CC Packet 2006 02 13AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2006
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. 5:30 p.m. - Establish Legislative Policies.
B. 6:00 p.m. - Storm Water Management Plan, Joint Meeting with the Planning
Commission.
C. Review of 2006 Capital Improvement Park Projects.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 23, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated January 23, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated January 23, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated January 17, 2006.
- Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated January 24, 2006
- Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 24, 2006
b. Lake Ann Beach Lifeguard Contract: Approval of 2006 Contract.
c. City Code: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 18 Concerning Parkland
Dedication Requirements.
d. Item Deleted (TH 101 Corridor Study, Lyman Blvd., South to Scott County Line,
PW067F4: Approval of Consultant Contract).
e. Capital Improvement Program: Authorize Purchase of 2006 Vehicles &
Equipment, PW016LLL.
f. Approval of Appointments to Slow-No Wake Task Force for Lotus Lake.
g. Southwest Metro Transit: Approval of Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement.
h. Sand Companies Housing District: Call for Public Hearing on Proposed TIF
District #9.
i. Campbell-Knutson, P.A: Approval of 2006 Legal Services Contract.
j. Hazard Mitigation Planning: Approval of Resolution to Participate in Carver
County Planning Process.
k. Stonebridge Wireless: Approval of Lease Agreement.
l. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement for Carver County to Act as the Absentee
Ballot Board.
m. Approval of Contract with CBO for 2006 Street Dance, July 3.
n. Adoption of City Code Amendment Prohibiting Fires or Cooking Devices on
Vertically Stacked, Multi-Family Balconies or Patios.
o. Approval of Amendment to Fire Department Bylaws and Change in Pension
Benefits.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
2. Presentation of $300,000 Local Housing Incentive Account (LHIA) Grant; Gateway
Place; Julius Smith, Metropolitan Council Representative.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Continuation of Public Hearing for Chanhassen
Hills Area, Street Rehabilitation and Order Improvements and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. Orchard Green, 2611 & 2621 Orchard Lane, Peter Knaeble:
a. Final Plat Approval
b. Approval of Plans & Specifications & Development Contract
NEW BUSINESS - None
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE PACKET
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JANUARY 23, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme,
and Mark Littfin
CITY CODE AMENDMENT PROHIBITING COOKING AND FUEL STORAGE ON
DECKS AND PATIOS OF VERTICALLY STACKED MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS.
Mark Littfin reviewed state law and current city ordinance as it pertains to this item. Due to a
response to an apartment fire last summer at Lake Riley, staff is requesting this amendment to
the city code which affects only vertically stacked multiple dwelling units, not horizontally
stacked. He recalled his experience with balcony fires that have occurred in Eden Prairie.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if this ordinance covered electrical. Councilman Lundquist
asked how this amendment would affect ground level apartments. Councilman Peterson asked if
the market and apartment leases take care of the problem, why get the City involved. Todd
Gerhardt explained the difference between blocking issues and fire code issues. Councilman
Lundquist asked why multi-unit townhome complexes aren’t covered in this amendment, and
stated he felt the lease should be enough to cover enforcement. Mayor Furlong questioned
stacked versus side by side units and questioned enforcement. Councilman Peterson questioned
enforcement of storage versus use of grills. Councilman Lundquist asked for feedback from
apartment dwellers. Mark Littfin stated he had received two letters in response to the mailings
sent by the city regarding this issue. Mayor Furlong asked which apartment complexes in the
city have inside fire protection. Todd Gerhardt stated staff will do a survey of what apartment
buildings are currently doing regarding regulating grills on decks in their leases and will bring
the item back on a future agenda.
CONSIDER INCREASE IN FIRE RELIEF PENSION.
