 38,948
square foot industrial office building located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition as
shown on the plans dated Received April 30, 1996 and subject to the following conditions:
1. The grading plan needs to be modified as follows:
a. The westerly parking lot grade needs to be adjusted to drain half of the parking lot north and a catch
basin extended from the cul-de-sac to convey stormwater runoff from the site.
The overall site must conform to the master drainage plan. Detailed storm drainage calculations will
be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Drainage calculations shall be for a 10 year, 24
hour storm event.
c. Grading limits shall be adjusted to end at the property line to avoid impacting existing boulevard
improvements.
18
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances, protection around catch basins, and silt
fence around the perimeter of the site need to be shown on the final construction plans prior to issuance
of the building permit.
The applicant shall use the existing sewer and water service provided from Commerce Drive. Utility
extension from Lake Drive West shall be prohibited.
All access driveways need to be 26 feet wide face-to-face and the turning radius on the drive aisles from
the easterly parking lot on to Lake Drive West and Commerce Drive need to be increased from 10 feet to
15 feet.
The easterly curb cut on Lake Drive West needs to be moved easterly 8 to 10 feet to avoid impacting the
existing fire hydrant.
All driveway curb cuts along Lake Drive West need to incorporate pedestrian ramps.
All driveway access points shall be constructed with industrial drive~vay aprons per City Detail Plate No.
5207.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Additional information xvill be required with reference to warehouse commodity classification~ height
of storage and shelving plans. Contact Fire marshal for details.
b. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991. '~'i~e Department Notes
to be included on Site Plans." Copy enclosed.
d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991, '~mfim Plans." Copy
enclosed.
e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992, "Premise Identification."
Copy enclosed.
f. Comply with Inspection Division Installation, Policy #34-1993, '"~Vatcr Service Installation for
Commemial and Industrial Buildings." Copy enclosed.
g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36-1994, "Combination
Domesfic/Fi~e Sprinkler Supply Line." Copy enclosed.
h. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #40o1995, '~im Sprinkler Systems,"
Copy enclosed.
i. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on water service. Location must be
approved by the Fire Marshal.
19
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
10.
All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible
materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment
that would blend in with the building materials.
11.
The freestanding sign shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in sigh display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an
element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme
will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. The property
shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign
must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The sign should be consistent in color, size and
material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A
separate permit is required for all signage on site.
12.
Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A
decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be
used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level
for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street
lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used
in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-site and no
more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the property line.
13. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements.
14.
Applicant must provide 49 trees on site to meet ordinance requirements. Trees must be a minimum of 2
1/2 inches if deciduous and 6 feet if evergreen. The applicant is required to guarantee the trees for two
growing seasons.
15. The applicant must provide additional year round screening of the truck loading area. Landscaping must
be provided on the north, west and south sides of the area.
16. The applicant will work with staff to provide variation and detail to the architecture.
17. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen the trash
enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Benluist abstained, and ~he motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN EXPANSION TO CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE~ CITY OF
CHANHASSEN.
Kate Aanenson: As you're aware, the city is intending to expand City Hall approximately 11,000 square feet
with the addition to the west, shown here as a revisionary...parking area. This was the original proposal. Staff
had made some modifications. We were concerned about circulation through here as a cut through. The
20
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
elimination of the driveway off of Coulter and the possibility of making that cut through where people are in
this parking lot. Staff revised the site plan and put a larger planter area here to try to slow some of that traffic
movement down. This site plan has since been modified since the Planning Commission reviewed it. There
will be a sidewalk that continues this way and this sidewalk over to Kerber has been eliminated. When the
Planning Commission reviewed this they had some concerns about what the overall, long range vision for this
city hall expansion would be. The concern was that it's being done, possibly being done in increments and how
does that relate to a larger vision for this property. It ties back to what the Vision 2002 was looking at and how -
that related so they had some concerns. There was quite a bit of discussion on that and there was two no votes
as far as the expansion based on some of that discussion. Again the materials will be similar to the materials
that are currently used on this building, which is behind you here. That's the color brick. We also had some
recommendations for additional landscaping on the perimeter of the building and with that, and the
modifications by the Planning Commission, staff is recommending approval. Todd Christopherson is here, if
you have questions on the specifics of the building. He certainly can answer some of those too.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Kate.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Don.
Don Ashworth: If I could add. As I was reviewing this and I saw that engineering was asking that the. road
section move up from I think like a 22 foot section to a 26, and then another 8 feet. 6 to 8 feet for what is the
taper zone area...up to 32 feet of pavement out there. I mean it's kind of going through a park area you know.
So I would really recommend, I xvalked around and I think most of the departments concurred, to looking to like
a 16 foot section and establishing it as a one way. The best would be to take it one way as you would head
east. So you can go from the west to the east but not visa versa. The other part with that is, especially if you
start doing a 32 foot section, there's going to be a lot of people leaving the post office, living well in Mike's
neighborhood. Anywhere north and west of here xvill have the tendency to take and use that road as a means to
take and form a short cut.
Councilman Mason: Well it's going to go one way west though, isn't it Don?
Don Ashworth: I also think by having that one way, you still have a lot of usage of the elementary school
property for kids. The skating component ~vill be maintained. I'm hoping that the ballfield can retain, we can
keep that in there. We'll also be doing filling to the front and making that property hopefully for some of the
real young kids, that we might be able to move some of those functions actually to the front.
Councilman Berquist: To the front? Where are you speaking of 7. To the front.
