1g. Minutes
b
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting w~s opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn '
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charl~s Folch, Kate Aanenson,
Todd Hoffman, Anita Benson, and Mark Littfin
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman M~son seconded to approve the
agenda with the following changes and additions: Councilman Senn wanted to discuss Highway 212
under Council Presentations; Mayor Mancino wanted an HRA report, and di~cussion of a Planning
Commission vacancy. Item 4, The Highlands, was deleted. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel, seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recom....endations:
a. Resolution #97-11: Accept Utility and Street Improvements in Oaks 9fMinnewashta, Project No.
94-14.
b. Resolution #97-12: Accept Utility and Street Improvements in Brendqn Pond, Project No. 94-17.
d. 1) Approve Design Services Contract with Barton-Aschman to include City Utility Infrastructure
in the Trunk Highway 5 (Powers Boulevard west to Trunk Highway 41), Improvement Project
No. 97-6.
e. Resolution #97-13: Approve Resolution Clarifying that the Fire Mars~al and Fire Inspector
Respond to Fires.
f. Approve Agreement of the Metropolitan Council Transit Capital Financial Assistance for Villages
on the Pond.
h. Approve Settlement Agreement with Andrew & Linda Freseth; Lyman ,Blvd.fLake Riley Utilities,
Project No. 93-32B.
1. Approve Settlement Agreement with George & Margaret Shorba; Lake Riley UtilitiesfLyman
Boulevard, Project 93-32B.
1. Approval of Bills.
m. City Council Minutes dated February 10, 1997
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 1997
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
K. APPROVAL OF 1997 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
Don Ashworth: Before you are liquor license fees. City Council at a work session considered
comments made by Mr. Pauly in regards to his new establishment and some comparisons that he drew
between that operation and the Dinner Theater. Staff sees two options. One would basically leave the
issue back to Mr. Pauly to work out with Mr. Dan Dahlin who has the bowling center portion of the
property. Or literally to create an additional category, and if you did that, staff would assume that you
would kind of split the difference between the price associated with less than 6,000 square feet. New
category, over 6,000 to, it doesn't really matter, 15 or 20, and then over 20. Staff sees this as kind of a
policy decision and that's the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is Mr. Pauly here tonight and would you like to tell us a little bit about
your feelings on the staff report please?
Russ Pauly: My name is Russ Pauly and I'm President of Pauly's American Grill, which we hope will be
built in the Chan Bowl/Filly's building. In regards to oh some of the things that we discussed at our
round table discussion, just briefly. I believe State Statute gives the City the power to set the fees and
they're supposed to be a reasonable fee. And they basically cite the cost of administration and that type
of thing. I guess why then is the City of Chanhassen so much higher than communities that are of the
same population base. You know same areas, Eden Prairie as an example. Minnetonka as an example.
Basically for the same businesses in those two communities, for instance the Eden Prairie Brunswick
Bowl and Brew Pub Operation is roughly a 30,000 square foot operation and they pay $7,500.00 for their
liquor license. Another example of a similar operation to what Pauly's will be is Doolittle's Air Cafe in
Eden Prairie and they again pay $7,500.00 for their fees. Some comparable ones in Minnetonka would
be Champs at Ridgedale, $7,500.00 for their fee. We're looking at a roughly $13,104.00 fee for the same
operation. I guess I would like to know why Chanhassen's is so much higher. Originally I asked that we
look at the formula and how we arrive at these costs. You know maybe I'm asking now that we dig a
little deeper. One of the things that's been brought to my attention is that the City uses the example of
costs of public safety and additional costs for police protection and these things. Well as a business, you
know we're entitled to the services that we pay for through taxes such as police protection, fire
protection, street maintenance and snow removal and what have you and I just don't believe that as a
liquor license holder, we should have to pay additional for any of those items. . . . thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address Council on this issue? Okay.
Councilman Senn. Any remarks? Questions?
Councilman Senn: I don't know, as far as the options 1 and 2, I really don't see a need to establish
another tier in the system. I think our system's already complicated enough. I don't know, my opinion
would be leave it where it is. As far as the issue over the fees. In past years we've debated those fees at
length and I believe the fees really are tied to effectively costs generated by them and I'm going to say
costs over and above the norm that are generated by them. And I don't know, citing this specific
example I guess is a little hard to do because it's a cross between a new operation and an old operation
but you know, judging on the basis ofthe old operation, the reason the half of the old operation is going
to remain I would say are public safety calls would far exceed any of the other examples that were given
from other communities. I would guess. And so I don't know, I really haven't seen anything that would
lead me to think that we should reduce it. I'd much rather see the parties of the two different operations
kind of get together and work out how they're going to split it because I really think that should be the
primary issue here. Not really the base fee.
2
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And we do charge homeowners, I know residential homeowners when, when my
personal alarm goes off, after the third call I get charged. What is it, $50.00 every time the fire
department or something. Do you?
Russ Pauly: So do businesses.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: I basically agree with what Councilman Senn is saying. We always look to
compare to neighbors. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. I agree with Mark. I certainly don't
want to add another tier. Things are confusing enough. I haven't really seen any compelling reasons as
of yet, as of now to change the fee structure the way it stands.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Mark.
Councilman Engel: Pretty much fare what Mark and Mike said. I would remove another layer before I'd
add another one. I think Russ makes a good point. The costs are higher. I don't have enough
information to tell me why that is but I couldn't give any good reason for reducing them right now other
than if I had a business I'd want to reduce them too. But I don't have enough information to say why
they should be reduced. If we had a comparative charge per call that we could rationalize that with, I'd
be wIlling to take a look at It but I don't have any of that mformation so I wouldn't, couldn't comment to
that affect now. But I'm not for adding another tier, that's for sure.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: As with anything else, the older I get the grayer things become. In more ways
than one. Russ did you, when Pauly's was open at the old location, were you charged on a police call.
Russ Pauly: Not on a police call basis but on a fire call baSIS. You get 2 or 3 freebies and then after.
Actually I take that back. It's basically with the burglar alarm. False alarms.
Councilman Berquist: But enforcement from a public disturbance point of view, the estabhshment was
not charged as a rule.
Russ Pauly: I don't think I've ever had 3 police calls for disturbances at Pauly's.
Councilman Berquist: Is it a normal operation though for a police organization to charge a business in
the event that there's a public disturbance at the site?
Russ Pauly: No. Only for false alarms I believe.
Councilman Berquist: Alright. You know I look at this and I could actually probably make really decent
arguments both ways. I would certainly argue that the cost from a public safety point of view at the
existing nightclub is far in excess of what every other liquor serving establishment is in the city of
Chanhassen. I don't doubt for a moment however that when that closes and your operation opens, that
the number of police calls will fall dramatically and I certainly look forward to that. In listening to your
statement that other municipalities are significantly less. Minnetonka for instance has a liquor license
rate of $7,500.00 as you said and they have roughly the 300% higher population base than the city of
Chanhassen. Eden Prairie, the exact same liquor fee, $7,500.00 regardless of square footage. And their
population base is roughly 250% of what Chanhassen is. Shakopee is really the only one, and Shakopee
3
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
currently has roughly 70% of what Chanhassen for population and Shakopee is the only one that has a
tiered structure that's truly based on a square footage of operating space number. You talk about the
inequity versus say Minnetonka or Eden Prairie. You may be right. On the other hand, it may be logical
to argue that the other communities haven't accurately plugged in their true costs to the community of
serving an establishment similar to Filly's or Pauly's or the Riv or Doolittles or any of the others that
were mentioned. So I could probably argue it both ways fairly convincingly. When we were in our
earlier work session I asked the City Manager how your liquor license is going to work when you came in
roughly June or July and looked at becoming operational and it is a pro-rated license as you no doubt
know but I didn't. Looking at it right now, I'm not of a mind to change it. If! were of a mind to change
it, what I probably would propose would be some type of a gradient which even best case would be a
difference of roughly $400.00 between the $13,104.00 figure and the new figure that I come up with and
that's predicated strictly on square footage. I'm not sure that that's the type of relief that you're looking
for. And that's not the type of relief that we're looking for. I mean if the, in my opinion, if the decline in
public services warrant a decline in rates next year.
Russ Pauly: .. .I'm being made to pay for the sins of the past.
Councilman Berquist: That's true you are perhaps to a great degree. On the other hand you have the
future to look forward to. If you were looking at a business liquor license for half a year, I would say
that your complaint would be, I mean I could understand the complaint process. I don't know that I could
agree with you but the fact that you're going to be in here in 1998 making the same application and
hopefully 1999 and 2000, I think we'll.
Mayor Mancino: Well it gives you a chance to come back and for us to see those service calls because
Russ I also did check in to see, with Public Safety, how many service calls were for the Chan Bowl and
there were, pardon?
Russ Pauly: How about for Pauly's? Did you check...?
Mayor Mancino: No, I didn't see that because I know that you are going to do, be a combination but
you're going to have both.
Russ Pauly: .. . difference in how one person runs an operation.
Mayor Mancino: Exactly and you will have time to come back and show us that and it will be
quantifiable. We'll be able to see the difference because last year in Chan Bowl there were 41 police
calls the last two years and they had to do with theft, property damage, assaults, under age consumption,
etc. and I expect to see those to go down and I think that we will be very glad as a Council to look at this
in a year and to see that change. Otherwise may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the liquor license fees as outlined with one little caveat and that
is that I would like to see our ordinance language cleaned up a little bit so as to be a little more specific
on the definitions on the square footage so we know that we're dealing with net numbers rather than
gross numbers, which isn't apparent now. And I mean that can be done as housekeeping after the fact but
I'd like that to be part of the motion.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a second please?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
4
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Resolution #97-14: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the 1997
Liquor License Fees with the caveat that the language regarding square footage be clarified as it is
related to gross numbers and net numbers. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: 1997 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PLANNING ALLOCATION OF $50.729 FOR HOUSING/HOME
OWNERSHIP.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated this year's 1997-98 allocation is over $50,000.00. As you
recall Hennepin County changed their formula that said if we were under $50,000.00 we'd be in that
consolidated pool which meant that anybody within that pool that had a request that met the high priority,
that they would have the ability to use somebody else's dollars. Because we're on that cusp of the
$50,000.00, we can make our own application as long as it meets the high priority. As I indicated in the
past, they're looking for housing programs. The one I'm recommendmg is first time home buyer
assistance. What this does, the Block Grant, it acts like an interest free loan and the loan appears on that
Title of the property as a lien and as that property is sold, the money would then be returned and used for
another first time home buyer. The reason why I selected this program is, if you look at the housing
activities that are available, over the number of years the City has tried to look at rehab loans. Carver
County HRA has just completed a study as a part of their Housing Assistance Plan, the whole housing
study and included Chanhassen in that. And it kind of reinforces what we found out when we tried to do
housing rehab loans. There really is a limIted amount of blighted area. Where we have some that need
fix-up, the demand in the market is such that those are bought and immediately kind of replaced for a
higher and better home. There just isn't a significant amount. Also there's an opportunity for acquisItion
of property but because our dollar amount is so low, we'd have to accumulate a number of years and we
don't really have a project on line right now. And also with the acquisition And also with the acquisition
you're also, because you're using the Federal dollars, tying in a few other strings. The other process we
could use is to do some rental but because we're at that $50,000.00. Ifwe went with the rental, it gets a
little bit stickier if we're not in next year. How do we.. . made a decision to get into a property and we
can't continue the rents. So I guess I would recommend against that as far as someone making a life
decision on whether or not they can stay m on that fixed payment. I believe that this recommendatIOn
meets the city's goals for affordable housing. We have the local control. We run the program. There are
programs that we could have this administered through Hennepin County. I think it would be nice. It
would take low staffing and we could work with a local bank to provide this loan agreement with the
community banks here in Chanhassen. Do the advertising ourselves so we could work with some of the
local banks. So I think this is probably the most cost effective and again getting somebody, by maybe
meeting the gap that they have to get into the home and providing that measure to help them and again
that's city wide so we're not picking out any particular project. We're just trying to get something under,
right now what I put in there is $95,000.00. We're only looking at 2 to 5 homes that we can possibly do
based on that amount but again we're providing somebody that's under that margin that couldn't get into
that home, that opportunity. So with that, that would be my recommendation and I'd be happy to answer
any questions that you have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Kate, what's the targeted timing on this or is there a timing deadline that we need to
worry about meeting?
5
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Kate Aanenson: The money becomes available, if we approved, July 1. It has to go through the hearing
process. Again Hennepin County's going to weight all these based on high priority. This is a higher
priority program so if we meet their hearing deadlines, then the money would be available July 1 st.
Mayor Mancino: And what are their hearing deadlines?
Councilman Senn: More or less what's our application drop dead date?
Mayor Mancino: I have to have this in to Hennepin County by March 7th.
Councilman Senn: March 7th. We get the information at the end of January, whether we're in or out.
And then by law I have to notice, there's certain requirements for Block Grant notification are a little bit
longer and certain spacing requirements so it really, we only have one or two meetings before the
deadline in order to make those windows.
Kate Aanenson: I was notified of this January 21 st. Whether we were in or out of the consolidated pool.
Mayor Mancino: How do they decide if we're in or out?
Kate Aanenson: What they do is they take, actually they take 19, they're weighted numbers from 1994.
Population figures and they look at the total population and then incomes above and below the poverty
line.
Mayor Mancino: So what we should be doing every year is anticipating we're going to be in and have
some discussion about what we would do if we were, if we got in.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah last year, just the year before we were just under so, we're nght on the
cusp as far as whether we're.
Mayor Mancino: In or out. But again every year we should just assume that we're going to be in and.
Kate Aanenson: Some direction, that would be great.
Mayor Mancino: Give some direction. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Just as a suggestion I guess. This program, as suggested, may very well be good and
may in fact be the best. I'm just not really comfortable on this short of term saying, just kind of deciding
that that is the case without some Council discussion. I don't know as a suggestion, could we maybe
continue this item for the 3rd work session and act on it as a continued item?
Mayor Mancino: On the 10th?
Councilman Senn: Well no. That's after her deadline. She needs it by the 7th so if we continue it to the
3rd, we can actually act on it on the 3rd as a continued item. Except that that would give us a chance to get
a little more information together and discuss it.
Mayor Mancino: Act on it on a work session, okay.
Roger Knutson: Excuse me, not on a work session. You'd have to list it as a regular meeting.
6
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Continuation of a public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Continuation of a public hearing during the work session. Okay.
Roger Knutson: For example you could if you wanted to continue thIS matter to a special meeting and
just state the date and that's all you'd have to do.
Mayor Mancmo: Okay.
Roger Knutson: But Mayor, I'd point out this is a public hearing so if there's anyone from the public.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for staff at this point, prior to opening it up?
Councilman Berquist: The mechanics of how this works. Somewhere.
Kate Aanenson: You would advertIse that there's availability of funding. We'd first meet wIth the local
banks... We've had requests from other banks before in town that they'd be willing to work on these
types of programs and then we'd just put in an ad and then tell them that they would need to meet with
the banks and they would screen. Again, what we're looking at, hopefully there's an opportunity here
that somebody's renting. That we can provide that opportunity locally for someone to get mto a home.
Councilman Berquist: Apparently the money just continues to roll.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's the objective. After they, ifthey were to sell the home, that money
would go back into the bank and then we would apply for another loan, correct.
Councilman Berquist: With no sunset? No date?
Kate Aanenson: No. You can structure them how you want but that's generally how they're done, yes.
An interest free loan, correct.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Thank you. Do we have any feeling for the demand for this type of thing? Have we
done this before?
Kate Aanenson: Well, the only other one we've done is the housing district out in North Bay what we're
setting up with first time home buyers and I believe that Rottlund's received pretty much interest. That
those are gone. I believe we wouldn't have any problem.
Councilman Engel: Getting your 2 to 5 families?
Mayor Mancino: We anticipate it being used.
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. This is a public hearing. Or may I have a motion to open this for a public
hearing and a second please?
7
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to open the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Council on this
issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to close the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Berquist. Comments.
Councilman Berquist: I just made them. No, I have no more. I'll be anxious to hear some other ideas on
the 3rd.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Same. Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: At the pre-Council session we chatted a little bit about how much we want, about
prior discussion to something like this and we essentially had none. With what I've heard just now I see
the need for this. I guess I'll ask you this. I also don't see any harm in continuing this until the 3rd of
March. I mean in terms of you getting applications in and done and this, that and the other thing. Does
that make, what kind of a bind will that put you in?
Kate Aanenson: That's fine.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council members?
Councilman Senn: Nothing additional at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well I think this is a great idea. A good request. Being new on the Council I
would also like to look at different options for the CDBG funding and talk about those at a work session.
But I think this targeted for first time home buyers is very important for Chanhassen to be doing right
now. So with that may I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I move to continue this until our March 3rd Council meeting.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the 1997 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program planning allocation until March 3,1997.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AMERICAN PORT ABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135' TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER. SO
WEST 7STH STREET.
Public Present:
8
City CouncIl Meeting - February 24, 1997
Name
Address
Jaymes Littlejohn
Peter Coyle
Mike 0 'Rourke
John Barstow
Steve Monson
4700 IDS Center, Minneapolis
7900 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington
1701 79th Street, Bloomington
1701 79th Street, Bloomington
8850 Audubon Road
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Your last meeting on February 10th this item was tabled. As you recall it's
located on Highway 5, behind the Chanhassen Professional Building. The reason why the Council tabled
this item is they wanted additional information regarding possible alternative locations. I'll let the
applicant address that tonight but they're here to present their rationale behind this site preference so I'll
turn it over to them.
Mayor Mancino: Otherwise, excuse me Kate, there is nothmg new in the staff report? It is exactly the
same as the one we saw before. There's nothing new in landscaping?
Kate Aanenson: I believe that the conditions that you imposed last time, the concerns that you had have
been addressed and they were addressed at the last meeting so those have been carried forward. The
landscaping and the barb wire and everything else like that.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council?
Peter Coyle: Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Peter Coyle. I'm an
attorney with the Larkin-Hoffman firm. Here tonight on behalf of American Portable Telecom, the
applicant for a CUP. We have a very brief presentation. We mostly want to respond directly to
questions that were raised at your last meeting where this matter was tabled. Those questions pertain
specifically to the suitability of the location as proposed, both by APT, endorsed by your staff and also
recommended for approval by your Planning Commission after a careful deliberation of the facts
supporting the application. APT has supplemented the record to provide the information that your
ordinance requires. SpeCifically we provided a letter to staff that documents the evaluation of alternative
locations that pre-existed quite frankly the submittal of the application to the city. With me this evenmg
are two representatives of APT who can respond to more specific questions about the location that's
proposed. Mike O'Rourke is present as well as John Barstow. I'm going to turn it over to them in just a
minute and let them respond to specifics relating to this site. The final comment though that I would
make regarding the application is your ordinance contains a requirement for co-location and aside from
this tower being proposed, the applicant is willing to commit to the requirement that it be designed for
co-location in hopes that it would provide a spot for a second provider. I'm understanding there is in fact
a second application pending before your City and that there is a reasonably good probability that if this
application is approved, that that vendor would be willing to entertain putting it's antenna facilities on
this tower so it would allow the City to reduce from two sites to one site the number of towers that would
be approved in this general vicinity. With that what I'd like to do is turn it over to John Barstow from
APT and let him present site detail as well as a photo montage that's been prepared to help you get a
better sense ofthe aesthetic impact of this tower given the location that's proposed. Thank you very
much. I'd be happy to answer any questions of course at this point but Mr. Barstow is able to...
Mayor Mancino: I just have one question, excuse me and that is Kate, there is then a second location that
another company is looking at in the area?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
9
City Counctl Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we have this one and we also have one near Lotus Lawn and Garden?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The Planning Commission tabled that at their last meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So the Council can decide which site is better? Can look at both sites?
Kate Aanenson: Well we believe since there's two that they should co-locate. That's our objective.
That one has the ability to provide the space for the other. Certainly the other one as it came in did not
provide for a co-location.
Mayor Mancino: But they could be asked to too.
Kate Aanenson: Certainly.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the Council.