Randy Wahl and Jack Atkins were present from the Fire Relief Association. Todd Gerhardt
reviewed the staff report. Randy Wahl explained past practices and state regulations. Mayor
Furlong asked for clarification on how the formulas work with the vesting schedule. Todd
Gerhardt explained that this proposal isn’t a new precedence for the city. Jack Atkins gave
historical background on negotiations that have occurred in the past with retired charter members
of the fire department. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification of the annuity versus lump
sum. Randy Wahl reviewed the pension language submitted by the attorney’s office regarding
pension balances. Todd Gerhardt presented a comparison with key financial cities. Councilman
City Council Work Session – January 23, 2006
2
Peterson stated he was comfortable with the recommendation, but a little “squishy” with the
annuity increase. Councilman Lundquist agreed with Councilman Peterson. Mayor Furlong
stated he wasn’t quite there with the annuity increase, but didn’t want to get too hung up on
where the money comes from. Councilman Peterson stated he did not support the annuity
increase. Mayor Furlong stated he was still willing to listen. Councilwoman Tjornhom did not
have a firm decision at this time. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on who decides how
assets should be invested. Todd Gerhardt stated staff will get together with the Fire Relief
Association and do additional research before bringing this item back before the council.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 6:45 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, and Kate Aanenson
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong read an invitation to the February Festival
being held on February 4th.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 9, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 9, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 3, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated December 20,
2005
b. Resolution #2006-06: 2006 Sealcoat Project 06-02: Authorize Preparation of Plans &
Specifications.
c. West 78th Street Extension, Project No. 04-14: Approve Westwood Church
Reimbursement for Construction.
d. Frontier Third Addition: Approve Assignment of Development Contract.
e. John Henry Addition: Approve Development Contract Extension for Time of
Performance.
f. Resolution #2006-07: Approve Resolution Designating Yosemite Road as an MSA
Route.
g. Chanhassen Lions Club: Approval of One-Day Temporary On-Sale Beer License for
February Festival, February 4.
City Council Summary – January 23, 2006
2
h. City Code Amendment: Correction to Chapter 18 Previously Approved by the City
Council on January 9, 2006.
i. Approval of 2006 Key Financial Strategies.
j. City Code Amendment: Chapter 4, Fees Concerning Increasing Storm Water Use Fees.
k. Old Village Hall Plaza: Approve Contract Additions Associated with ADA Ramp
Including Railing and Modifications to Back Stoop.
l. Approval of 2005 Pay Equity Report.
m. Chanhassen Electric Substation, Located East of the Gedney Pickle Plant and North of
Stoughton Avenue, Applicant Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative: Approval of a
Conditional Use Permit with Variances and a Site Plan Review Application to Construct
a Local Electric Distribution Substation on Property Zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP).
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE: Sergeant Jim Olson presented
the Sheriff’s Office area report, area citation list, Community Service Officer report and crime
alerts issued by Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth for the month of December, 2005,
along with year end numbers. Miscellaneous items included recent business burglaries and ice
safety on area lakes and ponds. Chief Gregg Geske presented the December monthly update
from the fire department, highlighting a couple calls related to carbon monoxide poisoning.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Labatt read a letter of thanks to the city’s fire
department and presented a donation to the Fire Relief Fund on behalf of the Labatt family for
their years of service responding to his father’s diabetic issues.
N. CHRISTENSEN SUBDIVISION, NORTHWEST OF 6710 GOLDEN COURT,
APPLICANT ROBERT CHRISTENSEN: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE
PROPERTY INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
TWO FLAG LOTS.
Councilman Lundquist asked staff to provide background information regarding the street layout
associated with this request. Kate Aanenson addressed the issues raised by the Planning
Commission. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the driveway access to this site
and surrounding properties, now and in the future.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the
preliminary plat to subdivide the Christensen property into two single family lots with a
variance to allow flag lots, Planning Case 05-44, as specified in the staff report dated
January 3, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to
0.
City Council Summary – January 23, 2006
3
PUBLIC HEARING: 2006 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 06-01.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark & Pat Ruhland 6275 Yosemite Avenue
Lee Clasen 6351 Yosemite Avenue
Brian & Julie Evers 1799 Koehnen Circle
Kent Louwagie Bolton-Menk, Inc.