Don Ashworth: Three lots.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, where they're playing right now.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm wondering if there's any questions. Todd, would you like to come up here and answer
some of these.
Councilman Berquist: Was this thru way on the plan that was submitted at the Planning Commission?
21
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Kate Aanenson: This thru way here?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, correct. Yes. There was discussion about it's width and whether it should be two way
and safety of cars being allowed to park in this area. It's intended that this be for short delivery, drop off,
picking up a building permit and there was discussion about safety and that width and that's why Don had
brought up his comments about maybe making it one way.
Councilman Berquist: Is not the purpose of this addition to serve public safety and building and inspections?
Fairly specifically.
Kate Aanenson: This specific addition?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: There's proximity there, It also gives proximity to the elevator too so anybody else that would
want to use the elevator, it's in closer proximity too.
Councilman Berquist: Is this, I mean I look at this road and I see dollar signs. Is there.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think that goes back to the overall circulation. I think that's where the Planning
Commission. If Coulter, if that segment of Coulter is eliminated some day in the future. If we do a city park
or something there, then you would want that flow.
Councilman Berquist: That's probably true, which gets me to my yeah. I don't disagree with that. On the other
hand I question the need for, I question the real need for it at the present time. Again, given the fact that we're
operating with rather, hopefully rather limited funds.
Kate Aanenson: You're talking about just this segment through here?
Councilman Berquist: I'm talking about the whole interconnecting road here, yes.
Kate Aanenson: Right, this segment.
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: I guess we were looking at it from a circulation point. Again we believe that there may be
some deliveries and that sort of thing at that point.
Councilman Berquist: You know Jeff Farmakes, when I was at the Planning Commission meeting, Jeff
Farmakes said that they had never seen the grand plan, if you will. I think that was his phrase. And in keeping
with the grand plan with the front nose of the building being pushed out and the additional parking that was
planned for that area, I just look at this thing and see there's a tremendous amount of dollars. We're giving up a
park there. We're adding parking that originally was going to be expanded down into the front of the building.
Now all of a sudden that parking is being shifted up to the top so in a manner of speaking, the grand plan is
being bastardized by the segmentation of the construction. Are you with me?
22
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: And what happens generally, what's that?
Councilman Senn: That's why...plan. I mean there is no relationship at all.
Councilman Berquist: What was my point there I wanted to make? I forget what it was.
Mayor Chmiel: You ;vere rudely interrupted.
Councilman Berquist: Mike made some smart comment.
Councilman Mason: Nooo, Mike didn't make any comment. No, that was the person to the right of me Mr.
Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Senn made a smart comment? That's his first. Anyway, now if in fact the grand
plan is to push the nose of the building out, expanded with the atrium or whatever in the world the kind of final
shape it takes, and we end up in fact adding parking to serve that main entrance, does this parking not then
become supperless to some degree? I mean you and I talked earlier about the practicality of putting C vehicles
up here versus down here but 5 years, 6 years, 3 years, whatever down the road from now, when that plan is
presented, KKE, bless their hearts, are going to come in and say well you need 4 more parking lots down here.
This one up here is not going to be used very much. By the way, these two lots here are going to cost you
about 60 grand.
Don Ashworth: If I may ansxver?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Don Ashworth: I believe that the lots in the front can become smaller. Some things as, the road as it dealt
with the overall plan, you maybe turn that back to planning people and they kind of draw lines and you make a
connection over to Kerber and say okay, well that's where it's going to be. Once you start getting into actual
elevations and you realize that you really can't punch a road, a connection directly out to Kerber because it's
maybe 10 to 12 feet lower, you realize that the one real connection is going to be come across from the Byerly
connection and that that represents the safest point to have that. So as far as the additional pavement, you
might say, why not have that as a part of a parking lot versus just kind of this long road type of thing that
might come into a small parking lot. The other thing that came to light that really wasn't maybe considered as a
part of the master plan, is the recognition as to the number of city vehicles and generally the eye pollution and
problems that we're creating with the number of vehicles here. So I think that the overall lot grew from
probably 40 to then 50 to the current 80 configuration just to insure that basically we're getting those vehicles
up and out of kind of sight of everything. And as far as the master plan, I think that that's a good idea. It will
probably generate more green area to the front and ! think that Councilman Berquist...answer stated, is that what
we want. And personally I think that would be a good idea, but you have to answer that question.
Councilman Berquist: Well you know, there's green area and then there's green area and we end up taking a
green area that serves as a legitimate ballfield and granted that will probably be affected regardless of the plan
that we ultimately adopt. But it would certainly be nice to try and work to save that. The green area that
serves as the front of the building is not designed as a ballfield nor probably will it ever be designed as a
23
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
ballfield for 4, 5, 6 year olds, whatever. Whatever the age of them. I'm not completely ruling out the plan
that's before us but the drive through along the back, xvhich is a significant amount of cash, and the expansion
of the parking lot to triple, if not more the size of the existing lot that's up there, again reflected against the
grand plan, may not make sense. You know I hear what you're saying as far as accessibility goes. I understand
that aspect of it.
Don Ashworth: Could I make a final comment on that?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Don Ashworth: I don't know how this fits in with grand plan or xvhen we first saw things but we've got a
terrible problem with parking as it deals with these two lots. The number of library functions that are going on
at this point in time. The number of...meetings. The number of times this room is used. Seniors continue to
just be a real growing influence and they're literally parking around side streets at this point. This is going to
be one of the best access points for seniors, especially recognizing the elevator that's going to be put in. I do
not think that it's over designed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Any more Steve?