Peter Coyle: Thank you Mayor.
John Barstow: I'm John Barstow. I'm the project manager with American Portable Telecom. I was at
the last meeting when these items were discussed. We had, Councilmembers had asked about some
specific alternatives. We went back and looked at those to make sure that we really had covered the
bases. The first question was concernmg the Eden Prairie water tower. We went back and looked at our
records. Had seen that we had tried to negotiate on that water tower almost a year ago. Had made no
progress with the City of Eden Prairie. Were-contacted them to look at their interest at this point in
time. They have no interest at this point in time in letting anyone on their facilities or any of their other
facilities at this point in time. Whether that will change in the future we really have no way to know.
The second site discussed was the church site. I talked with Mr. Bangasser who is I believe the architect
and who is constructing this site. He has a potential for us to locate at around 150 feet versus the 130
feet that we're looking at. This site would be in the, part of the, they're doing a tower that has a, an
illuminated tower that has a cross on the top of it. We would not be able to go to the full height of their
cross. It is not mechanically designed for that kind of an application. We would be able to go at a lower
level within the site but still it's at a 50 foot level on a piece of ground that's lower than the piece of
ground that we're looking at. It will not give us any coverage at this point in time. It will not cover our
need. We looked at some of the properties just east of our projected site as requested on the contingent
that they would be higher in elevation. Yes, they may be higher in elevation but only about 10 or 15 feet.
I do not know that that will provide any help in this situation. Also the properties in that area we had
looked at last April or May had talked to a number of those properties and they were not willing to
negotiate with us at that point in time.
Mayor Mancino: So a year ago was the last time you contacted them?
John Barstow: No, last Mayor, I think last May. We feel that we still need this site to provide coverage
to the area concerned. We already have sites located at the intersection of 494 and Highway 5, in that
area. There's a Wilson Learning Center. We also have a site located on the Chaska water tower just
down the road. We are looking at, we have a site in Shakopee and we're working to try to locate an
additional site up in Minnetonka. Based on trying to balance our system we need to fill in between the
area between the Chaska water tower and the 494/5 interchange. This has been the ideal location we've
looked at from an area wise and from a coverage pattern. If we were to move any farther west from
where we're located at this point in time, we would run into the Chaska water tower site. They would be
10
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
virtually on top of each other from the signal standpoint and we'd leave a large gap between Chanhassen
and the 494 corridor so we are really trying to cover that area that has no coverage at this point in time.
It's really not very well covered by cellular at this point in time. We would have preferred to have go on
the Eden Prairie water tower but again it is not open to us so we're looking for other alternatives. Do you
have any questions for me at this time?
Mayor Mancino: No we don't, thank you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I do. Let's see here. Mr. Barstow is it?
John Barstow: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Is there, there's a number of hIgh towers already in the area which are effectively I
assume NSP's or whatever. Those towers are not usable or compatible to putting this stuff on top, since
there is nothing on top of those towers?
John Barstow: Are we talking about the power poles that run along Highway 5?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
John Bartstow: Those are approximately 90 foot structures. They do not have the strength, physical
strength for us to locate our antenna configuration. Our antenna configuration is up to 9 antennas. It's
quite a wind load and those tower are just not built to take that kind of load. Also we would have to find
a place to put our equipment and having dealt with NSP over the last year, we're not finding that their
rights-of-way, from a legal standpoint, will allow us to locate, the way that their right-of-way system IS
done in Minnesota does not really afford us the ability to do that.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That's it for now.
Mayor MancIllo: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Can you, I'd like to, I'm trying to understand the difference between the City of
Chaska's acquiesce to having a facility on their water tower and the City of Eden Prairie's reluctance to
even talk with you.
John Barstow: I do not know. We have approached them several times. We know that they actually
have someone else's facilities on their water tower. We have been talking with them over the last few
months, not only on, not specifically on this water tower but we had been looking at another water tower
over the past few months and have met with resistance from whoever the planning of their water
department chief is. I don't personally know the person. I've not talked with him. I've had my staff
looking at it. We're quite dumb founded by it in that most ofthe cities around the metropolitan area are
more than happy to deal with this and locate so that they're on existing towers and since they take our
money to use for public works. So we don't understand it but we're left with it.
Councilman Berquist: Is there a time element involved?
John Barstow: For us to become on line? Yes. We're trying to get in business, as with our other PCS
competitor Sprint. Sprint just acquired a tower in your area I believe two weeks ago. We're trying to
build a system out of the same time they are. We're both trying to go on line with brand new systems
here in the next couple of months. We've been pursuing this site since before, with the City, since before
11
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
you redid your ordinances and waited through the ordinance process and went on with the application.
We're at a point where we need to see some results if we're going to get into business competitively at
this point in time during the next couple of months. So we're reluctant to try to do something different at
this point in time because we have so much time invested in this and any change would make at this point
in time, would cost us another 6 or 8 months. Would cause us to have no coverage in this area.
Councilman Berquist: Nothing further.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Engel?
Councilman Engel: Yes, really it's for Don Ashworth. Can you contact the Mayor of Eden Prairie and
find out what the hold-up is on this tower or what's their position on that? It seems to be in a prime
location just north of Highway 5 to be used for this sort of thing. Maybe you can get a little farther with
them than they seem to be getting.
Don Ashworth: I think the obstacle appears to be their street, what is Gene Deitz' title?
Charles Folch: Public Works Director.
Don Ashworth: Public Works Director. And a feeling that if they need to repair that tank in the future,
repaint it or do anything, that they just don't want to deal with the liability of them being on that tower.
That's their position. At least the Public Works Director's position. Kate's shaking her head.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Todd spoke to them today to verify that.
Todd Gerhardt: .. .they're still in the process of adopting their antenna ordinance. It's on a future
Council work session. Right now they've been operating without an ordinance and have allowed a
couple to go in but the point.
Mayor Mancino: They're going to need to talk about where and if they want it on their public land that
they own.
Councilman Engel: It would seem like an odd position given the way I see other communities
responding to these towers but I don't want to hold his business hostage to them.
Mayor Mancino: Well no, most communities have taken a moratorium and are developing their own
ordinances. Have been going through this for the last year. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address
the City Council on this issue?
Jay Littlejohn: Yes, good evening. My name is Jay Littlejohn and I've been here before dealing with
your ordinances. I represent Airtouch Cellular and I'm here because we have another site next door, and
first I want to make it clear that we endorse this and we'd like to see that some site be proposed here. I
don't know where to begin with this. I guess I'm a little bit confused and I expressed this in the Planning
Commission meeting before our item was tabled as to why the staff and apparently the Planning
Commission believed that this particular site is better suited. That it's aerial APT site is better suited
than the site at Lotus Lake Garden Center. Some of the reasons why I'm confused about that is the Lotus
Lake site that we proposed is right on the edge of where the lOP district is instead of being farther west
closer to residences like this is. Ours is on slightly higher ground. It's only, it looks like 5 feet. I
haven't had the ground surveyed but it looks like about 5 feet and we are proposing a much shorter
tower. Kate has pointed out, Ms. Aanenson has pointed out on a couple of occasions though, most
12
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
notably the Planning Commission that that aerial needs to go at some elevatIon. They can't go at the 76
feet that my client can go at. One of the conditions that you had suggested to aerial is that it
accommodate for co-location. I was just looking through my file here because I saw Mike O'Rourke in
the audience and I knew that I had sent him a letter and I found a letter dated January nnd where we gave
Mr. O'Rourke our antenna requirements. The height we needed to be at. The size and dimensions of our
antennas and the size of the equipment shelter that we needed and asked that a lease be put forth and we
haven't got a lease yet. What I would like to see done is, since we know that someone needs to have a
tower approved, is that either our tower be approved with the condition that we enter into a lease with
APT, because they definitely need a site in the area. Or that APT be approved with the condition that
they enter into a lease with us. There's no magic about this. We're willing to pay half the cost of the
site. Pay the equal share of cost ifthere's a third person that can go on. Pay an equal share of the cost of
the building and the lease to the underlying tenant and yet we still don't have a lease and that's my
concern is that our site is being tabled based upon the hope that this other site be built and will
accommodate what I see in the future as Mr. Knutson's firm perhaps being retained to enforce the
conditional use permit because we don't have a lease, even the condition for co-location with someone is
put forth. There was a question about location. There may be some other answers for APT to go in other
places. Those answers aren't available to my client though. Our next adjacent site is at Eden Prairie at
about, well do you know where Water Pro is on Highway 5 and West 78th. There's a U.S. West
Communications building there. I wish I could remember the name of the cross street but it's between
here and 494. That's our next closest site to the west. This site is designed to split that area further west
with the site that I think we have in your city on a water tower to the east. Isn't that right? Or do we
have a tower? I'm sorry, to the west. Is it on a water tower?
Mayor Mancino: Is it Chaska?
Councilman Engel: Chaska water tower.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh, okay. So that's why we need to be in this particular location. I don't know if APT
has any options to move. I know that we don't and so it looks to me like there will be a pole there of
some kind. They're 90 foot poles that go right along the road and I have done photo simulations of what
our site would look like but they're not going to be much guide to you in this particular application
because we don't have the pole that's pictured on here is not a 135, 130 foot monopole. It's a 76 foot
monopole.
Mayor Mancino: So Mr. Littlejohn, if you were to co-locate on your pole it would go from 76 feet to
what?
Jay Littlejohn: Whatever height they needed.
Mayor Mancino: And what would you surmise that to be?
Jay Littlejohn: The height that they need?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Jay Littlejohn: What are you at right now? So ifthey gain 5 feet in elevation, it'd be 125 feet.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it wouldn't be any different if we were to go on Lotus Lawn and Garden.
13
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Jay Littlejohn: Not remarkably different, no. But you would be right next to the lOP district and further
away from the residences.
Mayor Mancino: Have you looked, have you checked with any of the businesses further east in the lOP
District? Whether it's Lyman. Whether it's Redmond, etc.
Jay Littlejohn: Yes, in fact we had an application, maybe I should put this up. We had an application we
even filed with your City with the fee and everything. Can that zoom in at all or not? Here is the pole
that we proposed to add, but it would be taller than that. This is 76 feet so if you could imagine it.
Mayor Mancino: 135, yeah.
Jay Littlejohn: Another 60% taller I guess. The problem.
Mayor Mancino: Are we about a mile away from that?
Jay Littlejohn: Where we're standing now? No, we're actually standing just about right at the Welcome
to Chanhassen site. Lyman Lumber, we went to Lyman Lumber. They were not interested in leasing to
us. We also went, we had a site picked out and everything at Redmond. We thought we had approval
from the people that had to approve it but Mr. And Mrs. Redmond at the last minute decided that they
would not, didn't want to lease. Apparently there's some problem with clearing snow around the
building or something like that and so they were not interested in. .. I think that actually Bob or John
Rask or somebody even gave me back the application check because we had to withdraw the application
since the landowner decided at the last minute not to do it. Even before it got to the Planning
Commission. This is the proposed landscape plan. Now this is really the most interesting part about this
plan is, this is... This is the last high tension transmission standard in the row. After that they cross the
street. Across the street and I actually have a shot from across the street... this would make it more of a
major structure or prominent feature on this property. We disagree with that just because.. .90 foot
electrical transmission standards. I'm not here though to try to defeat the application pending. I just
want to make sure that my client can go somewhere and that's the only reason that I'm here today. And
whether it be this one and they share our costs or the other one and we share their costs, we don't care.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from Council members for Mr. Littlejohn?
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Littlejohn, did I hear you correctly? Any further east than Automated
Building Components puts you in an overlapping signal area? In other words, the water tower, which
we're going to continue to come back to. The water tower is not an acceptable location for your?
Jay Littlejohn: The water tower, yeah it's not even close. I mean it's just about right on top of an
existing tower that's at that Water Pro location.
Councilman Berquist: Are you sure we're talking about the same tower?
Jay Littlejohn: Maybe not.
Councilman Engel: Are you talking about right up by Dell Road?
Jay Littlejohn: Yeah. Right by Dell, in fact that's the name of the cross street I think is Dell Road.
Councilman Engel: Dell Road. It's just up Dell Road.
14
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: But it's not Water Pro. If you're talking about Water Pro, Water Pro's way down
past County Road 4 in Eden Prairie.
Jay Littlejohn: I need to see a map, you know. I have a few of these files open in my office and I don't
remember the address.
Councilman Senn: I think the tower you're talking about that you're on is the one that's south. I'm
sorry, north ofTH 5 and east ofTH 4.
Jay Littlejohn: That could be.
Councilman Engel: By ball fields up there and the school?
Jay Littlejohn: Right. That's where our present site is.
Councilman Engel: Well that's several mIles east of here.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh okay. That's where the next tower is. Is there another tower that's between there
and here?
Councilman Engel: Just on the east edge of town here.
Jay Littlejohn: Oh yeah.
Councilman Senn: Just a few blocks from here.
Jay Littlejohn: Yeah, a few blocks would not work because of the signal configuration. I know that what
we did is, we actually started looking at Lyman Lumber as being just about as fiu east as we could go and
then we went west because we couldn't any further east and have the site still work. I think I mIght even
have a map in my file that shows it.
Councilman Berquist: How far west could you go?
Jay Littlejohn: We stopped as soon as we found a, we stopped at Redmonds because that was in an lOP
district. Was near a railroad. There were lots of buildings around it. There were the high line poles
there. We stopped there and then they wouldn't let us go there. They changed their minds so then we
went to the next site to the west and then we stopped again. We recognize that the further west we go we
get into residences and we wanted to avoid that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Mike O'Rourke: Good evening. I'm Mike O'Rourke. I'm the Director of Engineering and Operations
for APT. Ijust want to address some of the co-location issues so you understand how those are normally
done in the business. We are, we certainly have approached this that we do want to do a co-location.
We have actually the documents that Mr. Littlejohn was talking about were sent this morning. The actual
lease so there's really no issue in terms of getting a deal done. How these are commonly done, rather
than spreading costs in half because accountants have a real hard time figuring out who owns what when
you split costs of the tower and a site in half. How these are commonly done is a trade scenario. We
allow them on this site and then they allow us on one of their towers in another community and therefore
15
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
mitigating the need for another tower in that community, WhICh is what we all ultimately want. I think it
would just cut down the number of towers that we possibly could do so that is all in the works. There's
no real issue. We have the community that we are planning on trading on is up in Long Lake and they've
got a site there and we are going to go, we're planning on going on that and we're going to make this one
available to Airtouch as well. We do co-locate on lots of water towers, and we have located on those all
over town. I just want to back up to another issue is that we've gone on approximately 80 of them in the
metro area here so that's, we try to use them whenever possible and if we could have gotten the deal done
with Eden Prairie, we certainly would have done that. That was our preferred location as well too. Is
there any other questions I might answer for you?
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: If you guys don't mind I'd just like a little bit of education here. APT needs a
135, 130 foot of elevation. Airtouch is looking at 75 feet of elevation. Can you just explain to me the
signal differences? Why the, why the wide variation in elevations?
Mike 0 'Rourke: Yes, most of that has to do with the number of sites that you ultimately need to
construct is that because Airtouch has been in the business for about 13 years or so and building a
network throughout the cities here, they have quite a few sites in the neighboring vicimty. They don't
need a lot of coverage. Mostly what they're doing, when he talks about a split cell, it's primarily to
enhance the number of calls that can be handled in a specific area rather than an overall coverage
objective. And so there will come a day when we'll probably be back here looking for 75 foot sites
halfway in-between here and Victoria and halfWay between here and the Wilson Learning Center
building. Things like that. That's how the networks will grow and they'll eventually, the sites will
eventually grow down. 75 feet is probably about a minimum because of the tree heights in the areas. If
you get down below the tree heights, you're just shooting in the trees and it doesn't do any good.
Councilman Berquist: At that point would you think that the larger towers would be reduced in size?
Mike O'Rourke: Actually that's always a possibility. Oftentimes what happens is we're able to, we
might move our antennas down them and lease the top to somebody else that needs the height. That's
kind of the way it's done. I know that we've, in case we are leasing from one of the other competitors,
AT&T that did move their antennas down on a site. Made the top available to us. We're leasing on that
now so it really has worked good to fully utilize the site as much as possible but there will come a day
when they can actually remove some of the sections on the tower. I'm not sure exactly when that might
be in this scenario but that's a possibility.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Jay Littlejohn: May I...?
Mayor Mancino: Yes you may. Come up.
Jay Littlejohn: Well, I'm working on my tenth year of doing this and I've never, ever seen a trade on a
site. When we do leasing we lease, based upon what it costs. We're not in the business of making
money from selling sites. We're not in the business of trading sites. While it's true that we like to see
minimum numbers of towers built, what we have here is a situation with two people that have potential
users in this city and we are going to be denied or made to be denied a permit based on co-location and
16
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
all we want to do is lease a site from them. Make that co-location possible. That's why we're asking that
you either table the matter or condition the matter based upon them entering into a lease with us. There
are all sorts of issues that have already been resolved and can be resolved here as to ground space for the
location of our tower. The structural capacity of the tower. All this is in the concept stage. Just bringing
in another site is not something that we endorse. We have not agreed that we would trade this. Trade
any sites out. We haven't even seen a lease that proposes such a trade. It might have been sent out but it
wasn't faxed out. I've been in the office all day. I'm just a bit concerned that this is a situation where
we'll allow you to co-locate eventually. Well meantime our site gets denied and then nobody, there's no
co-location here and I'll be back in front of you saying we still don't have a co-location agreement. So
that's my concern. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay Council members. Kate, a couple questions that I have. We're
looking tonight at American Portable Telecom. The other request that was tabled by the Planning
Commission, was that because American Portable Telecom came in first? Was it because Planning staff
thought it was a better site for co-location? Could you review that with us please?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. The Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended this as a superior
site. Obviously our first objective is to have one tower with co-location. That's the objective. As Mr.
Littlejohn indIcated, what was represented was the 78 feet height but obviously if you require the co-
location on that one, his also would be taller. Both homes, both sites have residential behind them
whether It's Eden Prairie or Chanhassen residents. They both have residential. I preferenced the
professional office, the Chan Professional Office Building was that it was behind the building.. .and the
screening and the consistency with the Highway 5. Our real objective is just to have the co-location
requirement but that's our preferred site.
Mayor Mancino: And was it the Planning Commission's recommendation that there be a condItion
giving a co-locatIOn contract with?
Kate Aanenson: They tabled it to see If this one was approved tonight, then the other application would
be withdrawn. That was what they were waiting to see if this would be approved tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And did that pass the Planning Commission unanimously?
Kate Aanenson: I believe it did. It is scheduled for the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
That's why it's back on the agenda. We're following the 60 day time limit so we're processing it. We're
just trying to see what the action was tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And has city staff at all, have you looked in that area or just east of that area, of
the two sites and have you contacted any businesses to see if they would be willing to rent space?
Kate Aanenson: As Mr. Littlejohn indicated they were, the reason this ordinance came into place, we
didn't pro actively say let's bring cellular towers into the city. They came in with an application and we
didn't have the tools to accommodate it so we went through a process to amend the ordinance and we felt
like we had given due consideration to have a good ordinance that protects the city. They did have the
Redmond site and we believed that was the one going forward. As he indicated, that one certainly didn't
work. Then we have this application tonight. It is adjacent to residential.. .All of this is Eden Prairie
residential behind, even as you go farther east on that site. So I guess what we were looking at then, we
came back to the visibility of Highway 5. Yes there is high tension power lines that change but because
we felt like depending on your line of sight, depending on which way you're coming, you're going to
lose them anyway. You can stand in a certain perspective but the height is such, you're still going to see
17
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
either one. We liked it because it was behind the building and you would see less of the front of that.