Marcus Thomas Bolton-Menk, Inc.
Richard Cullen 1630 W. 63rd Street
Barbara Solum 1630 W. 63rd Street
Emma St. John 1621 W. 63rd Street
Tracy & Chuck Cool 1601 Koehnen Circle E.
Adele Pint 1641 Koehnen Circle E.
Mike Schmidt 6470 Yosemite Avenue
Chris Charlson 581 Big Woods Boulevard
V.C. Wertz 1620 Koehnen Circle
Jean Bogema 6371 Yosemite Avenue
Lance Ford 1711 Koehnen Circle East
Bruce Koehnen 1830 Koehnen Circle
Willard Johnson West 63rd Street
Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item and introduced the consultant, Marcus
Thomas from Bolton-Menk, Inc. who reviewed the feasibility study and report for the Koehnen
neighborhood. Councilman Labatt asked about the width of Yosemite connecting into
Shorewood. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the proposed retaining walls along
Yosemite. Councilman Lundquist asked about the width of Yosemite in relation to the need for
retaining walls, the size of the cul-de-sac bubbles and MSA requirements. Mayor Furlong
questioned the scope of the project towards Lake Lucy Road and possibly including that in the
project and clarification on how assessments are determined. Mayor Furlong called the public
hearing to order. Mike Schmidt, 6470 Yosemite noted a discrepancy in the letters that were sent
out to the public stating project costs of $3.8 million rather than $2.8 million, concern with the
safety associated with the retaining walls, the speed and amount of traffic on the road. Mark
Ruhland, 6275 Yosemite speaking also on behalf of his neighbor Mrs. Lee Clasen stated they
did not feel there was a need to accommodate any higher traffic volume on Yosemite and would
like to see a reduction in traffic speed. He asked staff to explain what would happen if the street
width was narrowed and the city lost state aid funding. Tracy Cool, 1601 Koehnen Circle stated
their biggest concern was the pond which is located in her back yard. V.C. Wertz, 1620
Koehnen Circle was concerned with the safety of the pond, and mosquito control. Adele Pint,
1641 Koehnen Circle East also had concerns with the holding pond and standing water in the
roadway ditch in front of her house. Jean Bogema, 6371 Yosemite Avenue expressed concern
with these improvements raising her property value and taxes, concern about the retaining wall
and fence that will be placed on her property and the speed on Yosemite. Barbara Solum, West
63rd Street questioned the speed and lighting on her street, maintenance for the end of their
City Council Summary – January 23, 2006
4
driveways and mailboxes and mail delivery during construction. Lance Ford, 1711 East
Koehnen asked for clarification on phasing of construction and maintenance of the ponds. Bruce
Koehnen, 1830 Koehnen Circle asked for clarification of MSA funding for Yosemite Avenue,
safety regarding installation of retaining walls and cars driving off the road in those areas,
assessment methodology including potential future lot splits. Brian Evers, 1799 Koehnen Circle
West questioned widening the roadway just to meet MSA standards, and runoff from the gravel
driveways on Cardinal. Chuck Cool, 1601 Koehnen Circle asked why install curb and gutter at
this time, the use of MSA dollars, concern with the pond and who is liable if there’s a drowning
in the pond, and maintenance records for ponds. Mayor Furlong asked the consultant to explain
the alternatives to building retaining walls. Willard Johnson, West 63rd Street asked if the
lowering of the sewer line on Blue Jay Circle was going to affect his property.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the public hearing on
the 2006 street improvements, Project 06-01 to the February 13, 2006 meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING ON METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST WITH A
VARIANCE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, PAUL & ANDREA EIDSNESS, 630 CARVER
BEACH ROAD.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about the
possibility of further subdivision of the lots. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. Paul
Otto with Otto Associates stated the applicants were in agreement with the staff
recommendations. The one thing they would like to request is that additional right-of-way along
Carver Beach Road be maintained at 20 foot to save trees. Mayor Furlong closed the public
hearing. After comments by the council the following motion was made.