Councilman Berquist: I've said enough.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think that the access to the back makes sense. I don't think we need to make the
parking lot. Every evening I drive here there's cars lined up on Coulter. I don't think anyone's arguing the fact
that there's a shortage of parking. I'm just trying to figure out who's going to park where to access what they
need. And if we've got that lot back there, then we definitely need to keep our front lot free. That means all
staff park back there. All city vehicles park back there and of course building, people coming in for permits are
going to want to park back there. That would leave open the lots out front here by the library. My concern is
that with the parking lot back there, if we're changing the orientation of where the entrance is, and that's one of
the biggest problems to City Hall right now is what's the front? How do you get in? And I realize we're going
to have a reception desk back there but the ultimate goal is to make the front a front. The entrance. I don't
know. I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Quick question of Kate. Why was the sidewalk eliminated out to Kerber?
Kate Aanenson: This sidewalk?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: I think it has to do with grades. It drops off pretty fast right there.
Todd Christopherson: Actually that was the result of...shoveling the sidewalk and there's the liability for steps
going down there...The pedestrian traffic, if they wanted to go west, to provide the angle sidewalk so there's one
set of steps coming down the west side...
24
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Kate Aanenson: There's a significant grade change. There'd be a lot of steps because that was the concern and
it just made more sense, probably most people ~vould take that loop.
Councilman Mason: I too am going to discuss more stuff later on this and I'll wait until the end but I agree
with Colleen. I think that if it a drive thru's going to be needed 5 years from now, why in heavens name
wouldn't we put it in now. I can't envision that it won't be used now. It makes the whole complex that much
more accessible. I certainly like the idea of a 16 foot road as opposed to a paved paradise, as some of us know
Joni Mitchell used to say.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Who?
Councilman Mason: Joni Mitchell. Later Councilwoman. But yeah, that bigger parking lot was a bit of a
shock but I also think that as we take a look at this project and as we take a look at how City Hall is growing
and will continue to grow, quite honestly 'knowing that all city vehicles will be up there, much more out of sight
than they are right noxv, I find a real plus. That's all for noxv.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't knoxv. When I got this I was I guess a little surprised or taken back. I went back
and pulled out of the file the concept plan. I don't kno~v. It seems to me we've kind of lost our overall
planning sense here. I mean I'm not going to disagree that the drive thru may not be needed but all of a
sudden...decided to put it on the north side of the building where before...south of the building. And the
orientation on the building is the south. Everything on the orientation, including all the parking and everything
else.
Councilxvoman Dockendorf: This pass through is not to the south.
Councilman Mason: This pass through is not there at all.
Councilman Senn: In the concept plan it was never there. It was never there on the initial plans that we looked
at in...
Councilman Mason: The last plan we had had a pass through, didn't it?
Councilman Berquist: In the overall master plan there was a pass through there. However, it wound around
because there was no real lot up here. It simply came around the north...
Councilman Mason: ...plan before. This is not the first time it's come up.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand. I don't know, the one I pulled up dated 4/5/96 and it's not there. Maybe
we're all dealing with different plans but.
Councilman Berquist: Well that's a long time ago. 4/5/96.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's a real long time ago. If we're going to start changing the way we're designing
the overall project from what we xvere doing before, because I thought when we said we were going ahead with
this addition, it was this addition in relationship to the overall project and concept we looked at. And you know
25
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
now to simply move this major parking area to the top where there was going to be a very, you know small
parking area, I mean that just leaves a lot of questions in my mind in terms of the overall design. Are we still
going to build a parking lot down below that we planned on building? If so, what's the added cost? You know
from an overall issue, I have a real problem taking effectively parkland that's an active use right now and taking
it out of the active use when we're trying to do exactly the opposite. You create a parking lot in your original
design can go on an inactive land to the south. It seems to me that's following the wrong direction. At least in
terms of what we're trying to accomplish overall in terms of increasing active park space and that sort of thing.
So I don't know. To me it's almost like we need to go back and revisit the issue of what's the overall design or
concept. I think what's being presented raises more questions than it answers. Just one other silly point. At
our last review meeting on this issue as it relates to the building plans that are proposed here, we asked that the,
knowing the expanded senior center be taken out and yet it's still being...I think all the Council concurred that
we should take that out. It still hasn't been taken out. It's still being called expanded area for the senior center.
I was a little surprised to see that still.
Councilman Berquist: And that was simply going to be struck so it did not...any confusion?
Councilman Senn: Right. I would say pre-allocate the space so to speak. Or give anybody the wrong
impression that that was pre-allocated for that use. And then I also, we had a question I guess in the grade in
relationship to the reviewing the Planning Commission stuff and saw that Hoisington was taking...is Hoisington
a sub-contractor to KKE now in terms of the architecture and engineering or are they a separate contractor and
how does that fit in relationship to the overall budget to be approved and the amount we approved for
architecture and engineering which was to go to KKE.
Don Ashworth: Todd.
Todd Christopherson: Ah yes. They've been on board the project for some time now and there was a line item
established for landscape architecture and civil engineering, separate from KKE.
Councilman Berquist: Is this project ready to take to bid? The drawings as they are?
Todd Christopherson: Pardon?
Councilman Berquist: Is this ready to go out to bid? The way the drawings are prepared.
Todd Christopherson: The project is going out to bid based on the last meeting we had.
Councilman Senn: With these changes do you feel the bids are going to come in on budget?
Todd Christopherson: There are some things that have come into the plan since the last cost estimate was done
on the plan in January. A few things that I can think of that would be substantial. Substantial cost increases.