That was the staff s proposal and the Planning Commission seemed to concur with that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Comments from Councilmembers. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I went out again this week and looked at this. I looked at it from four
different angles. The thing that keeps bothering me about this entire thing is all I keep hearing and all I
keep seeing pictures of is a view somewhere associated with Highway 5. To me there are two residential
areas that are impacted by either of these locations and that is the neighborhood to the northwest of TH
101 and TH 5 as well as the neighborhood directly north. Go stand there and look. I like, I mean if! had
to pick one of these two sites, I'd definitely pick the one at the nursery simply because you're extending a
line of poles, which you will do with this site. You're going to extend the line of poles. Plus it's further
away from the residential. Now the problem is go look and see what that buys you. Not a whole lot
because it's still very visible in this location and as I, when I got the report on this I kind ofread back
through it and it kept bothering me and kept bothering me. I mean to find findings of fact that say that
there is, the proposed tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area. I mean yeah, if you like
looking at a bunch of towers there now and you operate on the premise that one more tower isn't going to
make any difference. But I'm afraid if! lived in one of those residential areas I certainly wouldn't look
at it that way. You know and to say that the towers wouldn't create conditions detrimental to the persons
or property, you know again from the aesthetics standpoint I just, I don't buy that. I think this particular
area, excuse me is junked enough. And maybe that happened over a long period of time and there's not a
whole lot we can do about it but I just have a real hard time adding another tower to it. If push comes to
shove and we had to add one, I would definitely go for the location to the east simply because it's further
away from what at least I would be protecting, which is the residential area, and likewise would not
extend this line of poles further to the west which would happen at the other site.
Mayor Mancino: So when you say area to the east, be a little more specific.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean we have two choices here and one is the tower cohabitated behind the
office building and the other one is a office cohabitated behind the nursery, where the nursery, I would
far select the nursery you know simply because it's further away from the residential areas and also
because it does not extend visually this line of poles further to the west because I believe one gentleman
did say, from that point there now, those towers end and it crosses the highway and goes kind of
southwest. So I mean it's kind of, how would you say, fades out at that point and what you're saying
now is... I have a problem with that so that's my comments.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Well, other people have said this and it's sometimes true. Councilman Senn and I
don't very often agree on things. We happen to agree on this one 100%, which is a scary thought. I
don't know whether that's good for him or bad for me or what, or vice versa.
Mayor Mancino: We'll have to separate you two soon.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know, maybe not. I don't like the towers at all and I know they're
doing their thing and we have to do our thing. Visual, I think visual pollution is something we as a
society don't deal with anywhere near enough. I don't like them. Having said that.
Mayor Mancino: So what would you like to see? Would you like to see this tabled and see?
18
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Mason: Well if we table it, we're just going to come back with the same stuff.
Mayor Mancmo: Well what I mean is, and please sit down until we're done. See the other location come
m front of us.
Councilman Mason: Well I certainly agree with Mark's comments about if we had to choose between
the two. I agree with him 100% on that. I would even raise the issue whether we need towers but I know
for a fact their lawyers are going to come and throw all kinds of things at us if we say we don't and I
don't know if that's, so that's fine. So I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, did you want to answer that?
Councilman Senn: I just had a follow-up question. Roger, I mean effectively given our ordmance and
our standards and stuff, effectively I mean are we stuck with putting the tower in one of these locations,
or in this area? Is that a better question?
Roger Knutson: Based upon our ordinance it would be advisable to try to find an area that would work
that can give them coverage, yes.
Councilman Senn: But an area within thIS area that we're talking about tonight? Okay.
Mayor Mancmo: Thank you. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'm wIth these guys. I don't like the look in that area. It's blighted, as Mark's
already indicated. But as a businessman I don't like to stand in your way of running your business
effecttvely but my first duty, having said that, is to the citizens ofChanhassen and it's not a good area
aesthetically for anybody. It just isn't. When you drive by there, I know it's not great right now. This
just is keeping more junk in the yard I guess, for lack of a better word and I'm not convinced that the CIty
of Eden Prairie can't be worked with a little better here. Now with that said, if you come back and we've
got no other choice and the City of Eden Prairie has said forget it, we're not going to do anything about
this, I'd probably go for it then but I'm not convinced we have worked with Eden Prairie enough. I'd like
to have a little time for us to work with them ourselves. I think we can make a little headway there.
That's what I've got to say.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm going to ask Mr. O'Rourke a question regarding, and maybe you're not
the best one but since you were purported as the technical wizard I'll ask you. From an operational point
of view, I'm sorry you're with Airtouch?
Mike O'Rourke: No, I'm with APT.
Councilman Berquist: Knowing Airtouch's existing coverage and knowing what your coverage needs
are, and knowing perhaps some of the exploration of sites that's been done. There's a site, and someone
already said further to the west is not a good idea but there is a site further to the west, part of which is
owned by the City ofChanhassen. Part of which is another, I just thought of this. The old Brown's, the
Hanus building. That site.
Mike O'Rourke: By Amoco?
19
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well up on top of the hill. Behind the cemetery. I mean yeah, there's a
neighborhood behind it. I don't know if it would be more, but it has a lot of elevation. The size of the
tower may be less. I offer that as an idea.
Mike O'Rourke: It's hard to say because I'm not familiar with that particular spot of course but we did
look at our propagation analysis and for every quarter mile that we move west, we do open up a gap on
Highway 5 between here and I'm not sure if you're familiar with where the Wilson Learning Center is.
It's a building that's up on, where 212 and 494. It opens a gap in-between those two and that causes a
real problem for us. We really don't want to go farther west because it actually starts doing overlap
coverage with Victoria.
Councilman Berquist: Even if, I mean we're talking perhaps 400 yards.
Mike O'Rourke: Oh, okay.
Councilman Berquist: 500 yards perhaps.
Mike O'Rourke: That's you know certainly a possibility. Technically that's, that kind of distance. I
thought we were talking a mile or something like that. That's a possibility.
Councilman Berquist: And one other questIon regarding elevation, you're from APT again, right?
Mike O'Rourke: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: You're looking for 130 feet, is that elevation from what you consider, I mean are
you looking at your service area as being the roadway there? Is that sort of.. .
Mike O'Rourke: The roadway and the city. We actually look to.
Councilman Berquist: Is that 130 feet tower height, that's the elevation that you're looking at the current
site. That's the elevation that you're looking at keeping it above the highway. So ifin fact you were able
to achieve that 130 feet but do it with 20 foot or 30 foot more of ground elevation, the tower height
would decrease, is that right?
Mike O'Rourke: That's right. That's right. It would and the visual impact generally is the same but our
tower height would be less which is fine with us. It's less cost.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Well, to my way oflooking at it the perfect solution of this, in all honesty,
would be for APT to locate on the Eden Prairie water, you can sit down. I don't have any more questions
for you. For the APT to locate on the Eden Prairie water tower if and when Eden Prairie ever allows it to
happen. And then the 75 foot tower at Lotus, that would be one solution. A second solution would be at
a different site. Whether or not it's worth exploring the Hanus building site or the HRA property site,
remains to be seen. Obviously if that site becomes, or is not available or not compatible, a 75 foot tower
is certainly going to be less intrusive on the Lotus Lawn and Garden site. And ifthere's going to be a 75
foot tower, then I could probably make an argument, why not a 130 foot tower. And I could probably
make an argument as to why not too.
Mike O'Rourke: Could I clarify that too? Either location would be 135 feet.
20
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Berquist: If you were to both locate on it, I understand that. Right. But if you were to
locate on the Eden Prairie water tower, there'd be no need for you to go to 130 feet. You could come in
at 75 feet. Your location, from what I'm understanding, your location along that TH 5 corridor needs to
remain constant. I mean that's set in stone so to speak.
Mike O'Rourke: Basically.
Councilman Berquist: Within you know, certain parameters.
Mike O'Rourke: Right.
Councilman Berquist: Theirs on the other hand, given the height, it can be a little bit more maybe set
back from the road and therefore the water tower, anyway.
Mike O'Rourke: Right. But the situation there is that Eden Prairie does not allow to do that.
Councilman Berquist: At the present time they're not willing to talk.
Mike O'Rourke: Right.
CouncIlman Berquist: We don't know if they're unwilling to do It.
CouncIlman Engel: We've got to get them to talk about it first.
Jay Littlejohn: .. .Eden Prairie on their water towers so they do it.
Councilman Engel: That's what I'm saying. That's what's frustrating me about this. I'm out oftum
here.
Councilman Berquist: I'd like, somehow or another I'd like to be able to facilitate a conversation
between the gentleman, or person that makes the decisIOns at Eden Prairie and you folks. I don't know if
we began that process today or not.
Mayor Mancino: And that may be a motion.
Councilman Berquist: Pardon me?
Mayor Mancino: And that may be a motion that you have.
Councilman Berquist: And that may be a motion that I have. That's the extent of my comments for now.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Coyle you had something that you wanted to say. You want to let that
pass, okay. Kate, did you have Councilman Berquist's suggestion oflocating that on the Hanus building,
do you have any reaction to that as far as that site?
Kate Aanenson: Highway 5 corridor study, that was an area we certainly looked at enhancing and kind
of making a park facility. I mean there's other properties that the city owns next to Lotus Park there
where there is a city well site. We looked at that again and the close proximity, there's homes right there.
I mean you're actually even closer to homes, as far as the city leasing that. And so aesthetically you're
pushing it closer to Highway 5 with nothing else screening it there so we felt keeping it in the lOP district
21
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
III this circumstance was better. We did consider that and we considered putting it on the bridge.
.. .options right there with the visibility but we thought aesthetically that wouldn't be the best choice.
. . . because we believe that the bridge really and the landscaping on the other side is your entrance
statement to the city and I guess we felt like putting the tower right there... best statement.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well let me give a few of my comments and that would be, my suggestion for
this, hearing Council, different Council members, would be to table this and have Airtouch come in and
make a presentation to their site plan to the Council and at the same time the City Manager and I would
make a call to Eden Prairie and talk to their officials there and see if we can get somewhere with their
water tower. Placing it there. And we may not be able to. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Are we okay on a time line tabling this?
Kate Aanenson: Yes we are. What we'd do is on March 3rd it'd be before the Planning Commission so
we'd bring the other one back so you'd have both before you on the 10th.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I think that sounds like a good idea but I think at the same time the discussion with
Eden Prairie should really be pushed. I mean I don't like the situation that's being created, especially
when there's a water tower there that can service the needs without more towers in the area. And if Eden
Prairie's attitude is they'd rather have it in Chanhassen, then I'll tell you what, I think we should put it on
the south of the industrial that is on the south side of Highway 5 there which will make it visual to all the
Eden PraIrie neighborhoods rather than the Chanhassen neighborhoods and it will probably give them
just as good a location.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Excuse me. Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: Ijust want to make it clear that that was not Eden Prairie's comments. That they were
pushing this onto Chanhassen. I'd hate to see this get in the paper and start a feud over thIS.
Councilman Engel: Oh, don't print that. Don't print that.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please?
Councilman Berquist: I move to table.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to table the request from American
Portable Telecom for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a 135
foot telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
UPDATE ON U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CARRIER ANNEX (VERBAL).
Mayor Mancino: Roger, a verbal update please.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the Council. As I believe everyone on the Council knows, you
received the noise assessment study prepared by David Braslau Associates for the post office. We
received that last week. I believe at least you have a copy of it. Weare now in the process of arranging a
22
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
meeting with the Post Office. Hopefully for Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of next week in the
evening. We've been attempting to get a hold of or contact the Post Office. He just was not available
today. As soon as we have that date, which hopefully we'll have it tomorrow, we will get you and the
neighbors informed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. A couple things I'd like to add to that. Number one, the date that the
neighborhood would like it to be on March 4th, and that is a Tuesday night. So Council members may
look, put that or pencil it on your calendar. March 4th. A meeting of the neighborhood and the U.S.
Postal service. It would be in the Council chambers?
Roger Knutson: I would assume so unless the Council chambers is already booked.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it would be a presentation of the U.S. Postal Service of the acoustICS.
Councilman Senn: What time?
Kate Aanenson: It hasn't been finalized.
Mayor Mancino: It hasn't been finalized, so I'm just letting you know next week, 4th, 5th or 6th and it
would be on the report that has been submitted and the U.S. Postal Service would be presenting and then
there will be an opportunity for neighbors or Council members to ask questions about the report. And
then it will come in front of the City Council on March 10th. Is there anyone here tonight that would like
to address the City Council on this? Would you state your name and address please.
Bob Beduhn: Hello. My name is Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North in Chanhassen,
Minnesota. I'm a resident adjacent to the Postal Carrier Annex. I would like to reiterate that the
neighbors are interested in the March 4th date. One of the impacted homes is, the family would not be in
town the other dates and they're very interested in attending and so they would much prefer the March 4th
date if possible. I also have put together, I've reviewed the report and have some comments I'd like to
provide to the Council and if I could briefly just go through those.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, that'd be fine.
Bob Beduhn: I just enumerated about 6 points. I went through the report and there's several items I
guess I'd like that the attorney could provide to the Postal Service in anticipation of the meeting. The
first one is that the Figure 3.1 of the report shows the layout of the proposed berm and wall. It shows a
rather limited berm and wall. That only covers a portion of the site and I guess in looking at it that the
alignment of that wall and the berm, that the assumption is, that was done just on the purposes of the
noise and it does not constitute the actual landscaping plan of the report because they only show a piece
of the wall being in place and previous landscaping design showed a wall that encompassed the entire
site and the berm that encompassed the entire site. If you look at the figure, it only covers a portion of
the site. Also there's been some concern that some of the lots south of, or west of Lot 10 were not
included in the noise analysis and those homes are also adjacent to the Postal Service property and it's
our belief that some of those homes may actually be more impacted than some of the other homes
because they're very close to the final turn that the truck will take as it leaves the back area of the postal
service annex and those homes are not indicated on Figure 10, nor is there any noise impact analysis. In
Section 3.4 of the report the consultant did not provide any noise equations or assumptions. In reviewing
textbooks on noise analysis, there's a specific equation that they use to project from this point to our
homes, how much noise, what decibel level that we will experience at our homes and then you take
assumptions and you have so much decibel reduction because of a berm and so much of a decibel
23
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
reduction because of a wall and the distance and trees and those things. And the equation that he used
was not specified nor the decibel reductions. And just looking at the equation you can play around with
it, you know a 5% change in an assumption could result in them being above or below State standards for
noise and so if the consultant could provide those equations, that would be something we'd like to see.
In Section 4.1 they assume that the noise receptive was the second story windows. While this is
appropriate for general, this is where we spend a lot of our waking hours, in regards to being woken up,
they discussed the probability of us being woken up and it ranges from 5% to 8% probability that we'll
be woken up by the activities at the Postal Service.
Mayor Mancino: With the windows open.
Bob Beduhn: With the windows open. We'd like to know, I'd like to know whether or not that increases
in the third story or not because we're more of a direct line of sight to the trucks when you're looking
over the top of the wall.
Councilman Berquist: A quick question. Are you sure Bob that the reference to second story wmdows
isn't the, I mean are they calling the walkouts or the lower.
Bob Beduhn: That I don't know. I guess maybe that needs to be clarified. That's why I'm calling it out.
Because I know in previous discussions we talked about the main story, second story, do the line of sight
to the family rooms as the line of sight so I guess it wasn't really clear which one he was referrmg to.
Again I discuss the need to show the actual noise calculations. In Section 6.2, under the garbage hauling
and snow removal, the noise consultant indicates that, makes some kind of general recommendations that
garbage hauling and snow removal has to do with city ordinance and I guess I wasn't really clear. I
haven't seen a city ordinance. Whether or not the city actually has a noise ordinance. I know some cities
do.
Mayor Mancino: We do.
Bob Beduhn: Okay. But also those are services that the Postal Service contracts and that it's within their
full contracting ability to tell the contractor when to come in and remove snow and when to come in and
take garbage as well I would believe, subject to the City so I think that needs to be considered a little bit
more. And then just in general, most of these recommendations I'd call them non-structural other than
extending the berm but in general about loud radios, horns, slamming doors, leaving doors open. Those
are all kind of best management practices that they're going to ask the employees of the Postal Service to
do and I guess if that goes I'd like, we're kind oflooking for a good signage plan as employees drive in
telling them to turn off their radios, not to loiter in the parking lot, not to slam doors, those sorts of
things. Those are just my initial reactions and again there's a number of things to go into more detail like
he indicated. He said once every 12 days some of the higher impacted homes have a probability of being
awaken with their windows open.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's a half year too. It's not like it's year round.
Bob Beduhn: But I mean there's things that I don't think all, everybody's had a chance to fully digest in
the report and be fully distributed but I wanted to give you these are some ideas up front to provide them
so they're prepared to discuss them.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Kate, can you get to Bob in the next couple of days the noise ordinance. A
copy of our noise ordinance. Or also the hours of operation. If we have anything and to tell you the
truth, I'm not quite sure of hours for snowplowing, etc. But again that could be something brought up
24
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
just as good neighbors when they contract out to have it done. Do you understand that? Any comments
from Council members at this time to Bob? And Roger, can you pass this on to the.
Roger Knutson: We'll fax it tomorrow morning.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Bob Beduhn: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming tonight. The next item on the agenda is new business. There is
none. Yes, I'm sorry.
Councilman Senn: 1 don't know if we could look at maybe suspending the rules or do whatever but 1
don't think we need to do the Council presentation stuff next since 1 assume we have, is it the sidewalk
clearing ordinance that people are waiting for?
Audience: What I'm waiting for agenda, number (h) and (I).
Mayor Mancino: We're already passed that. That went under the Consent Agenda and that has already
been.
Audience: .. .receive one in the mail?
Mayor Mancino: Yes it is. We're very sorry about that.
Audience: So those were approved?
Mayor Mancino: Those were approved as in the staff report and what we got. Thank you.
Councilman Senn: 1 take back what 1 said 1 guess...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well, we can go ahead to Administrative Presentations. Does anyone mind
flopping that so that we can go ahead with the sidewalk clearing ordinance and sump pump inspection
program because we do have someone who's here for that.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. SIDEWALK CLEARING ORDINANCE. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT. PARK &
RECREATION DIRECTOR.
Todd Hoffman: Mayor Mancino, members of City Council, thank you. What 1 think is due this evening
is a simple clarification of what the City Council would like to see enforced as a part of the City of
Chanhassen nuisance ordinance, Chapter 13. As you can see from the cover memo, there is some
misunderstanding, or at least confusion on the part of city staff as to whether or not the current
ordinances can be enforced or not. And it's simply an example, 1 like to get things down to real person
terms and Barb here has been having a problem getting her sidewalk cleared in front of her house. She is
at a point of a bus stop collection where children walk down either the sidewalk or the street to gather in
her driveway to be picked up by the school bus. After snowfalls, especially as occurred in December and
January, some of the neighbors did not clear the sidewalks, thus forcing the kids into the street to get to
the bus stop and Ms. Johnson thought with the safer alternative of the sidewalk being available but
25
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
simply the fact that it was not cleared, prohibited that use, that that could be easy to correct. This is not a
new issue. It's been around and I classified in one of those seasonal issues which gain some momentum
and then just before it's solved, you know winter goes away and it's gone for another year. I would just
as soon, since it gets passed to me as you can see on a variety of occasions over the years, I would just as
soon we settle it at a Council level. Does the City Council wish to see sidewalks cleared by residents.
And if they are not cleared by residents, would you like to enforce that policy or that nuisance ordinance
or do you want this to be dealt with in some other manner. My recommendation is that we ask if you do
want to enforce it, we ask that Roger clarify the ordinance. Put some more teeth into it, as we refer to it
as. Talk about the fines and penalties, which this does. You know the current ordinance does talk about
fines and penalties. It talks about that it's a nuisance to public health and safety and in his opinion it is
enforceable as it stands. Then again it would be my recommendation that we direct the appropriate
Public Safety officials to contact the offenders in this particular case and at least start communications
with them on this particular issue.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Todd.
Councilman Berquist: How is it enforceable when it fails to state who, where the responsibility lies?
Roger? Roger?
Mayor Mancino: He'll be back in a minute.
Councilman Berquist: Can you answer that?
Todd Hoffman: Roger was clear in that he said this is enforceable. These are enacted for the benefit of
the community and if you read the general, you know in this article nuisance means the unlawful
interference with the use or obstruct, intent to obstruct or render dangerous for passage to lakes, streams,
sidewalk, etc. and then the following are nuisances affecting public peace and safety. All snow not
removed and I think his statement's going to be, who's responsible, responsibility should it be but the
adjacent property owner.