Resolution #2006-08: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that
the City Council approves the metes and bounds subdivision (#06-02) of 2.18 acres into two
lots as shown on plans stamped “Received January 5, 2006”, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans are to be submitted to
the City for review and approval with the building permit application for Parcel B, or
with the subdivision application if Parcel B is incorporated into a future development
proposal, whichever comes first.
2. Park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication for one new lot (1 lot x
$4,000 per lot = $4,000).
3. The sewer and water hookup charges for Parcel B will be payable with the building
permit application or assessed with the property taxes.
City Council Summary – January 23, 2006
5
4. The survey must be revised to dedicate a 30 foot wide roadway, drainage and utility
easement over the east half of Carver Beach Road, measured from the centerline of
Carver Beach Road.
5. Parcel B will be specially assessed $10,000 for the street. The assessment will be
deferred without interest until the street is constructed. When the deferment ends, the
assessment shall be paid over a five year period at 8% interest.
6. The applicant shall enter into the attached Development Contract and Special Assessment
Agreement.
7. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the city as described in the
UTILITIES section of the staff report.
8. The plans must be revised to show the exact location of the existing utilities (watermain
and sanitary sewer) and easements. Additional easements may be required as described
in the UTILITIES section of the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
JACOB’S TAVERN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5
AND CENTURY BOULEVARD, APPLICANT, TRUMAN HOWELL ARCHITECTS:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 6,808 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT
BUILDING ON 2.02 ACRES.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on how the building is oriented on the site and
signage. Councilman Lundquist asked about the impact of the retail market study on this project.
Truman Howell, Truman Howell Architects explained the architectural design elements, and
addressed the material for the silo top. Mayor Furlong opened the floor for public comments.
There were none. After council discussion the following motion was made.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves
Site Plan Planning Case #05-40, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated
November 10, 2005, for a 6,808 square-foot restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Park 6th Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A recorded parking easement for the benefit of Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th
Addition for the use of nine stalls on the Holiday Inn Express site (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Park 6th Addition) is required as part of the site plan.
3. The developer shall install site furnishings including benches, bicycle racks, and tables.
City Council Summary – January 23, 2006
6
4. All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
5. Mechanical equipment, either roof-mounted or at grade, must be screened.
6. The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
7. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
8. The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
9. Pedestrian ramps shall be provided in all locations where the sidewalk ends at a curb.
10. The full access driveway onto Century Boulevard is allowed. However, should the driveway
cease to operate in a safe manner in the opinion of the property owners of Lots 1 or 2, Block
1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition, or Lots 1, 2 or 3, Block 1, Arboretum Business
Park 4th Addition, or if any of the following conditions are met, the property owners of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,
Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition shall be assessed 100% of the costs incurred to correct
the conditions in a fashion acceptable to the City of Chanhassen:
a. Level of service “F” at the intersection during peak AM and PM times.
b. Level of service “D” or below at the intersection during non-peak times.
c. Significant accidents that are attributed to the configuration of the intersection occur that
indicate a mutually recognized safety concern at the intersection.
11. The slope located along the southern property line shall be seeded with a native grass mix
and left natural. The applicant will be allowed to mow along the parking lot and trail if
necessary.
12. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the existing downstream storm water
infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development.
13. Two details for silt fence are included on the detail sheet. The old detail for silt fence (Detail
5300 last revised January of 2003) should be removed from the detail sheet. The plans
should be revised to show inlet protection around all storm sewer inlets.
14. Wimco-type inlet controls should be specified for inlet protection. Inlet protection shall be
provided for existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project.
15. During installation of the proposed storm sewer infrastructure to the existing storm sewer,
temporary caps or plugs should be provided until the installation of the pipes and inlets are
complete.