One is the electrical service. On the original...the addition was just going to be the back area that we could tie
into the existing electrical service and... And the final design of that, it turns out that the existing service is not
adequate even to do a smaller addition so the plans that are currently out to bid include providing a new
transformer at the back of the building. A new service in the new basement and then that feeding the existing
space so that's going to be a cost increase that we did not anticipate... We don't have a final number of that but
that could potentially be $20,000.00-$25,000.00. Noxv what that does is, it provides capacity in the electrical
service to service future expansion on the front so it's getting right now for some...few years from now.
26
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Berquist: How much increase in capacity do you have? How much additional extra?
Todd Christopherson: I don't have that number yet...I know that the existing service I believe is 600 amps. I
don't want to speak on anything that I don't feel...
Councilman Berquist: That's being sized to handle the...master plan?
Todd Christopherson: Right...some excess space .... that one area where the budget is, we talked about... A lot
of these things that we talked about were figured into that last cost estimate. We had anticipated that the
driveway would be connecting there on the north side. We had talked about that. So I think we're in, we think
we're in pretty good shape. Some of these things that the staff has come up with between the Planning
Commission and noted in the staff report, most of those things were picked out prior to issuing...bids. The
widening of the parking lot by 2 feet on each side. The wider turning radius so...smaller driveway, one way
driveway we ~vould have to make those adjustments before we awarded a contract.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the award date is when?
Todd Christopherson: The bids are going to be opened here at City Hall a week from Wednesday and my plan
is to, there will be a...all the bids work that we can bid out...in your packet so that we can be here two weeks
from tonight to review the bid results.
Councilman Berquist: Any bet on dollar amounts? I know that's an unfair question.
Todd Christopherson: Well the budget that we established, with the addition of the electrical item that's...we
should be close.
Mayor Chmiel: Ballpark figure.
Todd Christopherson: We have $554,000.00 in for the building. I think we have $150,000.00 in for the site
work. Like I said, I think the electrical will be an additional $20,000.00 to $25,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One of the things with this road portion, if I remember correctly 9 months, maybe a
year ago. This was brought to the HRA and the HRA brought up the fact that whether they should take out the
ballfield as well, or the hockey rink that's up there and it was suggested at that time to leave the hockey rink
and take that portion of that ballfield out because they figured that they could utilize some of that field there for
the younger ball players. T-ball. Things of that particular nature. Still make a field out of there.
Councilman Berquist: Out of the hockey rink?
Mayor Chmiel: No, no, no. The hockey rink remains.
Councilman Berquist: The hockey rink stays.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Where we're taking out the existing baIlfields. And some of that because of distances
with the younger kids, there's enough area there that they can still play ball.
Councilman Senn: What's HRA deciding that for? Why didn't it come back to Council?
27
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: That came back to Council at that particular time.
Councilman Senn: With a plan?
Mayor Chmiel: Do you remember that?
Don Ashworth: The funding for those improvements was actually being considered at that point in time as back
through the HRA. So it was presented at both the HRA and to the City Council. And I do recall the HRA
discussion in terms of let's stop this thing short of going clear. The best solution was to have this road connect
basically into Market Boulevard. Create an opening at a point where you already had an intersection. But I do
recall the HRA had said, no. They thought that it should be short. I also believe that it went back to City
Council.
Councilman Senn: The last time the HRA was involved in the funding of this project was umpteen work
sessions ago before we even settled on the...concept plan.
Don Ashworth: That's why I agree with Don that that was well over a year ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, 9 months a year. Time goes by quickly. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. The only
reason I didn't open it up the last time, we had the public hearing over.
Bill Schubert: Mayor, members of the Council. I'd just like to address... I was at the Planning Commission
where they went and reviewed... My initial concerns...were actually rather against it. Thanks to some of the
individuals in City Hall, they convinced me yes, this was a very good idea so now I just got doxvn to the details
on how it should be done. One of the concerns that you've already brought up was brought up two weeks ago
also. I had come up with a couple things when I approached the Planning Commission and would just like to
put through some of these things. One of which was trying to provide trees to provide a greater block from
Kerber and the side there as people are coming down Kerber Boulevard. I do not see that in this revised plan at
this point. In an effort to try to reduce the area of an open parking lot. There was also a concern of a
handicapped access. To try and improve and better the access so handicapped individuals could better use the
ne;v facilities...handicapped spacing was at the lower level and therefore...going uphill at that point.
...mentioned the ballfield provided at...this parking lot is going to be taking out the entire infield of the...it was
the Bandimere Park I believe's the name of it. Would be...and there's still to this day I see in the middle of a
cornfield a wonderful sign saying "Future Site of Bandimere Park".
Mayor Chmiel: At least it's there.
Bill Schubert: At this point if we go and do this sort of thing, I wonder what the planning committee or the
environmental committee...finding a replacement facility so the kids can play. T-ball is great but there's still lots
of other...that use this current park right here...looking at the plan and the project book and how is it going
to...10% and 15% a year. Incredible growth rate for any given city. So obviously not only do we need...need
this expansion as we continue... When I asked the Planning Commission where they planned to go for the next
expansion, the proposal was across the street. Across Coulter. Taking out the little building that's right across
there...It doesn't seem like the right way to go...the looks of this facility relative to say you know our State
Capitol with beautiful marble floors and wonderful facilities right there...where somebody complained we
shouldn't be spending that kind of money so I'd like...inexpensive and obviously you're looking at budgets and I
appreciate that. After looking through the plans and things like that, my personal opinion...was go straight west.