Councilman Berquist: Well the reason I ask, excuse me. The reason I ask is because the sidewalk that
runs from City Hall all the way down to Frontier Trail, along Laredo is plowed by the City. The city
sidewalk. . .
Councilman Senn: Well, why isn't my neighborhood.
Councilman Berquist: So how do you explain that?
Todd Hoffman: Why and it's a route to the school and it's been done for many, many years. Why.
Mayor Mancino: That's the way it is. You know where I grew up, the mail person walked the sidewalks
so I mean you got a heavy fine if your sidewalk in front of your home, on your property, you haven't
cleared it yourself. One, you won't get your mail. And number two, you have to keep it open no ifs,
anode's or BUTS's. In those communities.
Don Ashworth: The City does downtown, all routes to and from schools. So both Laredo and Kerber are
plowed by the City. Trails, so let's say around Lake Susan. Those are done by the City. Actually the
two areas that we don't do is this one here... And the other one was.
Todd Hoffman: There's a variety.
26
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Stone Creek.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, Stone Creek. The Longacres.
Councilman Senn: Are you the snow removal czar now?
Councilman Mason: You're just a little bit of everything aren't you?
Mayor Mancino: Are we differentiating Todd between a trail and a sidewalk?
Todd Hoffman: Yes we are.
Mayor Mancino: We are definitely differentiating between the two. Longacres, do they have their
sidewalks?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, because I've been on the trails there but I haven't actually been on the sidewalk.
Councilman Senn: Well if Berquist's sidewalk gets done, I think my driveway should get done.
Councilman Berquist: I don't have sidewalks. The sidewalk that runs parallel to Laredo though was
done. Roger, the question that I had real qUIckly was, the wordage of the ordinance to me does not state
who's responsibility it is. It simply says the snow and ice must be removed within 12 hours after it has
been ceased to be deposited thereon.
Mayor Mancino: So it would be Roger's directiOn from us, if we wanted to, to say exactly who's
responsibility it is.
Councilman Berquist: Well he says it's enforceable now. I mean Todd kind of gave the recap of.
Roger Knutson: In theory it is enforceable now. I would interpret that with the ordinance to say that the
abutting property owner has to clear the snow. But having said that, could I elaborate a httle bit? What
we have now is a situation where if you don't, if we were to enforce it, it would be a misdemeanor
citation. Which is the same penalty theoretically for drunken driving. To bring that in front of a District
Court Judge and say.
Councilman Berquist: Throw the book at him.
Roger Knutson: Throw this person in jail or recommend a heavy duty fine, I would not get a warm and
fuzzy reception either by the residents or by the judiciary for doing that. It's theoretically possible but I
don't think it's really the result that anyone would want. And the Judge may be so annoyed that the
result would not be anything satisfactory to the City. What is more realistic if you want to do this, is a
separate sidewalk ordinance, snow removal ordinance that would essentially make it perhaps a petty
misdemeanor and then have the work done by contracted crews ifit isn't done within a certain time and
assess the cost to the property owner. That's what communities that are serious about this do. You
really don't want to bring someone into Court on a criminal misdemeanor for somethmg like this. I
wouldn't recommend it.
27
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments and questions? Councilman Senn. Which, what direction would
you like to see this?
Councilman Senn: I guess I can't really say what direction I'd like to see it. I'd like a lot more
information first. I mean how much of the city is covered by the sidewalk? I don't know, maybe my
problem is I live in an area with no sidewalks. I was raised in an area with no sidewalks. I've never had
sidewalks, other than maybe brief stints of living in other places but I guess, I hate to just rush into this
and say yes, we need to start enforcing this and doing this and effectively only dealing with a relatively
minor problem and making a mountain out of a mole hill. And I don't know. I don't see enough
effectively right now to make me comfortable with that. So I guess I'd rather see that first.
Mayor Mancino: Todd, how many calls do you get, because obviously you're here in front of us because
you keep getting calls.
Todd Hoffman: It's half a dozen a year.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? Minneapolis probably has the most experience with this. They have an
ordinance along the lines I described to you. But I will also say being a resident of Minneapolis, as far as
I know, if they enforce it must be on a complaint basis...because a lot of folks in my block don't shovel
their snow. And certainly not within 24 hours. I mean you have to look at sometimes on a practical
basis. Sometimes you get that ice that comes down, as we all know. I have a sidewalk in front of me and
sometimes I don't know how you'd get it out without a jack hammer or a blow torch or something. It just
won't come off
Councilman Senn: I don't think, I mean I don't think we want to create an unsafe condition so my
intention is not to make light of it. But I think what we need to do is understand, I mean if it is a half a
dozen calls a year, I guess I'd like to know what the half dozen calls per year are which areas? They're
coming from consistently, more or less where do we really have the problem?
Mayor Mancino: Well right now Todd, what happens? I mean do you call the people in that
neighborhood and ask them to clear the sidewalk and do they do it? I mean how are you met and.
Todd Hoffman: Get the run around.
Mayor Mancino: You just get the run around?
Councilman Senn: Why do you think Todd's the one presenting this? Come on, I mean. What does
Todd have to do with snow removal, excuse me but.
Councilman Engel: I think I can elaborate a little on this.
Mayor Mancino: Let me go to Councilman Mason first.
Councilman Mason: Well I just, I don't know. I keep wanting to hum city sidewalks but, and it does
kind of sound like we're making light ofthis and it obviously is a problem in some areas. I guess I hear
what Mark's saying, I don't know if we want to make a mountain out ofa mole hill. I wonder if there
isn't a way we can deal with this on a little more individual basis than creating another city wide
ordinance or putting some teeth into the ordinance we have. If it is enforceable the way it states, maybe
what we need to do is, ifthere are problem areas, we need to do a little education or get a flyer out or
28
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
something like that and see if that works. And if that doesn't, then maybe we need to revisit it. Maybe
the issue here is education as opposed to revamping ordinances. That's my thought I guess.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Well I live in that neighborhood so I've got a little perspective on this. I drive by 1t
every day and you've got three things working this particular winter causing this I believe. Number one,
there's been a lot of snow. Number two, we tend to push it all up with the plows on the side to the point
where they buried mailboxes a while ago and we had to dig those out. And the third thing is, if you look
down that street, there's only a sidewalk on one side of the street. Almost everybody, well I'll say a large
majority have snowblowers and we contribute to our own problem. That stuff gets blown right into your
side yard and onto your sidewalk, and you've got a practical limitation as to what these snowblowers can
then take out of the sidewalk. They've got a snow pile so large they're not going to get it out of there on
the sidewalk in that little alley they've got cut out. That's why it's happened. If you just walk through
there and you see it when the snow's falling, that's why it's happened. So I thmk if we, you know and
like Roger said, and I used to have a corner lot in Minneapolis. That time we had the Halloween
blizzard. There's practical limitations to what you can do in a certain amount of time. So if we're going
to do something with an ordinance, something along the lines of 3 calls to the neighbor and then send a
city crew in there to plow it and assess them for it. That's what we had to do in Minneapolis I remember.
If you got called 3 times, and I remember after that Halloween blizzard there was a call. It just took some
time to do that and I don't want to overact because it's been a bad winter and I think can get by this
thing. Just wait it out a little bit and then probably use that 3 calls to a neighbor. If they don't do it, then
assess them that for someone else plowing it but I don't want to see any of this bring them to Court and
fine them. Just clear it and charge them but let's wait. Let's make that the absolute last resort.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well so far I've heard three people talk about removmg the snow. I thmk we
should outlaw snow altogether... Well what Mark, what Councilman Engel says makes perfectly good
sense and couple that with the fact that a couple of days after the snow falls and the plows go by, then
they come by again and top grade and drop it... back further. I don't really want to see us worry about
changing the ordinance necessarily because then we still have to enforce it and maybe we'll get to a point
where it's something that needs to be done. I mean if you had some type of, or whoever gets these calls,
had some type of a letter that they could copy and send out on a complaint. That they got a complaint. A
nice letter that was written on city letterhead that said, you know it's come to our attention that the
sidewalk in front of your home hasn't been shoveled and we understand but there are children that need
to use that sidewalk to catch buses and for safety sake we'd really like to see you shovel the sidewalk.
We understand it's a problem and it's a pain in the tail in some such language but please do it. Would we
get any kind of positive response from that? I mean I'd write the letter so we can start there.
Mayor Mancino: If you wrote the letter we'd get a negative response.
Councilman Berquist: ...I think that we should outlaw winter but being as we can't do that, this is the
next best choice.
Mayor Mancino: I'd like to add onto it. Are you done? I'm sorry. To what Councilman Berquist said. I
think that prior to, let's be proactive and in the Fall, in those areas where they have sidewalks, where
there are sidewalks on one side, etc. that the kids use, let's write a letter from the City to every
homeowner in that area and ask them if they would, for the reasons of children trying to get school buses
and needing to use the sidewalks, if they could make sure that their sidewalks are cleared and if there are
29
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
any complaints, to call and who to call. And then re-examine it next winter and see if that's helped. And
Councilman Berquist could write the letter and.
Councilman Senn: And take the phone calls, right?
Mayor Mancino: And take the phone calls, and we'll proofread it and edit his letter though.
Councilman Berquist: That does sound like a reasonable place to start.
Todd Hoffman: I think it does. I think staff, Scott Harr.. .it's really Public Safety and give that direction
to Manager Ashworth... Scott's just been, he doesn't want to hand out misdemeanors for not plowing
sidewalks so he wondered what we'd like to do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Don, what do you think?
Don Ashworth: I think that's an excellent idea. I think we may have, in winters like this I don't think
that most neighborhoods are going to be able to contend with the amount of snow that's basically
covering some of those sidewalks right now which gets back maybe to Mark's point that we may end up
having to come back and move it all back far enough so they can literally manage their own but.
Councilman Engel: Well then you're going to have to deal with those destroyed trees and gardens and
you don't want to do that.
Mayor Mancino: But let's put that on the agenda to make sure that that goes out in September of next
year or October. Who will take that responsibility to make sure that we put it on the agenda to have a
letter going out to the homeowners that do have sidewalks in their subdivisIOn?
Don Ashworth: I'll make sure that Scott is aware of it.
Mayor Mancino: Great.
SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM UPDATE, CITY ENGINEER.
Charles Fo1ch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have our project manager from
Buchen Environmental Services, Mr. Craig Anderson who's been before you before and just kind of
wanted to give you an update as to how the program's going and what things we're finding so far with
the program that's been in place now for little over a month so with that I'll turn it over to Craig.
Craig Anderson: Thank you Charles. Mayor, members of the Council. I have an update I'd like to hand
out at this time. This update is through noon Saturday so it's pretty current. As Charles said we've been
at it for about a month now and what we've found, we've completed 924 inspections total. Of those 924,
784 are in compliance with the ordinance. 140 not in compliance with the ordinance, or 85%, 15% and
that's about where we estimated we would be at this time. We started in the northern section of the
community, which is an older area and the area that we felt might have the most significant problems.
At the present time we have four inspectors working in Chanhassen. Two doing appointments, two doing
the canvassing. We've completed the northeast section and will begin in the northwest section of the
community. With very few exceptions, the residents and property owners of this city have been excellent
to deal with. Lots of good questions. We had 40, approximately 40 people at the first information
meeting. There were a lot of questions. I think the meeting went on for 2 Y2-3 hours answering questions
and most specifically the questions were on specific pieces of property. Specific problems that
30
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
mdividual property owners had with pumping outside. The first informational meeting was a little over a
month ago. We will have another one next week on Tuesday night for the next area that we will be
canvassing. That's basically what's happened out there. If you have any questions or comments or
concerns, I'll try and answer them at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Council have questions for Mr. Anderson. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Just for the record, I don't have a sump pump. You've inspected. I have a certificate.
Tell them to quit coming. He's come back twice since I did that.
Mayor Mancino: Oh okay. He didn't believe you I guess.
Councilman Engel: There's 140 properties not in compliance with city ordinance. It says not in
compliance. There's a double negative right there.
Craig Anderson: Yeah, sorry about that. I changed it and didn't think, non compliance. There's 140 of
them in non-compliance. We've had qUIte a number, based on what the inspectors have found that have
come mto compliance before the inspections occurred. A number of people have told the inspectors that
they changed theirs before the inspection occurred at their property. So the program is working. People
that didn't know it wasn't supposed to be going into the sanitary sewer found out through the
informational packet, informatIOnal meeting and hopefully the video. I hope everybody got a chance to
see the video. So people are taking it out on their own without havmg the inspector.
Mayor Mancino: Good, Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: How many inspections are to be done Mr. Anderson?
Craig Anderson: There should be approximately 5,000 total inspections so we're about 20% on the way
there right now.
Councilman Berquist: I had a phone call like, did you call and, I had a phone call and made an
appointment for 10:00 Wednesday on a date that I don't remember right now. I got there at about 2 or 3,
maybe 5 minutes after 10:00. Never saw anyone so I mean I was a little bit late. It's very possible that
the person that was there, figured I wasn't going to show up and left. But the appointment, we made a
specific appointment.
Craig Anderson: There should have been someone there. Normally what they do, if they do leave and
the person hasn't shown up, they would put another orange door hanger.
Councilman Berquist: It wasn't on there.
Craig Anderson: Alright, I will check that out for you.
Councilman Senn: You can have one of my orange door hangers.
Craig Anderson; I will check that out. That was on your property sir?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. Well I was a little bit late.. .but I was a little bit disconcerted when no one
showed.
31
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Anderson. On these 140 that aren't in compliance. What's the price tag? What's
the average price tag for these 140 households to come into compliance?
Craig Anderson: I really couldn't tell you on that. We know that some of these only need ridged piping.
Some of them need to be piped outside. We are working, Anita and I and Charles are working with some
of the property owners who are going to have problems putting it outside. They're going to cause some
problems, some public safety problems if we put it outside. We found a number of neighborhoods now
where in fact the pumps are running continuously. That means winter and summer. The pumps on these
properties are running continuously and it could cause a problem. What we have told those property
owners, leave it in the sanitary sewer temporarily and we will work with them on a group basis or an
individual basis.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But when you do, when they're not in compliance, you do tell them I'm
assuming. I really can't remember. What they do need to do and do you give them an estimate of the
work? Then what do they do next? Do they call?
Craig Anderson: They can call a licensed plumber. If they do call a licensed plumber, the plumber then
can submit that property's name to the City to issue a Certificate of Compliance so we don't have to
disturb them again. If they do it on their own, then we will go back and certify that it's in compliance.
What the inspector can do is tell them what's wrong and what needs to be done to fix it but not how to
fix it. We step over that line then.
Mayor Mancino: But you've never come back in the cities that you've done this for and figured out how
much an average homeowner pays to be in compliance.
Craig Anderson: No. Because it's so different.
Mayor Mancino: That would be interesting information though. Out of the 140 that are not in
compliance, what it takes and how much it costs. I'd like to know that figure if we can. Charles?
Charles Folch: If you'd like, we could, once the program is completed and we have a list generated of
the properties that were initially not in non-compliance. Send out a survey if you will and ask them to
respond to what it actually costs. What was involved in their retrofit and what it cost them. We could do
something like that if you wish.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wonder then how valuable that information is to us after the fact.
Councilman Berquist: Are we distributing a list of licensed plumbers that are, we are?
Craig Anderson: Yes sir.
Councilman Berquist: And these plumbers are aware that these calls may be coming in?
Craig Anderson: We sent out an invitation to all ofthe plumbing firms on the list to come to an
informational and training session that I held here at City Hall, and a number of them did show up for
that. They did receive an informational packet didn't they, the plumbers. So they know about the
program and a number of them did show up for the training session that I held here at City Hall.
Councilman Berquist: Have you followed up to see what their response has been from the people who
are not in compliance and further, what response they're providing to the people that are calling? I'm
32
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
speaking from my own perspective. I'm a mechanical contractor but I'm not smart enough to be a
plumber. We get a lot of phone calls from people that ask us to recommend a plumbing firm and to be
honest with you, in the city of Chanhassen, to be honest in the city of Chanhassen there are not an
abundance of plumbing firms that are willing to do work such as this on a timely basis. So I'd be curious
as to whether or not they're being stonewalled or whether or not they're being adequately served. I guess
that goes along with Mayor Mancino's question.
Craig Anderson: Okay. I think we could put together some type of questionnaire to send out to these
particular property owners to ask them how they're being serviced by the local plumbers.
Mayor Mancino: Actually it'd be good to do that now instead of waiting until after we've done
everyone. Because maybe we need to shorten that list or make the list different if we're givmg them
plumbers names that aren't servicing them well, and we don't want to stand behind that. Okay, thank
you. Any other questions at this point? Thank you very much.
Craig Anderson: Thank you for your hme.
Mayor Mancino: The next item on the agenda is Council Presentations. Councilman Mason.
Councilman Senn: Were you going to finish the Admin items first or were you going to come back.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, let's let Mark go home.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, that's a good idea. Thank you Councilman Senn. Let's go back to lc.
Ie. APPROVE QUOTES FOR PURCHASE OF 1997 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. FILE NO.
PWOleee.
Mayor Mancino: I think that Councilman Berquist has had some questions on this and I think, is Mark
still here? Okay. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Yes. My question Charles was the selection of the vehicle. Vehicle number 4.
The Fire Marshal's vehicle. Up until now, from what I remember, I've seen Mark driving around in a
S10 Blazer I believe. It's been outfitted for the Fire Marshal's duties. I see now that we're gomg after a
Ford Expedition which, it's a new model. It's significantly larger than the S 10 and therefore I would
suspect significantly more money. And I'm wondering as to the need for the larger vehicle and the
justification as to that series. I mean I think of a Ford Expedition and a Chevrolet Yukon, GMC Yukon
as sort of in the same. I haven't seen many Expeditions but they've been touted as being similar class
vehicles. And I think that's a lot more vehicle than what you've been driving and I'm wondering what
the rationale behind it is.
Mark Littfin: I can explain it because I was working with Harold at the shop putting this together.
Originally when we put, or last summer when we were working on the '97 budget, we were putting in
prices for a Suburban of that size vehicle because the vehicle I've got right now, the back end is full and
I've got the back seat full of stuff now where I can't even take passengers and so the idea was to expand
it to a Suburban size where we put the budget prices in and everything. And this year the Hennepin
County bids went to Ford. They didn't go to GMC or Chevrolet, which would have probably been the
Tahoe size vehicle, which would have been ideal. So the Expedition is a down sized Suburban and yeah,
then it's got some status in the name to it but that's, I'm looking for the room of the vehicle right now.
There's a lot of stuff I've got in the back seat of mine which should be secured down so if I ever had an
33
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
accident I'm not going to get a shovel in the back of my head and this type of thing but. We went up to
Superior Ford and drove a couple of them and that seemed a lot better than even a Suburban as far as
turning radius and size that I would need to carry all the equipment in.
Councilman Berquist: And you've got to carry all that stuff'?
Mark Littfin: Well I carry my turnout equipment, First Aid, oxygen, pre-plans, fire investigation
equipment. If we have a fire scene and we're interviewing somebody, I've got to get them in the vehicle
so I can talk to them instead of being scrunched in the front seat, I've got the radios, the lights, all the
control heads so it's tight in there for carrying even one passenger right now. Hopefully the Expedition
will give me the room to at least expand. We're expanding in the haz mat calls. As we expand, it's
picking up more equipment a lot of the time so. It's used as a command vehicle a lot of times.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for coming in on short notice.
Mayor Manclllo: Thank you Mark for coming in. Any other questIOns for Mark?
Councilman Engel: Do you have a cage between the back and the back seat in the rear?
Mark Littfin: ... because most of the equipment is secured in the back but as I said, if I ever got hit one
way or another, the stuffs going to start flying and I don't want something in the back of my head...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion then to approve?
Councilman Berquist: I will move approval of the 1997 vehicles and equipment purchase as contained
within the staff report.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn: Clarification?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: I think, aren't we acting on four vehicles?