City Council Summary – January 23, 2006
7
16. A temporary cover of mulch and seed is needed within 14 days of final grade for any
exposed soils or if any exposed soils are not actively worked within a 14-day time period.
17. Any sediment tracked upon paved surfaces must be scraped and swept within 24 hours.
18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of
Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
19. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
20. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event with storm sewer drainage map prior to building permit issuance.
21. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
22. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City’s Building Department.
23. Add the latest City Detail Plate Nos. 1004, 5214, 5300 and 5302.
24. The site will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of
building permit issuance. The 2006 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,575.00 per unit for
sanitary sewer and $4,078.00 per unit for water.
25. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited
to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc.
26. On the utility plan show all the existing utility sewer type, size, slope and class.
27. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the lots.
28. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
29. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and location of signs to be installed.
City Council Summary – January 23, 2006
8
30. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policies.
a. #1-1990 regarding fire alarm systems,
b. #4-1991 regarding notes to be included on all site plans,
c. #7-1991 regarding pre-fire drawings,
d. #29-1992 regarding premise identification,
e. #34-1993 regarding water service installation,
f. #36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing,
g. #40-1995 regarding fire protection systems.”
31. The applicant will work with staff to identify a durable material for the top of the silo which
does not include canvas.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong provided an update on the meeting held by
Carver County regarding Emergency Preparedness.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt presented updates regarding the
storm water management plan update, water treatment plant, the ice depth on Lake Ann, and the
Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong noted the letters to the Fire Department
from the family members involved in the carbon monoxide incident over the Christmas holidays.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 23, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, and Kate Aanenson
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody here in the council chambers with us
and for those watching at home as well. We’re glad you joined us. I’d like at this time to ask if
there’s any changes or modifications to the agenda. If there are none then we will proceed with
the agenda as it was distributed with the council packet. Seeing none. First item this evening
under public announcements, I’d like to make a general invitation to everyone to join us for Feb
Fest this coming weekend. City of Chanhassen, along with the Chamber of Commerce and other
sponsors of our recreation programs is putting on the 13th annual February Festival this coming
Saturday, February 4th. At this time I invite all residents, their families and friends to join us at
Lake Ann. The event will begin at noon with activities including skating, sledding and a bonfire,
perhaps on land, if not on the ice. As well as a number of other activities. S’mores kits will be
sold by the boy scout troop and the Chanhassen Lions will be offering food and concessions and
drinks. There will be an ice fishing contest from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. that will include $2,500 in
prizes for fishing, and $4,000 in door prizes. It’s a fun event and there’s the Friends of the
Library medallion hunt will be taking place during the time, as well leading up to the 4th this
coming Saturday. The medallion, person who finds the medallion receives a $1,500 prize. Ice
fishing, a raffle contest. Raffle tickets are available for adults and children at $5.00 each. You
can purchase the tickets at city hall and at many businesses around the city. I’m told that the ice
at a safe level right now.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Between, and that with the guarantee cold weather from Mr. Gerhardt for the
coming week, it will be safe so this coming Saturday. Noon at Lake Ann. It’s a fun event and
hope to see a lot of people out there. That’s on the record now so official transcript.
Todd Gerhardt: I’ve got control of the weather.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
2
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 9, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 9, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 3, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated December 20,
2005
b. Resolution #2006-06: 2006 Sealcoat Project 06-02: Authorize Preparation of Plans &
Specifications.
c. West 78th Street Extension, Project No. 04-14: Approve Westwood Church
Reimbursement for Construction.
d. Frontier Third Addition: Approve Assignment of Development Contract.
e. John Henry Addition: Approve Development Contract Extension for Time of
Performance.
f. Resolution #2006-07: Approve Resolution Designating Yosemite Road as an MSA
Route.
g. Chanhassen Lions Club: Approval of One-Day Temporary On-Sale Beer License for
February Festival, February 4.
h. City Code Amendment: Correction to Chapter 18 Previously Approved by the City
Council on January 9, 2006.