28
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
We have a fair amount of land still going straight over to get to Kerber. That would provide the opportunity to
make in the future a front facility or a front door someplace...as opposed to the parking lot ~vhere it currently is.
Would you please put up the overhead? May I just point out a personal opinion?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Bill Schubert: My personal opinion is thinking of this way, is coming straight out here as possible future
expansion... The parking lot not being down here. We could end up...if we get a future expansion, we're going
to lose the hockey rink anyway. We've already lost a ballfield and...parking back in here going across.., first
saw this plan at the Planning Commission, I hadn't enough time to digest and come up with additional ideas.
The one would be...I'm not sure if the Environmental Commission was comfortable...there isn't much room for
expansion...or cutting into our current parking lot we have now. And as is, if we can at least see something to
support the putting...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. There are other alternatives that we looked at with additional expansions.
Councilman Berquist: Has Bill seen, is it Bill?
Bill Schubert: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Have you seen the, what I would call the grand plan or the long term schematic of what
we're thinking the building is going to look like and how it's configured?
Bill Schubert: As of the Planning Commission meeting, middle of April, the only thing I heard was the...
Councilman Berquist: Have you got that thing?
Kate Aanenson: No. I think Don brought some of those down.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have that? Is that something that...
Don Ashworth: ...have Todd Christopherson go through maybe with me...it is a long range plan.
Councilman Berquist: Put that thing up. Let's talk about a cross street. Now look at that parking up there on
the top. Doesn't affect the ballfield.
Don Ashworth: At issue xvas, is this really feasible? Which it isn't.
Councilman Berquist: That's the access...
Councilman Senn: So the small lot you're showing up to the left side there, that's not what we're going
to...now. According to the plan.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's basically to align that road with Byerly's.
Don Ashworth: Here you're talking about parking 30 spaces. If you really have a desire to see these vehicles
here out of here, and allow for the public safety vehicles, 30 spaces is not really a realistic number.
29
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Mayor Chmiel; That's when it went from 30 to 50 to now they're at 70 something.
Don Ashworth: ...get down into, is this realistic?
Councilman Senn: Well if it's not realistic...I mean again, why are just putting the whole thing to the north'?.
don't understand why we're...developing the parking to the south as we planned. And furnishing the parking
we've got...I'm just asking if those things were looked at. I mean if that's again the grand plan, the parking
was_.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My question is, it would be hard to make those parking lots to the front smaller.
You need a turn around. So perhaps, are we going to have too much parking in the long run? That's my basic
question. I mean you said earlier that we could make the parking lots to the front smaller. I don't see how.
Kate Aanenson: Can I address that since we're the ones that evaluated it. The planning department went
through and evaluated some of that. Part of the long range objective is, what I understood the vision to be is
we're trying to also create some public open space on, as part of the presence on West 78th. It still had the
presence that this is our front door but had a community public space in a more natural kind of environment.
So we went through and evaluated the mix of uses that are here, which we believe that there will be increase in
seniors. There is increasing use of the library facility and the overlap of this building for public meetings. That
we believe that we're not going to be under parking. We're trying to meet what we believe is already there right
now, especially in the summer when they have, they run the summer programs out of here. It's tight right now.
We're trying to even just catch up with the shortage. Even the number of employees and the like so, xve
certainly don't think we're going to have an abundance in the long range. We're trying to not over park but
certainly meet the needs that we have here.
Don Ashworth: If I may add onto that.
Councilman Berquist: Well this is all kind of besides the point because they're out for bids.
Don Ashworth: I don't know that it is. I think one of the best things that really ever happened is the loss of
some of those dollars to keep us from doing this because I firmly believe that in 5 years you're going to take
and see this thing square itself more off. Build more to the front. The next time we do an addition, somebody
on Council's going to say, all I remember of the plan from before, we had a lot more green area. I think a lot
of those things will happen. I think 5 years...this lot here is real tough to construct in this fashion... The more
the thing moves to the front, the easier it is to actually build...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Any other discussions? Hearing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I will move approval. If this really necessary insofar as that we're out on a street?
Mayor Chmiel: It's still necessary.
Don Ashworth: Well, this is a site plan approval. The same thing that we would require anybody else to go
through. I anticipated, you know whatever type of changes the Council make in regards to the site plan, would
not be major items and Todd, whether he's representing a private client or a public client, would make those
modifications. I mean each time we have a recommendation on a site plan, and order in maybe additional trees
or whatever, somebody like a Todd has to go back and say okay, we need to revise that. I mean I do not think
30
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
that we're doing anything different here than what happens in the private sector. Oh, and if I could add a couple
of additional comments in regards to this gentleman's concerns. I guess we can take a look at additional
screening over here on Kerber but if you go out there and look at it, there's just a very narrow window in there.
Maybe a distance of no more than 40 to 50 feet that either isn't way below, so on Kerber you can't see it. Or
isn't heavily treed like behind the school, for almost that whole distance. So it's a very narrow window. We
can take a look at that for the screening on Kerber. The issue in regards to handicap, we will look at potentially
having one of those four spaces as handicap, but to understand State regulations, the State in designing handicap
space tries to insure that they're not putting the handicap person out into the lane of traffic. So that they have to
set up their chair or what not in a condition of thru traffic. And so when you do parallel parking like is
proposed here, you're forcing that handicap person to get out of his vehicle and get into his chair in the traffic.
So again we'll take a look at that but generally it's not desired under State codes.
Mayor Chmiel: AIright.