Charles Fo1ch: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well that's not what Steve just said.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist's only question had to do with the fourth vehicle of all the
vehicles.
Councilman Senn: No, but Steve just said let's approve the whole 1997 vehicle purchase thing and I
guess what I'd like in the clarification is if you're talking about approving the awards on these four
vehicles. The entire 1997.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the Director of Public Works' quotes for purchase of 1997
vehicles and equipment No. PW016EEE.
Councilman Senn: That's better.
34
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And a second please.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97-15: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
Director of Public Works' quotes for Purchase of 1997 Vehicles and Equipment - PWOI6EEE. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
D2. APPROVE PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR ARBORETUM
BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM LAKE ANN PARK TO CSAH 17
(POWERS BLVD.). PROJECT 95-21.
Mayor Mancino: I think Councilman Senn, you had some questions on Barton-Aschman's use of
subcontractors and if those subcontractors, ifthey're getting bids from subcontractors. Correct?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Charles, the thing I was wondering was, you know we decided some time ago
to stick with Barton Aschman because of their history just on the overall project and all that sort of thing,
okay. But basically now they're going out for sub bids on work which is outside of the context of that
effectively. You know, I mean basically we're paying for this so I think, have we made sure that they've
bid it? Have they gotten bids on the sub stuff, you know so we're getting the best pnce?
Charles Folch: Actually the selection was based on my input. In terms of the subconsultants that are
being used, Braun Intertec was the soils engineer with the West 78th Street improvement project back in
'94 who basically did the soil boring work and a large share of that embankment area out there so has the
documentation history so it made sense to continue on using them in expectation that there should be
some cost savings rather than having to bring somebody in new and fresh as a soils consultant. Mark
Holden from Holden Associates was the electrical designer for the project so it makes sense to continue
with them through the contract process. Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson (HTPO) provides us an inspector
that we use on a handful of projects, private development projects each year that are constructing some
public improvements and so they provide us with an inspector and we felt, based on the project we have
assigned to them this year, that we would have enough availability to be out here and also do this project
so basically we're not bringing somebody new out here just for this particular project in Chanhassen.
We're making use of an inspector that's going to be out here already for some other projects. Along with
that HTPO does provide their own surveying services and that actually goes pretty hand in hand with
providing an inspector and the surveying coming from the same consulting firm, from a coordination
standpoint so basically the long and the short of it is, this selection process was based on city staff input
on who we felt would make the logical choice and provide us some cost savings. Overall looking at the
total fee for providing the contract administration, it roughly is about 8% of the construction contract.
Right basically in the lower third of what we would expect. Typically it's around 7% to 10% that we see
for construction administration, surveying and contract administration on a project so, and they're at
about 8% so they're right at the bottom third so.
Councilman Senn: Alright.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. One other that I just noticed. On this Attachment B Charles. You've got an
overhead calculation of 160%. Now those two numbers are added together? $5,000.00 hourly rate plus
$8,800.00 worth of overhead?
35
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Charles Fo1ch: Nancy and I spoke about this earlier today. Different firms factor their, how they break
out their costs sometimes a little bit differently. Sometimes some of the cost associated in an overhead
such as this one might actually be included in another firm's schedule in their hourly schedule, or hourly
rates per employee. And the long and the short of it is, they generally all come out in the end about the
same, give or take. And actually this is probably right in the ballpark as we talked about, if you look
back on the l(d)(I), the fee schedule attachment, that was an overhead percentage of 1.55.
Mayor Mancino: 55.7, yeah.
Charles Fo1ch: Pardon me?
Mayor Mancino: 155.7.
Charles Fo1ch: Right, and that's an overhead rate that Barton-Aschman had back in '95 and that was also
one that MoDot had accepted for their design contract with their auditing process so again, it depends on
how the firm does it. Some have higher hourly rates but a lower overhead number that shows up. Their
multiplying factor might be lower but in the end they generally come out about the general ballpark for
overall costs. Like I said, we typically expect somewhere around 7% to 10% for a contractor
administration on a project. General municipal type road and utility project.
Councilman Berquist: Wow.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I was surprised at the difference in overhead. One was 155.7 and one was 160,
the same firm, etc. so that's why I asked. One was negotiated in '95 and one in '97.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'll be honest with you, when I looked at this, when I flipped through this
thing on Thursday night for the first time and I saw the 160%, I thought okay 160%, 8813, okay. So
8813, I thought that was the raw number we were working with. It didn't dawn on me that we added
$5,600.00 and $8,800.00 and then worked up from there.
Mayor Mancino: And you could have done 160% of each hourly rate too.
Charles Fo1ch: Actually I do have firms out there that again, would show a standard hourly rate whIch IS
less per person but their multiplier could be 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, we talked about that link before. And Barton-Aschman, we've paid as much as
30% for contract administration on other deals.
Mayor Mancino: Well I'm glad to see it down to 8. May I have a motion please then for l(d)(2).
Councilman Senn: 1(d)(2), move it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the construction services
contract with Barton-Aschman and the attached sub consultants (HTPO, Braun Intertec, and
Holden & Associates) dated February 19, 1997 to provide the construction services for Arboretum
Boulevard Improvement Project No. 95-21. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
36
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: We're finally getting to Council Presentations. HRA, Michael. Could you?
Councilman Mason: I sure could. Under old business HRA considered approving the purchase
agreement on that 2.2 acre parcel of the Ward's. It was discussed at length. Both Councilman Senn and
Berquist were there with their erudite opinions and they were. HRA tabled it. They wanted direction
and input from Council on whether it was even appropriate for HRA to be purchasing their land for that
reason.
Mayor Mancino: So we would like to see it on the next City Council meeting agenda.
Councilman Mason: I believe that was the directlOn that was given to the Assistant Executive Director of
HRA, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: You're welcome. We did modify the TIF Reimbursement Agreement With School
District 112. That's been in the hopper for quite some time.
Mayor Mancino: And how did you modify It?
Councilman Mason: Due to the calculations I believe produced by the Executive Director of HRA. It
was conSIdered money that should be coming to them and there was essentially no disagreement with
that.
Mayor Mancino: So it went back to the years ' 88-89 when that referendum passed.
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: So it was the bigger amount versus the '92?
Councilman Mason: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: That's correct. Under new business there was some discussion on the remaining
land that HRA owns on West 79th Street and what it should be marketed at. HRA directed staff to start
negotiations with people that should call at a price between $10.00 and $12.00 a square foot, knowing
that in fact that price would probably be negotiated down if anything became serious. On that lot next to
Applebee's.
Mayor Mancino: And including soil corrections?
Councilman Mason: That would probably be part of the negotiations, that's correct. We also considered
modifying the Gary Kirt purchase agreement. He was looking for an assignment to a potential buyer,
unlimited. Knowing that the potential buyer has a connection to the city of Chanhassen, HRA agreed to
that assignment with a 3 month end. I'm not, I didn't phrase that right. HRA agreed to modifying the
purchase agreement with the caveat that it would have to be assigned within 3 months to the date of
closing and that would be all.
37
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And the reason for the date?
Councilman Mason: The reason for the date is, it appears as though the person that is looking to
purchase the land from Gary Kirt may in fact be in some sort oflegal action with him and ifthat is the
person, it would be in the City's best interest for that to be taken care of in that fashion. And if it ends up
not being that way, then we'd want to take a look at whether we would allow Mr. Kirt to reassign the
mortgage.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn, is there a question?
Councilman Senn: But you pre-approved the assignment then at this point?
Councilman Mason: With the agreement that if he does assign it, the lease is cut in half. The.
Councilman Senn: Mortgage term?
Councilman Mason: The mortgage term would go from 15 years to 7 years.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thanks for the update. Any other questions for Councilman Mason?
Councilman Berquist: Might I add somethmg?
Mayor Mancino: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: I talked to Todd Gerhardt today Mike and I told him that as 1 walked away from
the HRA meeting on Thursday night I was a little bit, I thought we had done the right thing untill
thought about it a little bit more. There's nobody here but us girls so.
Mayor Mancino: Let's go on to 212. Councilman Senn. Did you want to bring up 212?
Councilman Senn: Yes. I would like to have 212 put on our agenda for our next meeting.
Mayor Mancino: A work session or a meeting?
Councilman Senn: No, on a regular meeting for two reasons. One is to address effectively a city
response regarding 212 and a tollway proposal as it references existing legislation that's going through
the legislature right now on the tollway, which I think the City should comment on you know prior to the
legislature taking action on it. And secondly, I think the City should look at, since it took no position
before, taking a position as it relates to the 212 tollway. You know prior to the legislature again acting
on it because I think the legislature is acting on it based on, I don't know I'm going to say unknown
assumptions at this point. But there has been a fairly extensive bill introduced that changes that entire
procedure as it relates to the toll road and 212 and the approval process of it.
Mayor Mancino: Can we get, number one can we, excuse me for me, I would like to know, be given a
legislative update. I mean if what we're going to do really does have any affect on it and know what the
bill is.
38
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Senn: Okay. I mean Ijust got a copy of the bill the other day. Two days ago. It's House
File 392 and basically what it says is, it deals specifically with tollways and basically changing the entire
process on how they will be dealt with effectively taking any local control out of it.
Councilman Engel: They've absconded all that to the State level now?
Councilman Senn: No. No. What they've done is they have basically, at least under this bill, have taken
it and said that it goes to the City but if the City won't approve it, it goes to the Met Council. And if the
Met Council won't approve it, it goes to the Commissioner and he can decide anyway.
Councilman Engel: What Commissioner?
CouncIlman Senn: Of Transportation.
Mayor Mancino: So you would like us to give some response to the bill and whether we favor it and how
it works.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'd like to see us brought up to speed effectively on the bIll. I thmk we should
comment on the bill and I would like to see us consider basically taking an action on 212.
Mayor Mancino: Who's authoring the bill?
Councilman Senn: I'm not even sure it has an author on it. Oh yeah, author. Lieder, Molnau.
Mayor Mancino: From where?
Councilman Berquist: Chaska.
Councilman Senn: And Juhnke are the three authors on it. I don't know. I mean again, and secondly I
mean again I think that's kind of step one and step two is I think, we should consider at least taking the
position on the whole 212 tollway proposal anyway since we didn't the first time.
Mayor Mancino: Those are two different things to me. Number one is taking a position on the tollway.
The way it was presented last summer. Two is taking a position on the bill now and how that's being
presented. Number one, I'd like to have some informatiOn or a presentation on the new bill now and
what it means and understand it to some degree and then take a position. I have no problem with that.
On the way it was presented last summer, let me ask your motive. Your intent. I mean it'S already been
dealt with. We're not going to see it back that way again so why are we going to take a position on last
summer's toll way?
Councilman Senn: Well effectively, if this bill's adopted you'll see it back exactly the same way. I mean
there's nothing in this bill that says they have to change the proposal. This simply changes the review
process.
Mayor Mancino: So why don't we just vote on the bill because that's what we're going to see?
Councilman Berquist: .. . approve or disapprove it. It's non-binding...
Councilman Engel: The unilateral veto power, it doesn't matter what you think.
39
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Councilman Engel: Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Sounds good.
Mayor Mancino: Maybe we can use that money that was going to go for the Stillwater Bridge and put in
212. Anyway, $90 million.
Councilman Senn: I believe it's already been tentatively committed to Highway 100.
Mayor Mancino: Oh really? Then let's talk some more about how we're going to do this and how we're
going to get educated on the bill and is that something Councilman Senn you'd like to do? Get a copy of
the bill.
Councilman Senn: I don't care. I mean I can give copies to Don and everybody can read the bill. If
Roger wants to maybe give us some help here in terms of. . .less confusing. I had to read it about 10 times
to try and get some key points. I'll just give you a copy here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That will be on March loth. Planning CommissIOn vacancy. Jeff Farmakes has
submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission. We have already gone ahead and appointed
LuAnn Sidney to replace him on April 1st and the Planning Commission would just like to immediately
request that LuAnn Sidney be appointed now instead of waiting until Apnll st. Is there any concerns
from Council members on doing that? No? Okay.
CouncIlman Mason: I'll move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Do we need a motion? Okay, may I please have a motlon?
Councilman Mason: Move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to appoint LuAnn Sidney to the Planning
Commission to replace the vacancy created by Jeff Farmakes to begin as soon as possible. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: One last thing before we adjourn tonight. On the City Council work sessions that you
received in an addendum to our packet. We have gone through most of June and we can review these at
our next March 3rd work session on how these have been scheduled so we have a lot on the agenda. On
March 3rd we will be adding the CDBG grant, block grant to the 3rd.
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, where's this?
Mayor Mancino: It came in an extra folder at your home on Friday. You got this and you got the Court,
the Order and Judgment from the Court case that the City's...
Councilman Senn: I'll have to ask my kids. I haven't seen it.
41
City Council Meeting - February 24, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, this meeting is adjourned. There are no other items on the agenda tonight.
Thank you.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
42
1(j
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 1997
Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Joyce, Allison Blackowiak, JeffFarmakes, Ladd Conrad and
Allyson Brooks
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Bob Skubic
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Anita Benson, Project
Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING APPROXIMA TEL Y 13.5 ACRES FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF): PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 10
LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS. (AND REVISION TO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 35
LOTS) LOCATED AT 6730 GALPIN BLVD.. WOOD RIDGE HEIGHTS (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS SHAMROCK RIDGE). CENTEX HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dwight Jelle
Kathy Faragher
Scott Rickter
Dan Blake
Eden Prairie
Chaska
Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: I would like to see the, and I don't know if it's at this point the previous plat. ..
Okay, and what has changed?
Generous: In the previous plat there were three lots on the north side. In this plat they're
proposing two lots. The lot lines for the three have been slightly modified. The eastern two-
thirds of the project is basically consistent with the preliminary plat approval that they have. The
other item that changed on this site is previously the lots were being served by a private drive
along the north boundary of the property and that's been eliminated. Instead they'll have a
shared driveway on Lake Lucy Road. And additionally we will have a 30 foot wide conservation
easement along the north side which is the same, but because of the revisions to the plat, we were
able to save trees along the western and northwest comer of this site and thus we're
recommending a 50 foot conservation easement over... On the south side you have two... One
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
with three houses served by a private street. The third house pad was pushed out into the poor
soils area of the site, and closer to the wetland... with the rear two lots pushed closer. Where the
building pads pushed closer to the lot line. With the proposed replat, all of that ~s pushed out of
the way. Out of the poor soils area and it allows us to concentrate all our wetland mitigation in
one area rather than on the previous site it was scattered on. . .
Blackowiak: And a second question. It talks in here about a future site for a city well. I think
am I on the right? Where is that going to be or I mean have you picked a spot for that?
Hempel: No, we have not picked a spot for that yet. We have done some preliminary survey
work to determine a well field in the area. The area is conducive to constructing a well. We're
also looking further south along Galpin Boulevard or south of The Woods at Longacres, the
Lundgren development there as well. We're just keeping the options open at this time.
Blackowiak: Okay. I was just wondering if that would be a factor in this tonight.
Hempel: No, it would not.
Blackowiak: All right, that's it for me.
Joyce: Any other questions?
Conrad: Yeah. Outlot A and B, what can they be used for?
Generous: Nothing unless it's platted as a lot, but this is the potential well field of the well site.
. . . this is back to that whole question that we thought the western third would be better to develop
with the property to the north and have that walkout lot up on the top. So it's conceivable that it
could be sold to the property to the north in the future when that develops and may be able to be
platted as part of one of those lots. Outlot B, it will be wetlands. It's open space there.
There's...utility easement over it.
Joyce: I do have one question, sorry. On the original plat. How many curb cuts into Lake Lucy
were there?
Generous: On the original plat there were two proposed for driveway access points. On this plat
there are five.
Joyce: Okay, so we're increasing obviously.
Generous: The number by three, yes.
Joyce: Okay. And there is a, if I'm reading correctly, we do have restrictions on that? Is that
something tl}at we have to put into a condition or is that just?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yes. I believe the code does want to restrict access, driveway accesses
on collector type streets whenever feasible. In this situation, given the topographic constraints,
the environmental sensitivity of the area, we believe it's a reasonable exception to allow these
additional curb cuts in this location. We have existing driveways east of this development along
Lake Lucy Road and as well west in the new subdivision Brenden Ponds. There will be a few
homes sharing driveway access points as well. We believe that the low speed on the street, with
the sight lines up and down the street will provide adequate safety.
Joyce: We don't have to put that into any of our conditions though then, is that correct?
Hempel: I don't believe so, no.
Joyce: Okay.
Hempel: The condition does state about common driveways along Lake Lucy.
Joyce: It does? Okay. All right, I guess with that, would the applicant like to make a
presentation at this time?
Dan Blake: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Dan Blake. I'm
with Centex Homes. I just want to say that we're happy to be back in Chanhassen. Centex is a
national builder that we've been building homes throughout the Twin Cities, in many of the
southwest suburbs, mostly in Eden Prairie lately. Chanhassen, last time we were here was about
10 years ago in the Curry Farms neighborhood. Just about a mile east of this site. I think Bob
explained everything quite well. There were 10 lots before and there's 10 lots now. Weare, the
site's been looked at a number of times. A lot of problems with the development with the
topography on the existing plan, the soil conditions. We think that this is the best scenario. The
development, as the plan is in front of you now. We agree with the staff conditions in the report
as amended here tonight and I guess I'd rather, instead of going on and on, just ask for any
questions that you might have at this time.
Joyce: Any questions from commissioners at this point? Are you going to show us something
there? I hate for you to bring it all the way out here. Same thing, okay.
Dan Blake: ... the one that Bob has. Basically these lots with direct access onto Lake Lucy
Road, with the shared driveways that we talked about. And then the two lots up here...
Joyce: Was that original plat a Centex plat?
Dan Blake: No it's not. It was done by the landowner about 4 years ago, or 2 years ago.
Joyce: Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. With that I guess we'll open it up to the public.
Can I have a motion to open up the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Joyce: Would anybody like to address the Planning Commission at this time? Seeing no one,
can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Okay. Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no comments on this issue. Questions have already been asked.
Joyce: Allison.
Blackowiak: My major comment is regarding the traffic on Lake Lucy Road, and I talked to Kate
a little bit about this today. I am concerned about having so many driveway cuts on a collector
type road. And I was not on the commission when the other plat came through. It did seem like
it would be better to have fewer access points onto a main road but I don't know. I'm just not
sure about the traffic pattern here. I like the idea of trying to keep the wetlands in one area. It
does make sense but I don't know that that should be the driving force behind adding additional
cuts, if we don't need them, on Lake Lucy. So that's really what I'm concerned about tonight.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Looks better than the last time we saw it. And staff did a good job. I agree with their
report. Yeah, I don't have any comments.
Joyce: Allyson.
Brooks: No comments.
Joyce: This has such an extensive history, I think maybe Jeff and Ladd are the only two people
who really have been through the whole thing so I don't have a lot of comments. The only thing
I can echo is you know the curb cuts. It's not the most ideal thing, but I'm not going to get into
that. So, can we get a vote on it? Or a motion rather. Excuse me, a motion.
Farmakes: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning the
property from RR to RSF and preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 13.5 acres into 10
lots, 2 outlots, the associated right-of-way as shown on the plat dated January 17, 1997 and
subject to the following conditions. With the proviso that 7, 8, 10 are deleted. 20, second
sentence should be read as, a no parking zone should be designated along the north side of Lake
Lucy Road.
Joyce: Do I hear a second to that?
Conrad: I'd second.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of rezoning of the property from RR to RSF and preliminary plat approval for the
subdivision of 13.5 acres into 10 lots, 2 outlots, and associated right-of-way as shown on the
plat dated January 17,1997, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan for Phase II to be consistent with Lake Lucy
Road planting design. A landscape buffer shall be required along both sides of the Lake
Lucy Road extension, Section 18-61(a)(5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed
prior to final plat submittal for city approval. Berming shall be included south of Lake
Lucy Road.
2. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final
plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 50 foot easement along
the western lot line of Outlot A.
3. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using
standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be
done prior to final plat approval.
4. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, transformer boxes, mailboxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
5. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all-weather, year-
round driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Sec. 1 0.204(b).
6. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
7. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$16,810 assuming 8.49 acres of developable land. SWMP fees for water quality will be
waived conditional to the construction of the proposed treatment ponds. Additional credit
will be given for the placement of a control structure at the outlet. The total SWMP fee for
Phase II is then estimated at $14,310. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be
changed prior to final plat.
8. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the
grading plan.
9. Access to Lots 1 through 8, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 along Lake Lucy Road will
be restricted to shared access points shown on the final construction plans.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
10. A landscape plan directed towards slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot A
shall be submitted for review and approval prior to final plat. Sumac shall be planted in
groupings within the Outlot to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. The
quantity to be planted shall be calculated based on plantings seven feet on center. This area
shall also be seeded with a seed mixture conducive to the soil and slope conditions.
Erosion control mats shall be used after seeding.
11. The applicant should report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during
construction. Drain tiles should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City
Engineer.
12. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered upon the common lot lines of Lots 6
and 7, Block 1 shall be dedicated on the final plat.
13. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the
City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers, Minnesota DNR, Minnesota Dept. of Health, MPCA and other appropriate
regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval.
15. Upon completion of site grading all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket within one week of completing site grading unless the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
16. Upon completion the developer shall dedicate to the City utility and street improvements
within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
17. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet state aid horizontal and vertical
standards. A no parking zone shall be designed along the north side of Lake Lucy Road.
18. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the applicant extending
utilities from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for
review and approval.
19. The storm water pond south of Lake Lucy Road shall be constructed with the initial phase
of grading.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL: REZONING OF
PROPERTY FROM R-12 TO 01: LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST: AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING. SCOTT & ASSOCIATES AND RYAN
ENGINEERING. INC.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Conrad: Just one. West of the parking lot Sharmin, what's, is that grass?
Al-Jaff: Yes it is.
Conrad: Is it grass now? If it was summer.
Al-Jaff: There's gravel.
Conrad: It's gravel. And they're putting in 12 stalls. They're required to put in 7.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Conrad: No more questions.
AI-Jaff: They will add some more about allowing maybe St. Hubert's to park there when they
need to on weekends, since they're not going to be using this parking lot.
Joyce: Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and make a presentation?
Joe Scott: I'm Joe Scott with Scott and Associates and we're at 80 West 78th Street here in
Chanhassen. The building that is affectionately known as the old detox center so obviously
moving up to this place is quite a big deal for us. What I've got here, to give you some idea of
the building materials that we're going to be using. You have a black and white rendering. This
is a small color rendering. I'll just pass it around. And you also have a picture of what the
building looks like today, and we took a look at the staff report over this last weekend and what
we did is, there were some suggestions that were made by Sharmin with regard to adding
additional landscaping and an overstory tree and what we've done is attached to that packet that
you have there, we've made all the changes to the site plan to fit in with the suggestions made by
staff. For such a small property, there's obviously a lot of things that we're asking for with the
rezone and then also there's quite a few variances that we're basically stuck with because of the
nature of the property. There's also another, the other interesting thing that's happening is that
we'll be required to get a cross access easement from whoever's involved in the shopping center
there but I think they're going to need a cross access easement from us because the property kind
7
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
of cuts the drive in half but I'm sure that's something that we can work out. One other comment
too about de-intensifying the use is that our hours of operation are the standard 9:00 to 5:00 and
we'll be reducing the hours of operation about 50% and then the trips are going to be reduced by
about 90% so the intensive use of the site as it sits today is going to be reduced quite a bit. If you
have any other questions, Perry Ryan from Ryan Engineering can answer some of the more
technical questions. Here's what we are going to be making the building look like, and you'll
notice that the stacks off the roof are gone and so forth so we're pretty excited about this and I
think what I'll do is I'll end my presentation and if you have any questions or something, I'll be
more than happy to answer and thenjust let you get on with making your decision. Any
questions?
Joyce: The only one I had was, why do we need the 12 parking?
Joe Scott: Well I think we're required to have 8 I think. Or 7 or 8. And from looking at what it
was going to cost to put the 8 stall parking lot in, we just figured well for the additional, what
was it like an additional $1,500.00 we could get 4 more spaces so we just figured, I mean right
now we've got, there's five of us who work in our company so we figured well we've got five
people. Every once in a while we'll have a customer. Then we have UPS so I'm just thinking,
you know for the incremental dollars you might as well max out the parking lot so we don't end
up with an issue there. And I think you can see from the packet too that we took a lot of time
letting the neighbors know what we wanted to do and we got some of their reaction and people
are pretty excited about what we're doing and so are we so. Any other questions or comments?
Conrad: Y au 're below the impervious surface ratio aren't you?
Joe Scott: Oh yeah. I think we're at 36. 38. And I think it would support 60 or something so
yeah. It's a pretty small building. Actually the parking lot is bigger than the building.
Joyce: Okay. Thank you very much.
Joe Scott: Okay, thanks.
Joyce: At this time we'll open it up for, or make a motion to open it up for public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission
on this item? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Commissioners. Allyson.
Brooks: I have no comment. It seems reasonable.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing. It looks fine to me.
Blackowiak: I'd say it's a big improvement over what's there and it seems like everybody in the
neighborhood is in agreement with it.
Joyce: Jeff.
Farmakes: It's an improvement.
Joyce: Okay. I would agree with that. It's a vast improvement. I think it's a wonderful,
wonderful project. The only thing I said to Kate is, I wish we could have put some of that high
density on top of it somewhere and rented out some space up there. We have those needs. Yeah,
but no. It's a great project. Congratulations. So let's have a motion here.
Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning
of 0.3 acres ofR-12, high density residential to 01, Office Institutional. Approve site plan to
renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback and lot depth variances and
comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to office as shown in the plans
dated received January 21, 1997 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 11.
Joyce: Do I have a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of rezoning 0.3 acres of R-12, High Density Residential to 01, Office Institutional,
approve site plan to renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback, and
lot depth variances, and comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to
office as shown in plans dated received January 21, 1997, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Rezoning approval from R-12, High Density Residential to 01, Office Institutional.
2. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide financial security to
guarantee improvements.
4. The applicant must provide 3 overs tory boulevard trees along Chan View street frontage
and one overs tory tree with the parking lot landscaping. Also, parking lot landscaping will
be increased to 264 sq. feet.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
5. The applicant shall provide to the City a $2,000 letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the sidewalk, curb and gutter and boulevard restoration. The boulevard area
between the property line and the street shall be sodded.
6. Provide a cross access easement between Colonial Center and the proposed development
for shared access from Great Plains Boulevard.
7. During construction, the streets shall be kept clean daily in order to prevent erosion from
washing off site. Erosion control measures may be implemented later as the need arises.
8. One accessible parking space shall be provided. The space must be eight feet wide with a
five foot wide access aisle. In addition, an accessible route must be provided from the
parking lot to the building along with approved signage.
9. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than Y2 candle at the property line.
10. The maximum area of the wall mounted sign may not exceed 90 square feet. A sign permit
will be required prior to installation of the sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 24.285 SQ. FT. SHOPPING CENTER TO BE LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT
PLAINS BLVD.. CHANHASSEN COMMONS. OPPIDAN INVESTMENT CO.
Public Present:
Name Address
Pat Hallasee
George Beniek
Tom Lander
Blue Circle Investment Company
American Legion
M.A. Mortenson Company
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Okay. Are there any questions for staff at this time?
Conrad: Yeah. This is a site plan for the whole area. The whole site.
Al-laff: It is for the.
Conrad: Not just the strip mall. This is the whole site.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Aanenson: Well that's one way oflooking at it. If you want to have a comprehensive look to the
site, that may be an issue. That was part of the discussion why the restaurant got pulled off
because we wanted some complimentary features in the design. But you're right.
Conrad: But it's one lot.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Aanenson: Correct. So you're going to have to take that into consideration when the other uses
come in and that's kind of where Sharmin was going with this. Trying to make sure that we had
some unifying themes in this and consistent with the Highway 5 standards. And we believe
we're moving in the right direction and I think that's why the other was taken off. They want to
make sure that they can meet those same issues.
Joyce: So we have to come back with a conditional use if we want to put some more buildings
on here obviously?
Aanenson: That's correct. And a site plan, that's correct.
Conrad: They wouldn't need a conditional use with one building on this site. But we're giving it
site plan approval.
Aanenson: We did the same thing with Byerly's when they came in with additional uses on one
lot. We gave them a conditional use permit. It's handled the same way. Again they matched
the, kind of the theme as far as design.
Joyce: How'd you do it with Byerly's? I'm trying to follow this.
Aanenson: There was an existing shopping center and other uses came on without separate lots.
More than one building on the same lot, which you'll have here, which you can do under
conditional use. You still have the review of the site plan authority to review what the
architecture's going to look like. Now they may not be the same. I guess that's the issue that we
were struggling with and Sharmin spent some time on, but we want to make sure that they
compliment each other.
Brooks: So you will have some say over whether the restaurant is of the same sort of
architectural style as the strip mall so that it's not a jarring feel to it?
Aanenson: That's what, that's kind of where we're at right now.
Joyce: Well the restaurant's out so I mean right now we're not talking, you know, it could be
anything.
Aanenson: Right, but when it comes in, I think that's what Ladd...
11
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Brooks: Yeah that's, so. ..completely different from.
Conrad: So, but again I, we're approving, we're not approving or we're not looking at the
restaurant or the out building but we are looking, we are giving approval for landscaping for the
entire site?
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: Basically.
Blackowiak: Following up I think where Ladd is going. Are we being premature since, as I look
at this to me, I see that that restaurant, a potential restaurant location as probably being a
dominant feature in this site plan. Is that a valid assumption? It closest to Highway 5. Probably
the most visible? Are we putting the cart before the horse in approving the strip mall before
having a little bit more of it?
Aanenson: Well I guess everybody that's looked at that site has envisioned a restaurant there so
in our mind that's probably what it's going to be. If you look at the marketability of that site.
It's going to be a restaurant. And we've always intended for that to be pulled towards the front.
That's what the Highway 5 dictates. So whether it's today or tomorrow, we believe pretty much
that's going to probably be the use. If this one doesn't land there we believe something else
along that caliber, based on what we know the market forces are out there.
Joyce: Kate, we could potentially have a strip mall with 250 or whatever it is parking spaces for
a while though too, correct? Or how are we going to do the parking of this?
Aanenson: Well I believe, and you can check with the applicant, but they'd like to be in as soon
as possible on the other use, with possibly your next agenda in two weeks. We just got hung up
on the architecture and I'm not sure if the applicant was seeing the same issues that we saw, or
the changes that were made so. Just to come forward with their best presentation and we want to
make sure that everything is where we want it and they want it so it was pulled off. I think that's
the best thing to do at this time.
Farmakes: To me it's going to be interesting to see how you resolve the architectural issue
between a fairly common strip mall approach here, and Famous Dave's which is more of a repro
feel bar-be-que shack look. I don't think concrete wainscoting is probably going to do it.
Aanenson: Herein lies the problem.
Farmakes: But their operation has a lot of character. I don't know if we should.
Aanenson: The direction we gave them is some unifying themes. We felt it at themes. They
came back with color. I'm not sure we want all the same colors that's, we're trying to give them
license there to work with that and that's kind of where Sharmin's left it so.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Farmakes: But again, if you're talking about issues of what the strip mall looks like, as an
evaluation, do you want to make everything look like that? I mean you use the word unifying.
We've gotten into this before. Defining the word unifying. It doesn't mean the same as. That's
an important corridor and I think strip mall less so on the two buildings that are adjacent to the
highway. But still, all three of them are, it's a pretty important four comer area ofChanhassen.
So the quality of those buildings I think are going to say a lot and it doesn't necessarily mean
they have to high end. Just the character of them and how they look should be unique and. . .
These other buildings on here, I don't, it worries me a little bit. I'll just make a general comment
that we see a lot of these and I know we can't make comments on who these tenants are but it
seems to me there's a tremendous pent up demand for coffee and bagels in Chanhassen.
Joyce: Coffee and bagel capital of Minnesota. A lot of wired people in Chanhassen.
Conrad: Let me make sure I know what we're doing. We are approving this site, which
basically says there will be a restaurant on the comer. There will be another building on the
northeast comer. But we're approving the parking configuration, landscaping. That's absolute.
Aanenson: Let's say it wasn't a restaurant and for some reason that went away and an office user
came in. We would still push it toward the comer. That would still be our criteria. I guess what
we're saying is, if we hadn't seen this other stuff, we'd still go forward with this plat because
they have a right, they've got a lot to build that on there. But I think the point you're getting at,
which is a valid point, is this is kind of setting some of the design framework and I think you
need to be comfortable with that for the rest of the development in the site.
Farmakes: But we are then approving, if we approve that section of the mall, that's one lot,
we're approving the architecture of that mall? Strip mall?
Aanenson: In a sense a style, correct. I mean I don't think we want it to exactly match the other
thing but you're setting some colors, just like we did on, does everything match across the street
at Market Square? No.
Farmakes: But it looks fairly conforming...
Aanenson: There are some things correct that tie it together and I guess that's what we're trying
to do here.
Conrad: What if we decided, they decided to put another bank in town?
Aanenson: It's been discussed at that place.
Conrad: No you're kidding. We need more banks.
Joyce: As long as it had a coffee shop in it.
Conrad: Well yeah, at the drive thru.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Farmakes: I'm somewhat concerned because we know that the builders coming into town, we
recommended that they change the architecture and the City Council in their wisdom decided not
to. There's an established group of buildings that are going to be similar in architectural style
and then you come to this four comers area and it still concerns me because we're dealing with
buildings we haven't seen yet. The exterior, the restaurant and the other retail building. That
there are going to be tie ins to this architecture which I think is pretty basic. Retail architecture
so it concerns me somewhat that we're approving a part of it without seeing how the others are
integrated into it.
Conrad: Yeah, that's what I'm having a problem with too. I know what staffs feeling.
Aanenson: I guess I'd just go back to Market Square. We didn't know what Wendy's was going
to look like when it came in. We didn't know what Capelli was going to look like or Einstein.
Conrad: And that's okay. But we're approving the overall configuration of traffic and.
Aanenson: Some framework issues, yes.
Conrad: You're saying don't worry?
Aanenson: I don't know ifl'd go that far. We need to address them and make sure you're
comfortable with them but I'm saying at the staff we are. Otherwise we wouldn't have
recommended approval.
Conrad: Okay.
Joyce: Should we go forward? Is the applicant here and like to make a presentation?
Keith Alsted: Good evening. Hi. My name is Keith Alsted. I'm a principle in Oppidan
Investment Company. We're a relatively small retail and industrial developer in the five state
area, compared to some of the giants in our market anyway. We've had, this is our first
experience in Chanhassen. We've had a very, I think a very good working relationship with
staff. We think the report is fair and they've actually they've given us some corrective guidance
through the process that I think has actually made this development better. I heard you wrestling
a little bit with us being out of sync a little bit with Famous Dave's. We expected them to be
here with us tonight. Kind of working in parallel. I know that staff is working, kind of bridging
the gaps between, you've referred to it as traditional, ordinary retail architecture which hopefully
with some embellishments I guess we are undertaking here and Famous Dave's, which is a little
more ascerteric concept. We're both, I believe both uses have been asked kind of mutually to
come towards a middle ground and not to look alike but to look complimentary. We have
assembled a team of experts here to help us work with staff. RSP Architects of Minneapolis and
HKS Associates, land planners and civil engineers from St. Paul. I guess I'd like to defer to the
experts here in each of their categories. I'd like to have Jeremy Mayberg, who is the lead
architect in the project from RSP Architects come up and walk you through the physical
14
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
buildings and the project and then have Alan Krepman from HKS come up and talk about some
of the site issues and some of the other issues that were brought out in the report and make some
clarification on it.
Jeremy Mayberg: My name is Jeremy Mayberg and I'm an associate with RSP Architects in
Minneapolis and we're the architects of record for Chanhassen Commons...we're talking about
is the building located on the south edge of the site, and it's actually only 17,000 and some
change in square footage. The other square footage that makes up the 25 is the restaurant and the
proposed retail building on the northeast corner. When we presented the building initially as
three buildings we envisioned that second building, just as a piece of information for you, to be
identical in design to the one you're looking at here. More of a campus plan. In working with
Sharmin it was determined that it can be very similar but not identical so where you see on the
main plan the curved entries, if you will, at each of the retail units, in the other building it might
take on a different form. Same materials but that expression of entrance at the shops in the
smaller building would be different in form but not in material. We see the building as primarily
stucco from about 4 feet up and a concrete block base. That concrete block is integrally colored
which means that it's a concrete material with the color all the way through it. Ifit chips off, you
will still see the same color. It's not a painted material. The awnings are provided, once again to
provide both sunscreen as well as to provide a certain amount of animation to the facade. The
driveway that's located at, the store fronts which are located to the north would have equal
amounts of landscaping.
Joyce: Jeremy, excuse me. You might want to pull that back. I'm sorry that we don't, yeah. I
can't see what you're doing over there. We don't have our TV's on right now and I want to
make sure that if anyone wants to see it, I don't know. If anyone's interested, maybe you can
move up here. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Jeremy Mayberg: That's fine. No problem. We're proposing landscaping in the corners of each
of the setbacks. The building setback in four modulars and they're set back along the site 10 feet,
10 feet, 4 feet.. .and at each of the setbacks we envision landscaping. So it's a way of both
breaking up the storefront and provides some... There's also going to be a fairly large paved area
where you can put outdoor seating for people who want to sit down and drink their coffee and
read the paper, etc. The material all the way around the building is the same so the back of the
building looks just like the front of the building. The same stucco and block material. These
raised elements provide rooftop screening of the rooftop units. The rooftop units are below
that height so you'd have to be above the building to see the rooftop units. And that's pretty
much it in terms of the architecture. If anyone has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
Joyce: Any other questions?
Conrad: Can you take me through the site plan at all?
Jeremy Mayberg: I sure can.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Conrad: Would you? Wherever it is. Show me where the sidewalks are. Show me how all the
different buildings connect sidewalk wise.
Jeremy Mayberg: The bike path, walk path that was talked about earlier, comes up the south side
of the site. Carries on through to whatever development should occur on this site... to the store
fronts that I talked about. These larger areas to provide places for seating... There's landscape at
the far east comer. There's an entry into the site is off of Great Plains Boulevard. Service
behind the building. A driveway that moves through the center of it. Of the site... working out
with the development in this site. Parking. The layout here is.. .to the required parking for a
restaurant in this zone. The parking layout here with the required parking for retail in this zone
so this could be essentially, each of these are I would say stand alone in terms of their parking
requirements. There is the ability to circulate between the two at this point. . .
Conrad: So the major pedestrian is the bike way basically?
Jeremy Mayberg: This is one. Yes, there is a crossing that can occur and come down here.
Conrad: Near the sidewalk. Okay, so that leads you into the shopping center. Without crossing
traffic?
Jeremy Mayberg: Without crossing, well there's this parking lot here. We're not crossing actual
traffic. The traffic is in this area. You'd have to cross the service drive.
Joyce: Pretty minor.
Conrad: Tell me why you oriented the building on the northeast comer the way you did, just out
of curiosity. Why angle it that? Why, what are you doing?
Jeremy Mayberg: Well there's a need here. There's a change in elevation that we have to deal
with and that's sort of what's going on there. We're trying to close a little bit on the site and still
providing a right angle to Highway 5. If we pull the building over this way...
Joyce: You have someone coming up talking about landscaping then, correct?
Jeremy Mayberg: Yes.
Joyce: Okay.
Jeremy Mayberg: Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you.