i. Approval of 2006 Key Financial Strategies.
j. City Code Amendment: Chapter 4, Fees Concerning Increasing Storm Water Use Fees.
k. Old Village Hall Plaza: Approve Contract Additions Associated with ADA Ramp
Including Railing and Modifications to Back Stoop.
l. Approval of 2005 Pay Equity Report.
m. Chanhassen Electric Substation, Located East of the Gedney Pickle Plant and North of
Stoughton Avenue, Applicant Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative: Approval of a
Conditional Use Permit with Variances and a Site Plan Review Application to Construct
a Local Electric Distribution Substation on Property Zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP).
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
3
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE:
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good evening. I have for you tonight the end of year December
report and the year 2005. The citation list for December. Copy of a crime alert that was put out
by Beth Hoiseth and Community Service Officer report, and I’ll go over some of the monthly
numbers here and a couple other items also. Total calls for service were up by 96 for the month
of December, and criminal calls were down by 24 for the month compared to last year. Last year
being 2004. Total calls for year to date for 2005 were up by 785, which is 6% and the criminal
calls were down by 290 or 22% for the year. The CSO calls for service that they handled were
up by 7% for the year. Thefts themselves were down by 133, or 30% for the year. The theft
related calls, and those include internet identity theft, credit card theft, those were up by 8 for the
month and by 56 for the year, and those were up by 244% for the year, so big jump in those. We
saw a big increase in identity theft and credit card theft and that’s been going around not only
city wide but nation wide. There’s been a lot of media attention on it. Damage to property calls
for year to date were down by 68. 23%. The burglaries were up by 4 or 7 ½% for the year.
Traffic stops were 300 for the month, which compares to 286 last year, and that’s up by, was up
by 1,377 for the year, and then citations was 374 for the month and for the year we had 3,220 for
the year 2005. Any questions at all on numbers for the year 2005 for Chanhassen.
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, good to see the criminal numbers going down. I think
the traffic stops probably, or the vast majority of the non-criminal which is I suppose also a good
thing. The one that concerns me as I looked was the year over year, the drug violations.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Nature of those where we see the meth stuff in the news and everything
all the time, are we, is this things related potentially to that or just tighter enforcement overall by
the sheriff or, it’s a two-thirds increase year over year.
Sgt. Jim Olson: We have certainly seen an increase meth wise in the city, as well as in the
county. And with the drug task force, Doug Schmidtke has been very busy with enforcement
along those lines. There’s also been some busts that he has done in the city here that have
increased that, but meth has been an issue.
Councilman Lundquist: So going forward, kind of status quo with the drug task force and other
things, do we have special emphasis to look into that or what’s the sheriff’s plan going forward?
Sgt. Jim Olson: The county is hoping to put on or has approved the addition of one more drug
task force person from the county, which I think will be going in approximately mid-year so we
will be adding another person to the drug task force to the county.
Councilman Lundquist: Thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yeah. Any other questions number wise? I also wanted to touch on business
burglaries. We’ve recently had some business burglaries in the city and as well as county wide
there’s been an increase in western part of the county as well. I would encourage business
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
4
owners to make nightly bank deposits and leave cash registers open so that they know that
there’s nothing in them. Consider an alarm system and also video surveillance system, looking
into those in your businesses. Evaluate your locks and doors and consider installing latch guards
that cover the latches on the outside of your door. Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth can
come to your business and do a premise survey to point out strengths or weaknesses of your
overall security measures and her phone number is 952-227-1610 and that is at no charge to
business owners or residential owners here in the city. She’ll come out to both business and
residential, and I would encourage them to do that. We’ve also had, been fortunate to have a
warm winter so far and I just want to touch briefly on just ice safety. It sounds like Lake Ann is
doing well but, and having a warm winter you know others may disagree with me on this
whether that’s been fortunate or not but for me I’ve enjoyed it. But be cautious on the area lakes
and waterways and there have been some near tragedies in the state recently involving vehicles,
snowmobiles and four wheelers. Area sporting good stores can assist with questions about local
ice thickness and give you a hand with that so. Any other questions for me at all?