Councilman Berquist: I'll let somebody else make a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will. I move that we approve Site Plan #96-3 for the Chanhassen City Hall
expansion subject to the following conditions included in the staff report and with the changes of the 16 foot
roadway to the north. And that xve...
Councilman Mason: That includes the one way.'?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Councilman Mason: I will second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion's on the floor xvith a second.
Councilwoman Dockendoff moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan #96°3 for the Chanhassen
City Hall expansion, plans prepmed by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., stamped Received March 289 1996,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site plan should be revised as shown on Attachment Nol 1.
Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around the storm drainage
inlets should be incorporated on the final plan set.
The proposed storm sewers in the west parking lot shall be relocated to the west curb line and parking lot
grades adjusted accordingly.
Evergreen plantings should be increased along the northern side of the new entrance drive and to the
north of the building to achieve a more complete windbreak for the site. Electrical outlets should be
installed at the base of the evergreens planted north of City Hall.
o
For the overstory or large deciduous shade tree as described on plans, recommendations include: sugar
maple, red oak, hackberry, Kentucky coffeetree, and ~vhite oak; for the small deciduous shade tree,
recommendations include: crabapples, hawthorn, amur maple, Japanese tree lilac, serviceberry; and
31
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
recommended evergreens include: red pine, Black Hills spruce, and Austrian pine. Large mulch beds
should be considered under groups of trees and shrubs.
6. The southern and northern landscape islands in the new parking lot will need aeration tubes installed.
7. The nexv entrance drive to the north of the building shall be 16 feet wide and posted as one way.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Councilman Benluist who opposed. The motion carded with a
vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Berquist: I'm no-ing on principle. I just think we're going to be rudely surprised when bid day
rolls around.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we don't have to accept bids.
Councilman Berquist: I understand that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Excuse me, I don't understand. You're saying, maybe I, what's your issue?
Councilman Berquist: My issue is one of cost. I think, I don't want to speak in a public forum about dollars.
I'll tell you later.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think each have indicated their concerns as to what they were.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: We've had discussions on this in regards to, and doing the review of each of the candidates
coming in. We have a total of 9 respective candidates and 7 are going to be utilized for the Environmental
Commission. One of my suggestions might be that we have 2 alternates for the commission in the event that
someone is to leave or somebody who's tem:t expires. Is there any other discussions that you'd like to have on
this? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't disagree ;vith your alternate idea. I'm wondering whether or not, I think all
9 of them are qualified and would be assets to the Environmental Commission. Nine may be an unmanageable
number for Jill, especially considering it's a new, somewhat undefined commission but I would have no problem
with allowing all 9 of them to serve, betting that within the first 2 or 3 months there will be some attrition.
Insofar as a couple of people may not find it is what they expected it to be and they... It's obviously the reason
for these alternates but on the other hand, given the fact that I think education is probably a very important
component of the Environmental Commission, 9 educators out and about in the community would be better than
7. The work load is going to be that much less. And I'm amenable to either one.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think I like Steve's idea. I don't expect the attrition that quickly but certainly,
you know this is a new commission. We're kind of feeling our way. I think that's a good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
32
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Mason: I think 9 is an awful lot of people to reach agreement on anything. We can't do it with 5.
I don't know how.
Councilman Berquist: I disagree.
Councilman Mason: Thank you Councilman Berquist. And I'm not going to rant and rave and say it's got to be
7 or anything like that but boy. I think of some task forces that I've been on and I just, I think it would be
easier for a new commission, particularly with what has been said. We're kind of feeling our way as this goes
along. I think it would easier for 7 people to hit the ground running and having 2 people in the wings as
opposed to 9 trying to get in sync all at the same time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: It's kind of funny but I agree with you both. I mean I do. I understand what Michael's
saying and I appreciate it and I think I made a comment when we were talking about numbers in the first place.
I liked 5 because it was...better chance to work something out. I can't fault the idea of 9 as long as there's clear
definition that this is in fact not a decision making body but in fact a group which is going to go out and you
know, help initiate projects and initiate education efforts and stuff like that. I think it'd be imperative that staff,
who I hope has heard enough times from Council now, you know clearly delineate that relationship to the
commission. And that's what the ground so to speak is running with. Which comes back and takes away some
of my concerns as it relates to the smaller number. But just makes the concerns even greater that that
definition, be very clear up front to be, in fact I don't even like the word commission. I mean environmental
whatever you know but that purpose be clearly defined and I agree then with Steve, that I think there will be
attrition because...interview process, I think everyone's...were very different in terms of the_.of controls as it
relates to the type of a commission or group and...before that it's not going to be there and my guess is I don't
kno~v, some of them probably ~vill lose interest and then we'll have some attrition so...
Councilman Mason: If I could comment on that. Mark makes a real good point on that and I think if there is
some sort of charter or some kind of guidelines set prior to that first meeting, that does spell that stuff out.
Councilman Berquist: Get a good mission statement.
Kate Aanenson: We gave you a mission statement but what you're saying tonight, I'm kind of concerned about
what. We told you what they're going to be looking at. I mean certainly we envision that if there's a new
ordinance, that they may give comments. Certainly they don't have any authority that the public hearing's held
before the Planning Commission and you ultimately do it but we're looking at this group as another lay
organization that may have some input in that sort of thing.
Councilman Senn: Jill said that she looks at this group helPing us define what it's going to do, okay. At the
same time we went through an interview process with, I'm going to say there were a number of candidates that
came in who said they saw this as a review authority over environmental matters. They saw this as a review
authority even over other commissions as it relates to environmental stuff, okay.
Kate Aanenson: Right, I understand that.