Alan Krepman: Good evening. My name is Alan Krepman with HKS Associates and we are the
land planners and landscape architects and civil engineers on the project. To go through the
project I guess there's a number of things I'd like to cover but in general, as Jeremy has stated,
16
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
the general layout of the plan is pretty well organized. Just to give you a little reminder of what's
out there right now. You've got the Legion building...and there are some significant trees that
staffhas talked about. Some oak trees that are down in here, also some elm trees. We have had
discussions with staff regarding the issues of the roadway alignment and have.. :oak trees down
in this particular area in here and we've agreed that we can make some adjustments in there to
possibly save one or two of those oak trees. Specifically the trees that are in these two locations
right here. And we feel that of those two trees, the one.. . down south about 25 feet. So that's
what we're going to try and do with that tree. In addition to that, that also has other affects on
the property. In the staff report they also talked about other issues in terms of site design
regarding closing off this driveway entrance here and we have... to line up with this driveway on
this site plan so that both sites will work together. .. turning movement there and we want to make
it as safe as possible. Staff has also commented about the landscaping and berming out on TH 5.
We have prepared cross sections which illustrates how that works. I guess I would point out one
thing before I get at the cross section. The cross sections are, these areas of the site right here.
One section comes through the berm, through the building. The second section comes through
from the Great Plans back to the structure here. And I think it's important that you know where
the location is. Parts of the issues that staff has talked about are the elevation of Highway 5 in
relationship to the back of the berm and I think when you talked about this for Americinn,
because we were planners on that.. . making that work is the relationship of the berm height to the
height of the road. If you look at the grading plans you'll find that Highway 5 down by the
comer is at about 54 and as you progress to the east, the elevation of the road comes up higher.
Joyce: Excuse me Alan. You folks can see that on the TV, right? Could you move that easel
over so we can get. It seems like everybody's craning their necks. Can you see that Jeff? I want
to make sure. Move the easel that way. Can you catch that on the camera? Can you folks see
that? Maybe you can move up a little bit and get in some of these seats. I'd hate to have you
losing out here. Okay. Are you okay?
Alan Krepman: Is that better?
Joyce: Okay, thank you.
Alan Krepman: The key in making berms work, with the elevation of the road is, the relationship
of the berm to the road. So I think it's very important that we note the elevation of Highway 5
out here rises from the intersection...it needs to be about 15 here and I think that's very
important because as you're coming across the site you try to get the back berm, which would be
about 961.5. So that's high enough so when a person looks out there.. .looks across the site,
you're going to take out and hide the parking. Now in order to make that work towards the
west. .. we've agreed to do. We don't have a problem with that because it's really the berm
that's going to make that work. If you put landscaping in, it will filter the view and I think that
obviously we want to have some landscaping in there to enhance the view of the site but the
berming is really going to be the key to that and if you look, you know there's other examples on
TH 5.. .parking lot in relationship to TH 5 and the berming where it really doesn't work and I
think we're all aware of those sites in the city. But in the spirit of trying to make this thing work
as good as possible we do want to have some berming that will screen out the parking and yet
17
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
still allow the view of the building. I think that's a real key thing. Especially with the elevation
of the site. Other issues brought up by staff are issues regarding facilities and connections. And
there's some discussion in there about providing water service to the restaurant. We do have
cross connections with the water trying to come through underneath TH 5 over to the site.
Looping around their building and providing a connection up to the restaurant. There was a
question about fire hydrant locations. We've got one here that, it appears that the Fire Chief
wants us to move that closer to the building. We don't have a problem with that. We'll
definitely work with him to make that work to the best of his ability for taking care of any
emergencies on this property. Now there's some of the issues that we would like to discuss a
little further and one of those is in regards to the road access at Great Plains Boulevard and I
think that there's been things that have been done in the past in the city that have kind ofled us to
believe that we would have a full access on that road and specifically I can look at the Highway
101 realignment that occurred back in 1989. Those plans were, when Highway 101 was located
in this specific corridor, called for a full access to this property. Considering with the traffic
volumes, the involvement of MnDOT and other agencies, that they had thought that the distances
could accommodate a full access into the property. Then you can look at other things that have
happened over time and I guess the development of the Villages on the Pond. That obviously
does impact on this roadway, but at the same time you've got Highway 101 moving further to the
west. The level of service on this road is changing from a State Highway down to a city collector
street. In fact even TH 101, as you are aware, is going to become a County highway versus
MnDOT. So there's some dropping in status of these roadways and we feel that, that coupled
with the fact that there are other alternatives to address the issues, and that can provide us full
access, that's an important issue to us and we'd like to maintain that property right of full access
that we have. In your traffic engineers staff report to the staff back in July regarding Villages on
the Ponds development traffic, they talked about a number of different ways to mitigate the
traffic concerns on Great Plains Boulevard in this general area to provide access to the property.
Obviously one of the comments was to have right-in/right-out. That is what the staffs
recommendation is, but there are also four other recommendations or alternatives that can be
utilized. One of those was to have a second lane on the southbound side of Great Plains which
could accommodate a left turn movement into the property and allow for by-passing of that
traffic so that there wouldn't be a stacking problem. People could come down and turn offTH 5
and take a left into the property. And if the traffic stacks, people could go around it and go down
a ways and you know maneuver around so... they could use the Lake Drive East access. And
that is our preferred alternative of how to deal with it. There are two other recommendations in
that staff report. One was to provide a northbound lane on Great Plains and another was to
provide a free right coming through from Great Plains to eastbound TH 5. And we feel that of
those solutions, the best solution would be dealing with the southbound traffic because that's
really the issue. We really want to have access to our site from traffic coming from TH 5 and I
think that's real critical. That's real key for the development of this property. And we'd like to
again, preserve that property right. Now one comment that I've typically gotten from engineering
staff in situations like this is that times and conditions change and that's why recommendations
change over time. I understand that and I think that the times and conditions that have changed
are the development of the Villages on the Pond. And with this development over here, it
becomes the responsibility to. . . the property rights of the adjacent property owners. We have full
access. We'd like to maintain that. There's a solution provided in the staff report that was given
18
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
to the city staff from the traffic engineer'and we'd like to follow through and let that
recommendation carry the answer for us on this. The other thing that comes with that is the
responsibility for payment of that. It's not our responsibility to make that improvement since it's
the traffic from the other development that's affecting our property and I think that's very
succinct. It's very clear in the staff report that was written back in July regarding Villages and I
think that that needs to be addressed by staff with the other developer. Other, there's only one
other thing that we noticed in the staff report that we would like to discuss a little bit more and
that would be issues regarding the storm water. Obviously we've been working with staff.
We've been working with the existing storm water system trying to accommodate and to work
with that... In looking at that we have storm water calculations prepared and we're going to be
sharing those with staff. But one of the issues that we see is the issue of fees regarding how that
is, how there's some assessments that are applied to our property and the water quality
connection charge and the water quantity fee charges are typically associated with plats and not
with conditional use permits. In fact we don't even have a conditional use permit now. We have
a site plan review and so we questioned the validity, the authority as to whether or not an
assessment like this can be attached to our project. Ifwe were having a subdivision of property,
yes. And we know that's the appropriate time ordinances require that and we wouldn't contest it
at that point but at this point we do question that and we would like to have the chance to have
that removed from our requirements. Other than that, again we're very glad that staff has come
up with some excellent recommendations. We've tried to work with them as much as possible
and enjoyed that and we're looking forward to being under construction this spring. Anything
else Keith? Okay. Do you have any questions specific to what I've presented?
Joyce: Any questions for Alan? I have a question Alan. There's about 20, I think I counted 21
elms and oaks on that comer right there and you're saying that you'll be able to save 2 of them?
Alan Krepman: Well, we are going to be saving a handful of.
Joyce: I thought I saw 5 on the list and then I heard you say 2 so now I'm.
Alan Krepman: Oh there's, staff had asked about saving a number of elm trees and I have an
overlay here that shows those locations in relationship to the design. There are some elm trees
over here.
Joyce: Can we put that on the overhead or would that work possibly?
Alan Krepman: Yeah, we could do that. When you look at the driveway location coming
through here and this is the parking lot for Total. What we have out here are some cottonwoods
in this location, elm trees across the southern part and the proposed driveway connection to, well
up to our driveway is in the vicinity of this elm tree right here, so that will be coming out. The
trees that we are looking at trying to preserve are an oak tree right here and another one right in
here. There are some other oak trees. They are located in our service drive that provides access
to the back side of our building. I don't know how we could avoid those. We've looked at some
alternatives of moving our access location for the service drive but then you get into a conflict
between the drive coming up from Total and the drive going back behind the building. We want
19
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
to have a separation with that and that was something that is shared with staff. In fact staff
shared with us and we made those adjustments before. And in essence there's a couple of oak
trees in here that we're trying to preserve and if we can, we'll sneak our road down through here
and preserve those, we will do that. With oak trees, oak trees are very sensitive. Or their root
systems, and the best way to preserve an oak tree is to not build even near it. So the real solution
when you look at these two trees is to, again pull that road to the south and since we have a 34
inch oak tree out here, and I'd like to kind of key on that one to save it and the one back here is,
granted it's 20 inches but even if you look in the context of the plan, the only way that we could
preserve that would be to move the road to the north. And the other thing that moving the road
to the south does is that it makes the whole issue of the access road out to Great Plains work even
better because you'll have another car lane for stacking from the southbound lane that would be
turning into the site. But this is the one we're trying to key in on.
Joyce: That actually brings up my other question. Let's just assume that we're leaving the road
the way it is. How many car lengths, talking about that left hand turn, how many car lengths are
you talking about would be available?
Alan Krepman: Available out in Great Plains?
Joyce: Right. To turn left on there.
Alan Krepman: I'd have to look at that. I'm not quite sure.
Joyce: My concern is there isn't enough room there to do it and that's why I wonder.
Alan Krepman: We've got about 170 feet. And you figure approximately 20 feet per car so
you're looking at about 9 cars from TH 5 south.
Joyce: And that's with this plan right here rather than changing it, right?
Alan Krepman: Correct. And we shift it to the south 25 feet, that adds another car. It gets us up
to about 20 vehicles. Or excuse me, 180. Yeah, you're looking at about 9 vehicles then.
Joyce: Okay. Anything else? Thank you very much.
Alan Krepman: Great, thank you.
Joyce: I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: The public hearing is open. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission,
please step forward and state your name and address. Yes sir:
20
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Pat Hallasee: I'm Pat Hallasee. I'm the'managing partner of Blue Circle Investment Company
and we're the owner of the Total Mart shopping center just to the south of this property. I'd like
to enhance a little bit on what Al just addressed to you about some of the history that's gone on
with the road planning in this area. At the time we built our project, and if we go back to the city
notes you'll find that as a part of our project, the approval of our project, there was a specific
condition attached to that regarding the access to these properties. When we built we were
originally allowed a right-in/right-out from what was then Highway 101, now Great Plains
Boulevard. That was not a condition attached by the City of Chanhassen. It was a condition
attached by MnDOT. It was also part of a joint planning effort with the city staff and ourselves
and MnDOT. When we first approached the city, everybody recognized a problem. That at
some point in time that roadway was going to be upgraded tremendously and we were told it
would be Highway 101 being upgraded. And that the access, that the people at the Legion Club
had rights of access. So at that time MnDOT recommended, and their recommendations was for
approval of our development with a right-in/right-out to our development. Subsequently when
TH 101 went away MnDOT took our right-in/right-out access away. We know have a full blown
curb cut with two lanes in and one lane out. That wasn't, you know it wasn't our idea. It was
MnDOT's idea and they did it and they have their crews do it. Another part ofthat was that we
agreed that the best long term solution to this traffic situation for both of us was to share an
access at the point of you know the need arose for it, which at that time was envisioned to be the
upgrading of TH 101. In fact the approval, the Minutes of approval for our project state that
when the American Legion property is developed the access will be moved to our north lot line,
their south lot line, and we will share that. There was one small mistake that in retrospect now
we can see, and that the word access has been pointed out to us by staff. It does not say full or
limited access and I'd like to just address that a little bit. We always envisioned it to be full
access. We drew sketches for the city and for MnDOT showing full access at that north lot line.
From the time we went from Planning Commission with that recommendation to the City
Council meeting and we were in, you know as most developments are under the gun to get
started, we had never seen a copy of an agreement until we got into the Council chambers that
evening and at that point in time the city engineer was writing out the agreement that we agreed
to on a legal pad. So we're sitting here under the gun looking at what went into the record and I
guess nobody really bothered to, you know with good faith said access. Bing, that's access.
Because we had always envisioned and planned in all of our sketches, had looked at full access at
that point. At that place, right on our north lot line. As you can see from the plot plans that was
envisioned that that roadway between our parking spaces on the west side of Total would go right
up and connect into the access coming into the Legion property. I guess I point out that although
it doesn't say full access, it also does not limited access. It does say access and you know I just
give you the background of the benefit of the meetings that I was at and what we went through
when we agreed to that. And in response to Mr. Joyce's concerns about how many cars can stack
making a left hand turn in, I would just invite you to go to look at the north side of this
intersection where you turn off Highway 5 going north. There's left turns, and I believe the city
engineering department told me it's 65 feet closer to the intersection than what we would be if
they moved a full access to our lot line. To our north lot line. So it can and it will work and I
guess you know that's what always was envisioned. And it's a better situation than what's on the
north side of the road. Those were some of the very important things that we decided, took into
21
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
consideration when making an investment decision in the city of Chanhassen. And we certainly
expect that those agreements will be honored. Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
George Beniek: Yes Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is George
Beniek and I'm President of the Chanhassen American Legion Housing Corporation. Our job of
the Housing Corporation, for those of you that aren't familiar with it, there's a commander that
runs the Legion operations and there is a Housing Corporation that manages, sells, leases,
upgrades the property, the physical property and that's who I'm representing here tonight. I'd
just like to comment on some of the issues. Most of them regarding the access to the property.
Should that access not be granted, or as it now is, it will severely hamper our desire to sell the
property. It's going to diminish it's value considerably. That's our feeling. The site is naturally
zoned for retail establishments and if people can't get in or out of it easily, I don't think it takes a
rocket scientist to figure out that the people are not going to patronize that establishment. I guess
that's all I have at the moment. Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Tom Lander: My name is Tom Lander. I'm Director of Development for M.A. Mortenson. We
are the owner of the property that is directly east of this parcel. Basically sitting between the
development and the pedestrian bridge head. And I guess I would like to speak in support of the
development in that we're very pleased with the way the development has been planned, the
buildings have been placed and the parking's been laid out because of the way it begins to lend
itself to a future development, joint development of the total parcel and we think that the
planning does lend itself towards making this whole area into a nice statement for the
community. And you'll notice that the access right here labeled Lake Drive North basically
straddles the property line between both properties and we have agreed to this because again we
feel that it is beneficial as far as the land planning of the overall site. The only concern to date
has been that the grading within this area is accomplished so that this road does provide access to
our parcel as well, and we've received letters from the developer that grading is going to be
resolved in a manner that will be beneficial to both parcels. So I'd just like to speak in support of
it. Also as a retail developer I would just like to reinforce the comments about the value and
importance of the access drive here being a full access drive and the fact that if it isn't, it will
have an impact on the economics of the proposed development as we would view it and I guess
as a neighboring property, one of the things that we feel is important is that this is a viable and
successful shopping center and that it draw strong tenants and it serves the community. And a
change in the access will impact that and I guess we'd just like to speak in favor of as successful
a developer here as possible so thank you.
Joyce: Is there any comments from anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Joyce: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: Well I like the shopping center generally. I think it's just fine. I think that's a good
looking strip center. The three issues that, maybe they're not three. I'll have to think about it. I
think the screening off ofTH 5 is an important issue. In the staff report Sharmin, it says we'll
work with, have you seen the materials yet that say this is what you want? In other words, has
the applicant given you what you're looking for?
AI-Jaff: We haven't seen. We know they're willing to work with us but no, we haven't seen...
Conrad: So we don't have that right now. The access is just sort of a, I'm not sure what to do
about the access because the applicant's right. You'd like to give them the full access there. 1
have a tough time integrating everything. I do have to trust staff in terms of engineering on this.
All I have is, I wish we would have a full access for this location and for the Total site. We need,
but that's a wish and at this point in time all I can say is, I want to make sure that staff has
analyzed this to the utmost degree because these are important sites. It's an important access and
it's just without, other than saying that I have to go along with what the staff has recommended.
They're the engineers and I'm not. They've done the traffic studies and I haven't. But on the
other hand I guess I have this wish that says, is there a solution to the problem to give these sites
the access that we should give them to make them viable in the city. I think those are my only
two comments. Again, I'm a little bit nervous about the whole site when staff hasn't been given
some of the things that we need. Especially for landscaping. It's a huge spanse of cars that are
facing Highway 5 right now and we don't really have a mark on what the applicant's proposing
there so that makes me a little bit nervous. But staff is telling us also that they're willing to work
with it so I guess I'll wait and hear what somebody wants to do for a motion.
Joyce: Well we closed the public hearing. Is there something.
Alan Krepman: I guess Ijust wanted to reinforce the fact that we'll work with staff just as we
worked with them on Americinn.
Aanenson: Well, I wouldn't bring that issue up.
Conrad: Well it's just nice that we know what we're talking about and the staff report says we
will work and we want, but it's not concrete and so we're not sure what we're approving.
Joyce: Okay. Allison.
Blackowiak: Well I'd echo what Ladd said. Screening is definitely an issue. I know from the
Villages, for the tail end that I was in on, that that is a major concern of the Highway 5 corridor.
Access is also a big issue because if they do not have that full access off of Great Plains,
everything's going to reroute from that I think. A large majority of the traffic will be going
through the Lake Drive to the east and going right next to a residential area and I worry about the
high volume of traffic in a residential area. But then again I understand. I mean if BR W account
and recommended right-in/right-out, I've got to almost defer to their knowledge on the subject
23
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
because I have very little knowledge offraffic counts but I worry about a lot of traffic through the
neighborhood because if there's not a good south access from Great Plains, it is going to come
down Dakota Avenue and west on Lake Drive and that's going to be a lot of traffic in the
neighborhood and I don't think that the neighbors, the people with lots of small children are
going to want to see all those cars come down that street. Mr. Krepman talked about the water
quality and water quantity fee and I really feel that that's something they need to work out with
the city. I don't think we need to even talk about that tonight. My reservation is with giving
approval to a site where I don't feel it's completed. I don't have the feeling that we've got a
complete site. We have a strip mall. We have another little strip mall that's probably going to be
fairly similar to the one that we've seen, but what I would consider to be the anchor tenant spot,
whether it's a Famous Dave's or a bank or whatever it happens to be. An office building. I
almost feel that I need to see that before I can approve the entire site because we're right now
approving a strip mall and a whole lot of parking spaces and that scares me so those are my
comments.
Joyce: Thank you. Jeff.
Farmakes: I agree. I don't think this site is...different elements. I'm more concerned actually
with the two buildings that are aware from the strip mall, and how they relate. How the parking
is shielded between those two buildings. The issue with the building, and I think of some of the
other unsuccessful buildings that we've had screen parking here at Chanhassen and we haven't
done a terribly good job with berms and cutting out parking. Berms seem to be too small and the
parking lot's too big. The only successful one I can think of is over on TH 41 over there and it
covers the residential development and those are mountains. The issue of architecture, it does
not have to be the same I think. I think it's more important these two out buildings and how their
architecture relates and that would be the perception of somebody who's driving through TH 5
other than looking through the cars and onto the other side. Now those store fronts are going to
want to be seen. The only question is, is how many degree of sight lines is acceptable to them
where they have some visibility from the highway but not, but the area's not diluted of any kind
of foliage or landscaping. The berming seems to be carrying the entire side from what we see on
the landscaping issue. Shielding that parking. There's some small plantings and so on along TH
5 but it seems to be that the berming is taking the brunt of that and it concerns me based on the
examples of the other berming areas that we've had. I get the feeling that we should be seeing
how these other buildings are related in this area just because of the confined space. I'll leave it
at that.
Joyce: Thank you. Allyson.