33
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Senn: So we need to get a mission transferred into goals and objectives xvith those goals and
objectives being to stay out of the review and policing powers area and be an education and community
involvement areas as we've tried to define it. I guess that's the easiest way to put it.
Councilman Berquist: That's a very good way to put it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. So with discussion as been indicated.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'm perplexed. I mean you just turned it on it's head. I'm not really sure where we're
going now because we gave you a direct mission statement on what this group was doing and I'm not sure we're
going in the same direction now.
Councilman Mason: Well Kate I guess I think we are. I think Mark is right when he said, I can think of three
candidates that clearly were not, were looking at this as an advisory. You know we're going to be looking over
this stuff and saying yea or nay on it. And the issue is going to be, I think for Jill, and I think it's going to be a
hard one, is to keep that in check and make it understood that this is, you know this is what the purpose of this
commission is.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, I agree xvith that but just so you know, I mean they're not going to just be
planning Arbor Day activities. I mean we told you that that's something...
Councilman Mason: Oh no. No, I'm not.
Councilman Senn: But they aren't going to be reviewing the Planning Commission's actions or any actions
relating to.
Kate Aanenson: No. Will they be looking at specific ordinances and giving recommendations? Yes. Right.
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that stands. That's no problem. Additional input is always welcome.
Councilman Senn: They aren't going to be reviewing plans submitted by developers, okay. And stuff like that.
Kate Aanenson: No, no. Correct. Okay. I understand.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So, would someone like to motion not going through all 7, or 9 applicants to come up
maybe with the 2 alternates, or going with all 9.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we go with all 9 for this, it's not a calendar year. This cycle.
Are they one year terms?
Kate Aanenson: Well xve'd probably do the same as ~ve do with the other ones. Go through April and then
we'd probably try to stagger them.
Council~voman Dockendort': Okay. I'd like to get it ultimately down to 7 so I'd say start with this group.
34
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Senn: Do 9 with 3 at 1 year, 3 at 2 years and 3 at 3 years to start with?...
Mayor Chmiel: I think we could do that. I don't see any given problem.
Councilman Berquist: Is there discussion?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: What is Jill's response going to be with that?
Kate Aanenson: She said she was comfortable with that.
Councilman Berquist: She was?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think, well Mike made the point. You have to specifically give them a clear course of
action based on, I guess it was a concern that you understood the direction we were going based on kind of the
mission statement. Then we'll develop specific agenda work tasks which...but she said she felt comfortable with
9. But I agree with what Mike's saying. Sometimes it's hard to concur if you have that large a group. Maybe
some people will find out it's not exactly what they had in mind.
Councilman Senn: That's why I'm suggesting 3, 3, 3 because at the end of the first year, we'll have up and...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hoxv do you decide xvho has, who's up?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, why don't we let...
Councilman Mason: Let them draw and see...and they may have a preference too.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved~ Councilman Berquist seconded to appoint all nine applicants to the
Environmental Commission, with the ultimate goal of getting the conurdssion down to seven members. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
2(H). APPROVE RESOLUTION ADOPTING ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN.
Councilman Berquist: I was curious, as Don says, those dam people at PEBSCO can get something. I want to
know what they did. Why he would be unhappy with PEBSCO? I'd like to return to ICMA. What's the deal?
35
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Don Ashworth: ...in their cash account you cannot take and move more than 16% of the dollars per year. The
original understanding that I had from them was that it was 37%. The change was made unilaterally. The
change also then would basically require 3 years to get out of it and they re-clarified their position basically to
say, it's 16% of the ending balance.
Councilman Berquist: So any particular fund that you have, you can only 16% o~
Don Ashworth: Well no. It depends on what kind of fund you're in but the thing there is, if it's 16% of the
ending balance regardless of what number you start with, you'll never get to zero. You'll never get your money
out, and I don't think that's fair.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to make a motion?
Councilman Berquist: If that's the only reason.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: No, I'm asking. Is that the only reason?
Don Ashworth: Yep.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Yeah, I'll move approval. I was just curious.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #96-40: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Resolution
adopting ICMA Retirement Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
K. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Councilman Senn: Back on page number 17. There's an item RSP Architects Ltd. Chanhassen Daycare/City
Hall. I'm just curious what that is. On the face it appears that we have an architect doing something as it
relates to daycare and City Hall. Or is it a case of...
Don Ashworth: Tell you what, I don't think it has to be that urgent of an item. We'll pull the item off and I'll
have a response. I mean unless, does anybody here know?
Kate Aanenson: It's got to be the Rec Center.
Councilman Senn: But why an architect doing the Rec Center? We didn't hire any architects.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We've got toys...
Councilman Senn: Okay. On page...I don't know Todd. You're probably the one to answer this. There xvas an
item in here for I think it was KKE up around 18 grand. On the City Hall expansion. I mean how are we
sitting on that overall account? I'm looking at past billings and we appear to be.
36
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Berquist: We had 40 grand budgeted for that deal?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but this isn't the first payment to them. There's been quite a few payments already so
I'm just going by past memory.
Don Ashworth: The responsibility for monitoring all of KKE's bills goes through Todd Christopherson so every
time I get a bill in here, I send it over to him. In fact the last one, I put a note to him saying Wouldn't it be far
easier for them just to directly send it to you because they're losing a couple weeks in getting their money.
Councilman Senn: So that's a Todd Christopherson question?
Don Ashworth: Well I can, I'll have Todd provide an answer and include it in the next administrative section.
Todd Gerhardt: Don't you think that's such a large bill because of the plans and specifications?
Don Ashworth: I would anticipate so but I also am confident that Todd has monitored and it is within what it
was supposed to be.
Councilman Senn: Okay. There was one other thing in here if I can find it. Here we go. Page number 2.
$9,799.82. It appears something to Barton-Aschman for Chan-Arboretum Boulevard design. At the end of the
last Council meeting, at the end of the meeting I raised the issue last meeting in the administrative packet.
There was some...for the city to spend a number of dollars to bury some utility lines and stuff in relationship to
that project now. We also have this expense here of almost $10,000.00. I'm just, I'm a little baffled because we
have no funding source. We have no approved project to base...funding but I keep seeing a whole bunch of
things coming through that we're spending a lot of money on it. The utility underground thing was a big
number in the administrative packet last time. Now there's $10,000.00 in this packet. I mean am I missing
something?
Don Ashworth: Well the underground, as it dealt with Lyman and that whole project. This.
Councilman Senn: No. That specifically, the one in the administrative packet specifically referenced the project
as it related between Powers Boulevard and the entrance to Lake Ann Park.
Don Ashworth: I'll take that back. I think we're both right. The specific issue was with Lyman and that's
xvhen Minnesota Valley was present and their whole set of concerns but I think you're right in terms of a
separate memorandum as it dealt with the frontage road out to Lake Ann Park. We're still moving ahead with
the anticipation of being able award a contract for the construction of that frontage road in late June of this year.
And I will agree, we are still being held hostage under this, what do they, Memorandum of Understanding
between Carver County and MnDot and I'm doing everything in my power to take and get that complete. But
in the meantime I have heard from more than one of you that it's imperative that we do something with that
frontage road as soon as possible. So we're moving ahead as though we're going to be able to let that on June
20th, or June something. Late June.
Councilman Senn: I mean how can you let it in June if we don't have the State turn back funds, which I heard
last time we aren't going to have for a couple, 2-4 years.
37
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Don Ashxvorth: No. All they need to do is basically come to agreement. The State has already given their
position. There are a few items that the County xvanted from the State. In talking with them today, they
supplied that information more than a week ago to Roger. There is no reason that Roger could not bring this
item back to the Carver County Board very shortly. A singular vote on their part to accept that agreement and
it's done. And yes, there needs to be the final signatures, ere but that should be it.
Councilman Senn: So the agreement's been altered from the one we last received which the County has made a
number of changes in the agreement without saying anything?
Don Ashworth: No. I think the last one that you saw had a number of question marks in there and a lot of
those question marks have been removed. Most of the question marks have been removed. I have not seen
what the latest draft but I will take and try to have that to the City Council for your next agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion.'?
Councilman Berquist: No, I've got a couple items as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, okay. Let me just say something. On all of these, I think these are good questions but I
think these questions probably should be asked during the day that if Don has to get back to get information,
that he can provide that back to you and Pd really appreciate that.
Councilman Berquist: Well that's all well and good but.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but I called Mr. Ashworth at 1:00 this afternoon and I got a return call
from him between 4:30 and 5:00 this afternoon and was unavailable. Don, it doesn't always work out.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to have to make a little more availability for Council on Mondays. That means
you're going to have to probably clean up your schedule.
Councilman Berquist: I'm not certain I understand why. It's a Council night. It's 9:30 in the evening. It's not
particularly late.
Mayor Chmiel: This isn't the first time it's been brought up. That's my position.
Councilman Berquist: I still don't understand the problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think many of these things can be asked and answered without taking the additional time
of people sitting here or the balance of Council.
Councilman Berquist: I still don't. I mean this is a public forum.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: We're here on Monday nights. It's a Council night.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. It is but I think we should start looking at it. Go ahead and ask your question.
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Okay, Heritage Development. We've got a cheek for $3,972.00 for attorneys fees and
related costs.
Kate Aanenson: I believe that was on the park issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Buying that land.
Councilman Berquist: The park issue?
Kate Aanenson: When we tried to.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, when we tried to condemn that 4 acres or 2 acres of woods?
Kate Aanenson: I'm assuming that's it.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And then the only other item was one that may sound silly to some but we
bought 675 bags of fertilizer for $11,700.00. Those must have been 300 pound bags.
Don Ashworth: I'll have a response.
Councilman Berquist: I mean it was just something that just jumped out at me. I scan for big numbers and that
was big and then I see it's for 675. That's 18 bucks a bag.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With those exceptions as to what we discussed.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Accounts Payable as amended. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
(L). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED APRIL 22, 1996.
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. Page 23. We need a correction in the Minutes. The motion towards the
bottom of the page. That was not the motion I made, nor was it the motion that passed. The motion was for a
3 month extension to Mr. Dahlin on the basis that he pay his May 15th property taxes and that he come back in
that 3 month period and show us progress for paying his back taxes and be able to demonstrate some ability to
finish paying that off within the next 3 months should xve grant an extension of another 3 months to him. That
was the motion that was made. I don't -know how it got construed to this but this one is totally different.
Mayor Chmicl: Okay.
Councilman Senn: So I'd like that change made.
Mayor Chmiel: And did you agree with that proposal?
39
City Council Meeting - May 6, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, that was the recommendation. Or the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I do remember that as being the discussion.
Councilman Senn: So with that change I xvould move approval of the Minutes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Conncibvoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the City Council Minutes dated April
4, 1996 as amended on page 23 by Councilman Senn, clarifying the motion, and approving the Planning
Commission Minutes dated April 17, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Benluist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
40