Brooks: Well I agree with the other Allison that we probably want to keep cars away from the
residential areas as much as possible. Along with everybody else I also agree that it is kind of
piece meal. It's hard to envision the other two buildings and I think I read somewhere, they're
talking about the restaurant being Frontier style and boy. Coming from South Dakota that brings
in all sorts of connotations of what that can look like so, I'm not sure I'm that comfortable with
approving a plan without seeing what the other two buildings are going to be. That's really about
it.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Joyce: Okay. I don't have a lot to add on that. I guess I'm as uncomfortable as the rest of the
Commissioners sending this forward to the City Council. I have to agree with Jeff that I don't
think that these buildings even have to be uniform. I would like to see something a little more
diverse in that area. You know if you want to put a Famous Dave's and it looks, I though the
Famous Dave's looked nice. That would be fine. Whatever. I don't think it has to look like the
strip mall. I don't see the urgency of getting this moved forward without the other two buildings.
I don't see the urgency of another strip mall here. I just, I don't see why we have to move this
forward. I'd kind of like to see it come back. You know as mentioned before, there's a lot of
parking there and no buildings. I'm also concerned, I see that you're going to lose a lot of those
trees but boy, it'd be nice to say a couple more of them. Those are a pretty important part of that
development. I think they're being kind of knocked down in, not in a cavalier way but just, I
think there might be some way of saving a couple more of them and I'd really like the applicant
to look at possibly saving some more of those trees, particularly the oak trees. As far as the
access goes, I'd have to agree with the applicant. I think to make any sense of this, you'd
probably need the access but I think I'll leave it at that. So out of that can we get a motion here?
Conrad: Can I just ask a question of staff?
Joyce: Sure.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Dave, access is a real issue from their standpoint and they're not happy
with your recommendation, and we understand that. I don't really get at all, it's hard for me to
sink it in with Villages. Sink it in with the property to the south. Are you pretty confident in
what you recommended?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. Let me expand maybe where we're coming
from. The traffic study that was generated with the Villages on the Pond did take this site into
consideration. It's land use. It's trip generations. It's turning movements and that's where the
results of that study came from so they did take this site into consideration. Currently what's out
there is a painted median. Technically you should not be turning across a painted median, and
that I believe left the access open because of the existing Legion facility there. The Total Mart
station didn't receive a site plan approval with a right-inlright-out only. MnDOT plans for
upgrading of Highway 5 which also upgraded that segment of Great Plains Boulevard. Also had
a right-inlright-out only for the Total Mart station. They did leave the Legion access alone. They
did however put a concrete median down part way then painted the rest. Trunk Highway 101
was turned back to the City of Chanhassen. Again the City redesignated it over to the west to
Market, consistent with our comp plan and the land uses in the area. We had the same issue with
the full access come up with Americinn. Trunk Highway IOI/Market Boulevard. They also said
that they needed a full access and we recommended right-inlright-out only based on traffic
studies as well as jurisdiction from MnDOT on that situation which would prohibit a full access
that close to Trunk Highway 5. I guess I'm not a traffic engineer myself. That's why we rely on
other traffic engineering firms to prepare these reports. The City did hire though an independent
traffic consultant, SRF to also review BRW's considerations and they also concurred with that
staff report. One remark about adding traffic to Lake Drive against a residential neighborhood.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
It's very valid. That is a purpose though ofa collector road is to act as a frontage road to service
the businesses, retail adjacent to Trunk Highway 5 so we can control access points. Make safe
intersections. Certainly.. .with this during peak hours is a stacking of traffic. Not only north or
backing up north into the intersection but the right turn lane northbound Great Plains onto Trunk
Highway 5. The traffic report also indicated that that would back up past this intersection to the
Legion and that would prohibit those left turn movements until the light would change so there's
give and take. There was some mitigation measures pointed out in the traffic study. We
considered some of them. However, you have an intersection that's just north of Trunk Highway
5 that would have to be a mirror image or reciprocate the type of lanes that are there and so
you're talking quite a major renovation to that intersection to make that work. And also then you
get MnDOT involved in this as well. They're another agency that would have to be consulted in
any type of improvements to be made at this intersection so it kind of snowballs as you go. I
have to agree with the applicant. A full access is really going to help support the site. However,
we have to keep traffic safety in mind here as well.
Joyce: The public hearing's closed but I don't do this normally so if you want to say something,
come up Alan. What's up?
Alan Krepman: I appreciate that very much. I guess there's two things I'djust like to help you
with. One is, just from a pure land planning standpoint. Looking at the uses. Locations of the
buildings. I think that, what Kate said I think is very true. That there will be a building up in this
corner. I think it's beneficial to the city to have a structure in that area because that will prevent
parking from keying in on this intersection. You'd rather have somebody looking at a structure
than parking. And you place the parking between the buildings, you're going to have access
from the parking. ..dealing with the issue of parking is, number one. If you don't have any
parking up against TH 5, this drive lane. Number two, we will put a berm in there that will
screen it. I think you said before that you trust your staff on those issues and I think that we, as
design professionals can achieve the goal that you put in place through the approval whereas if
you say you want this to be screened, and giving that authority to the staff, we can work with
them to make that work. I think that that. . . was just the land planning issues and the framework
that we're setting up with the design I think is a good framework. We don't know what's going
to come of this building but before that building comes to you, we will look at it and make sure it
works with our architecture even before they can come in and apply because that's on our
property. It's not being bought by Famous Dave's. They're going to be leasing that space. So
we need to approve it before you get it and we'll look at that same capability issue. We'll expect
that they'll meet with staff before it even comes forward and that we will work together in a
harmonious solution. The second thing would be regarding the access issue. You know we
appreciate the support and the comments from the other landowners that are adjacent to us and I
think that you know, staff is right. We do want to have a safe and workable solution in this
location and I think it's really important to think and consider that the status, the traffic counts
that you'll find on Great Plains versus Market are considerably different since Market is a
MnDDT highway and goes through. Whereas Great Plains will connect to TH 101 and because
of that, because of the lack, or not the lack but the less intensity of traffic, we feel that this thing
can work and the solutions are pointed out in that same memo from BRW, the City's traffic
engineer, as far as alternative solutions. And those solutions don't have to come up into the
26
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
intersection. What we want to do is deal with the taper area down in here and move that over so
it's a full two lane road going southbound. That will achieve it. That will achieve the safety
issue. And then just the idea of Lake Drive as a frontage road. I guess I consider that to be a
local road that provides access to our property. It's not a frontage road. It's not a road that fronts
on Highway 5. You have to go through intersections and other streets to get to that so, and that
may be just a philosophical difference but nevertheless, we want to make it work. We want to
make it safe. We want it accessible and if you can work with us on that, we will do the best that
we can. Thank you.
Joyce: Okay, thanks. With that do we have a motion?
Conrad: I'll make a motion that we table this item for two issues. One for a landscape plan to
come back so we can view it at one point in time that has staff approval. And two, that staff
reviews the access one more time, even though I've heard you very clearly Dave but I'd like to
see, I'd like to be real firm. You know I'm hearing the applicant ask for some, there are other
solutions out there and I just want to give the applicant one more chance to persuade you Dave
that there's a solution. And we want to see it here. I think ifit's the same, that's fine. But I
want the applicant to have your ear one more time. It would be nice if Famous Dave's was
included when it came back. It would be nice. I think I can deal with it not being there and I
think listening to Jeff, I don't know that we're all feeling there's got to be consistency of design.
Famous Dave's is a different operation and I think, I stay out of design issues as much as I can
but I think Jeff, your comment was they should be complimentary but certainly not.
Farmakes: I think the issue of complimentary is that they're not the same but in that area, that
they project some uniqueness. That it's not just another strip mall. In other words we can drive
to any other corner in the suburbs and see the same thing.
Conrad: But by that comment, and boy this is getting, this is not a motion but or it's turning into
a narrative. You're basically not saying change the strip mall?
Farmakes: For that type of situation, I think that's fairly high quality strip mall. The issue also is
that it's not predominant. It's a ways back from the highway. The issue of more predominance,
and this is where it comes in to what you're talking about. Maybe it's an issue we can deal with
separately but obviously those two out buildings have to be integrated in some way in
relationship not only to the strip mall but into Highway 5 as to how it projects.
Conrad: Okay. I think that helps us communicate. So my motion was basically to table.
Blackowiak: I second.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to table action on the Site Plan Review #97-1 for a
strip mall for Chanhassen Commons to review landscaping and access issues. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING:
U.S. WEST NEWVECTOR GROUP. INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL TO ALLOW A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 78 WEST 78TH
STREET AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 76 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER. 12' X
24' EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ON PROPERTY
ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Questions? Why was it tabled, the other site at City Council?
Generous: Council requested that the applicant provide additional documentation on their search
area that they were looking for. Whether or not they could locate their tower on specific sites.
One was in the Villages on the Ponds. Another was on the water tower at Eden Prairie and so the
applicant has addressed that and they will be addressing that for City Council.
Joyce: Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Jay Littlejohn: My name is Jay Littlejohn. I've been here before a few times. The microphone is
way out so I'll try to stand away from the podium. Oh good. I have some photo simulations that
we had done, but I just want to limit my comments to the staffs recommended findings and the
suggestions. First of all one of the suggestions that, Bob would you mind putting up the
landscape plan. I faxed this to staff. Bob didn't have a mylar of it. One of the suggestions staff
has that we submit a landscaping plan. In light of the fact that this is a landscape center, it's kind
of a difficult thing to do. This building is generally screened by the existing inventory that's
maintained on the site. Those are depicted specifically on the front. We recognize though that
that landscaping fluctuates and if the Commission and the Council would like us to put
additional screening that would not move, that's certainly an option to us. Screening to the right
is, there's a berm there between the Redmond site. To the right would be to the east. There's a
berm on the Redmond site that's between the existing drive for Redmond and this site and there
are trees all up and down there. And that would provide the majority of screening to people
entering Chanhassen from this site. If you wouldn't mind putting up the view on the, what would
be the view from the, looking to the east from the west. Along the road. Thank you very much.
We respectfully disagree with staffs recommendation that the character of the site is changed.
There are two 90 foot high line poles that flank this property. This photo simulation shows
where those poles are in relationship to where our proposal is. Our proposal is a 78 foot
structure. It's 12 feet shorter than what's there. You can see that the last, the pole that is
depicted as farthest away here, that's actually the last pole on the site and I don't know, does the
video get this drawing? That is this high tension standard on the video. That's the last one in
28
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
line. Now the next site over, 80 West 78th Street and I'll come to the status of that in a minute.
There are no more high tension lines. There's no other 90 foot structures between this one, well
on this side of the street. At that point the electric transmission lines cross the road, and Bob you
can put that back. The other view and I can show you what I mean. The other photo sim, yeah.
This is a shot from, I think there's a school or a church and a residence that's across the road and
you can see that the power lines cross the road so that over where the other building is, where the
80 West 78th Street is, there are no longer any more of these high tension lines. That part is
relatively clear except for the street lights and traffic lights. So we respectfully disagree with the
staff's conclusion that our pole is out of character with the neighborhood. It's right in character.
In fact it's probably more in character than the site that you already recommended for approval.
I'd like to talk about that site. Right now the City Council has tabled that. We don't know
whether it's going to be approved or not. It's up for consideration. Certainly with your
recommendation and with staff's recommendation, we have tried to get a lease with APT. We
have been advised that it's in the works. We don't have a lease with APT. I understand you've
imposed that condition on them. But we don't have a site right now and the ordinance requires
that we go on other sites that have been approved. There have are none. And that's why we have
to pursue this site as well. We've been mindful of some of your comments in the earlier
applications about what you want to see in these sites and we've tried to incorporate them. One
is the comment that the chain link fence should have the top rail on it. Ours has barb wire which
we can easily remove but the chain link fence that we have proposed does have that top rail.
We're not wedded to that barb wire. If you feel it's out of character for the neighborhood, we
certainly can remove it. Although I should note that the only part of fencing that we have, it
doesn't encompass the whole area as is the proposal for the 80 West 78th tower. Instead we only
have the back of the building has chain link fence on it. That is the back side, as you look at it
from Highway 5. It'd be the north end of the building. The chain link is only there to protect our
air conditioning units and to further inhibit the climbing of the pole, or to inhibit climbing of the
pole, which you really need to be determined to do in the first place because there's no climbing
fence on the bottom 20 feet of it. Let's see. I would like to answer questions that you have about
this site because I was kind of taken aback by staff's determination that this considerably shorter
pole was not consistent with the ordinance that I stood here and testified on before. I mean we're
talking about a much shorter structure. Consistent with what's existing there. There's no other
approved sites. I don't understand why staff would disapprove this other than the hope that
Council would approve the much taller site next door. Any questions?
Joyce: When is that tabled and when does that come up before the Council?
Aanenson: Monday night.
Joyce: In five days, right?
Aanenson: Correct.
Joyce: Do you have a problem co-locating with them if it gets approved?
29
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Jay Littlejohn: As long as they let us, no. We would go on their site. In fact we've talked to
them about it. We just haven't seen any agreements from anybody.
Joyce: So you're saying we have to wait 5 days and then you can go to them and find out if you
can co-locate or not.
Jay Littlejohn: No, we've talked to them already and they said they will but we don't have any
agreement. So I don't know whether they'll let us co-locate or not. What I would prefer to do is
to have the Council choose. There is no reason why that tower couldn't be located on this site
where there are those two high tension lines. We didn't apply for a 135 foot pole. We don't
need one.
Aanenson: But they do. That's the issue. So ifit goes on this site, it is going to be higher. It's
not going to be 78 feet. That's the evaluation we went through and we feel strongly that the other
site is better. If this tower would be approved, we would put the co-location here so it would be
taller so that kind of mitigates your argument.
Jay Littlejohn: Well respectfully, that tower is still available for others to co-locate if they can do
a deal with APT and if there is an approved site. The problem is that right now there is no
approved site and I don't know whether Council will approve a 135 foot tower so we don't.
Joyce: We have 5 days to find out.
Jay Littlejohn: Absolutely, and if you'll send me to Council 1'11 go ask them in 5 days.
Aanenson: Or we can table it and wait, that's an option too.
Joyce: Any other questions? No? Thank you. Motion to open for a public hearing.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, motion to close
the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Jeff.
Farmakes: .. . staffs recommendations over. I have a problem... It seems to me it will be
resolved one way or the other in a few days.
Joyce: Allison.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Blackowiak: Again, I'll defer to staff. I would not have a problem either tabling it or just
waiting 5 days. Since we're talking such a short time frame. I don't really feel that we need to
act on this tonight.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Staff report is right on. The last thing we need to do is add another tower here. That's
dumb. That's just dumb. It should be turned down. If the applicant, if it turns out that this is the
site because the other site gets turned down, then we can entertain this again but tonight this
should be turned down.
Brooks: Yeah I agree. We should try to avoid two towers as much as possible and wait and see
what happens with the other one.
Joyce: I wouldn't have any problem tabling it. I mean if this site doesn't get approved, then it
would come in front of us again and see if we can approve your site. I have no problem with that
so that's my comment. So then I guess we need a motion on this.
Blackowiak: Do we want to table? Okay, I'll make the motion to table the conditional use
permit to build a 76 or 78 foot cellular communication tower and 288 square foot equipment
building.
Joyce: Do I have a second?
Brooks: Second.
Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to table Conditional Use Permit #97-1 for a personal
communication service wireless telecommunications facility located at 78 West 78th Street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO CITY
CODE. SECTION 20-415. IN REGARD TO EXTENSIONS OF WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMITS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions for staff? Do we need to open this for a public hearing and all that Kate?
Aanenson: Correct.
Joyce: Okay. Can we make a motion to open this for a public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Joyce: Public hearing open. Seeing no one interested in talking, make a motion to close the
public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Okay, and we're going to vote on this too, right Kate?
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: Okay, comments. Allyson?
Brooks: None.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Looks fine.
Joyce: Allison.
Blackowiak: Pretty straight forward.
Joyce: Jeff.
Farmakes: Let's do it.
Joyce: All those in favor. Oh, we forgot to make a motion right. Someone make a motion.
Conrad: I'd make the motion that Planning Commission approve the amendment to the City
Code for Section 20-415, condition C as stated in the staff report.
Joyce: Second?
Farmakes: Second.
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
City Code Amendment to Section 20-415 in regards to extensions of Wetland Alteration
Permits as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I received a letter from Jeff today that says based on other time commitments, instead
of April 15t resignation, as soon as the Council permits LuAnn who has been appointed to start in
April, to succeed that...
Conrad: What are these pressing time things?
32
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Farmakes: What's that?
Conrad: What's pressing?
Farmakes: Well you see my tan. I hope to retire by February...
Aanenson: That's all I have for new business.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated January 15, 1997 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: The last City Council meeting, the Highlands. The property on Galpin and State
Highway 5 was tabled. The one tower we just talked about tonight was tabled. The other one
located off the industrial park was approved. Those were the only planning items on. So the
Highlands will be back on next Monday.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: Yes, I just wanted to let you know what will be on the next agenda. It looks like
we'll this antenna back on and then also the Legion site. In addition we thought we'd take an
opportunity to go through some comp plan items, specifically looking at population projections.
Ultimate build up in the city and then how that relates to the land uses that we have. The process
again that we're going to try to undertake is to educate everybody on the different components
and then as we're going through and then taking neighborhood input and then drafting the
documents. So try to get everybody up to speed on where we're going...
Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
!cJ
A regular meeting of the Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commission was called to order on
Tuesday, February 25, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman Lash,
Commissioners Berg, Roeser, Manders, Meger, Scott & Howe. Staff present: Todd Hoffman,
Park & Recreation Director; Patty Dexter, Recreation Supervisor; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Supervisor.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
VISITOR PRESENT A TIONS: None.
MINUTES: A motion was made by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Howe
to approve the summary minutes of January 28, 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, THE WOODS AT
LONGACRES; LUNDGREN BROTHERS: Bill Anner and David Hinners from Lundgren
Brothers Construction, 935 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata 55391, were present. Meger
recommended that the city council amend its development contract with Lundgren Brothers
Construction for The Woods at Longacres. This amendment to allow the reconfiguration of the
open play field in the 4th addition private association park from 180' x 180' to an area measuring
150' x 205' x 165' x 85'. This reconfiguration represents a reduction in total acreage of 1.9
acres from .74 acres to .55 acres. Howe seconded the motion. Meger, Howe, Lash, Roeser and
Scott voted in favor. Manders and Berg voted against. The motion passed on a 5 to 2 vote.
Commissioners Manders and Berg considered the loss of additional "open space" to be
significant detriment to this park plan.
DETERMINE PARK, TRAIL & RECREATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
WOODRlDGE HEIGHTS (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHAMROCK RIDGE); A
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLAT FOR 10 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS:
A motion was made by Commissioner Roeser and seconded by Commissioner Meger to
recommend the city council require the following conditions of approval in regard to park and
trails for Woodridge Heights:
1. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance.
2. The applicant construct an 8 ft. bituminous trail parallel to Lake Lucy Road. This
construction to be incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road Extension Project. The developer
shall be reimbursed for the cost of said trail from the city's trail fund.
3. Sufficient county road right-of-way/easements be maintained along County Road 117 (Galpin
Blvd.) to accommodate future trail construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
February 25, 1997
Page 2
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER
RENTAL POLICY: A motion was made by Commissioner Manders and seconded by
Commissioner Scott that in an effort to provide clarity and consistency throughout the rental
policy, the administration fee be eliminated except in cases when a cancellation notice is received
less than 48 hours in advance of the scheduled event. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS-1997 GOALS: The commission established the following goals, listed in
order of priority:
1. Land acquisition
2. Park development
3. Trail development
4. Greenway development
5. Ballfield construction
6. Municipal golf course
7. Community center
8. History center
9. Outdoor amphitheater
10. Teen center
11. Theater arts
12. Park shelters
PROGRAM REPORTS:
February Festival
Senior Center
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
Recreation Center
Prairie Knoll Play Equipment Selection Committee-approved.
Director's Report including a presentation of community survey findings.
Approval of the Hi-Tops Contract, 4th of July Celebration: Scott moved, Manders seconded. All
voted in favor.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET
A motion was made by Commissioner Berg and seconded by Commissioner Manders to adjourn
the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Todd Hoffinan
Park & Recreation Director