Mayor Furlong: Anything for the Sergeant? No? Okay, very good, thank you for the update.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Proceed now with our update from our Chanhassen Fire Department. Good
evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. We did have our elections last month and both our Assistant
Chief and our Chief stayed the same, as you see I’m here tonight but also.
Mayor Furlong: Congratulations.
Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you. This month we’ll also be doing our appointment of our officers
and that’s on a yearly basis that we renew the officers that we have. Tonight I’d like to talk
about a couple calls that we had last month. A lot of times you know everybody has smoke
alarms and such. Carbon monoxide alarms and a lot of times we’ll go to carbon monoxide
alarms and we, a lot of times they’re false calls or we get readings from somebody running a
vehicle in the house, and last month we did have a couple that were actually, one was a rather
high reading. Well one call that we had, the night before New Year’s Eve day was the carbon
monoxide alarm went off. We did register readings there and we called in Minnegasco and they
actually red tagged their furnace, so the furnace was kicking out carbon monoxide on that call so,
and then New Year’s Eve, or Christmas Eve morning we had a call and that was in the paper. I
think there was a letter in that regards in the council diskette there and at that call we actually
saw readings that were higher than what our carbon monoxide detector can read on our, which
pegged out in the thousands. Calculating the readings we were between 50,000 and 100,000
parts per million in the pool room where the problem existed, and you only last for about a
minute to two minutes in there so luckily the people did witness that they were having problems
and got out and so it just, it kind of re-emphasized the purpose to have a carbon monoxide
detector. I know at that location they didn’t have one and I think they got a lot of them for
Christmas and just want to bring those up. You know we have seen those carbon monoxide calls
and a couple of them are serious here and to get the carbon monoxide detectors so.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
5
Mayor Furlong: Just a quick comment there too. And there were letters in our packet this
evening that were, really touched you when you read through, especially from the father but it’s,
it also emphasized that it’s a group of people that respond. It’s not only the fire fighters that
were there but also the dispatchers that thought quickly and helped saved some lives mostly.
Chief Gregg Geske: Yeah, right from when they called and they realized definitely right away
what was happening. Got them out of the house because the longer they stayed in, two of the
people from that house actually did go in the hypobaric chamber to reduce that carbon monoxide
level so it was a serious call and any less time that they are in the house so it was a great job right
from dispatch to the deputies showing up on the scene and the fire department, so did a good job
of thanking everybody that was involved. And that’s about all I have so.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the chief? Is the recruitment, are you recruiting again this
spring?
Chief Gregg Geske: Well we just in the past year here we did take on 9 individuals so right now
we’re going to keep where we’re at and monitor losses of fire fighters and stuff but pretty much
get the 9 people through the probationary process and then we’ll be looking at adding but we’re
always interested for people to put in their applications so if you have any interest, feel free to
call city hall and put in an application for the fire department.
Mayor Furlong: Great, very good.
Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: We do have one scheduled presentation which I’ll turn the microphone now
over to Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Thanks. I do have, I’ll do it from here rather than out front but Chief
Geske, okay he’s still here. As we all know, at least the council, my father passed away on
December 11th and my mom wanted me to make a donation on behalf of the Labatt family to the
Chanhassen Fire Department for their years of service of responding to my father’s diabetic
issues and prolonging his wonderful life. I also wanted to point out before I read the letter here,
just having been a part of it and to sit through the numerous calls over there, we have a fine fire
crew here. Paramedic crew and police officers. Deputy sheriff’s and the night that this
happened two deputies responded. I can not recall the name of the second deputy but Derrick
Lee, the night shift supervisor this night spent about 3 ½ hours with my family and really showed
the true professionalism of all the members of the sheriff’s office on behalf of Bud Olson. And I
just want to point that out to everybody that we do have some fine deputies that work for us and
our fire crew, but I want to read a letter here from my mom to the Chanhassen fire crew and
Chief Geske. The Labatt family would like to thank you for your years of support and service.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
6
Your many responses to our 911 calls truly meant an extended life for Terry. Dick Wing, who is
a fire fighter, honored our family with playing the bagpipes in a tribute to Terry and declined his
honorarium so we are passing on to the Chanhassen Fire Department. In addition we have added
a sum of money to make as a token of our appreciation this money will be used for your
determination, and I think she’s talked to Assistant Chief Randy Wahl when she talked about this
and about using it for training for the fire crew. So I just wanted to pass this on to Chief Geske
and Todd Gerhardt and they’re a great crew. Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much Councilman Labatt. And to the Labatt family. At this
point is there anybody else from a visitor presentations? Seeing none, then we’ll move on with
our agenda. I’d like to pick up at this time item 1(n) that was pulled for separate discussion from
our consent agenda.
N. CHRISTENSEN SUBDIVISION, NORTHWEST OF 6710 GOLDEN COURT,
APPLICANT ROBERT CHRISTENSEN: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE
PROPERTY INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
TWO FLAG LOTS.
Councilman Lundquist: Couple of things on this one Mr. Mayor. Just looking at this area, Kate
can you just go over in about 5 minutes or less kind of the construction with the variances and
the history of what’s going on here.
Kate Aanenson: This is the Christensen property. That’s being requested for subdivision. This
item did appear on the Planning Commission on January 3rd and there were 3 issues that were
raised, and I’ll go through those in a minute but I’ll give you a little background. This area, there
were quite a few underlying property owners. Back in 1995 Mr. Rabe’s proposed what is now
called the Golden Glow subdivision, and there was numerous options in looking at how all these
properties can be assembled because as part of the challenge of the planners is to make sure
we’re not land locking somebody to this, or providing access to one person at the detriment of
another. At the time that that subdivision, Golden Glow was done in 1995, it was then the
Kerber property was not subdivided. That now has also been subdivided and did provide access
to, so you’ve got the Steadman home, the Christensen and the Martinka property. So this
subdivision, the Burlwood subdivision provided additional access. At that time that we looked at
the plat in 1995 with Golden Glow flag lots were permitted. So looking at that, there was a
private street requested actually on the back of the Golden Glow but staff recommended that that
be a public street, so at that time the prevailing development pattern, a lot of the flag lots, and we
agreed that that’s how that would come in. It couldn’t be developed until such time that these
other properties came forward so to date the rules, the lot was provided, it’s in excess of an acre
lot. Very well reasonable to subdivide and we have the two, look at two lots there. So at the
Planning Commission meeting the issues that were brought forward was the cul-de-sac and
having another driveway. So you look at the existing subdivision, there is two driveways in Mr.
Martinka’s property which is to the south, who also can further subdivide via access to a public
street. And this, both driveways, if you can zoom in on that a little bit Nann please. There will
be moved, there’s a condition that they be 10 feet apart and then when Mr. Martinka to the south
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
7
subdivides that driveway, will also be moved to follow that house and then one more house to
the south. So they meet all the conditions except for flag lot, which the rule changed when we
originally looked at this. Again we always try to anticipate development of properties and
what’s the best way to provide access. So in looking at the variance request on that, staff felt
like…condition of the recommendation of the findings of fact which are found on page 8 of the
staff report. You know based on the fact that we provided a reasonable access when we did the
previous subdivision. It’s impossible to provide access off the flag lot, we felt it was reasonable
and that Mr. Christensen was placed undue hardship based on our changing of the rules. Again
we do allow for private streets. We didn’t want to do the private streets. Sometimes that, we’ve
learned sometimes that not always a solution so with that we had recommended approval of the
variance. And there was another question that was brought up regarding, which is the front part
of the lot, the ordinance does say the part closest to the street, if you look at the dimensions, the
dimensions, this would be up close to the street. It is a front. It does meet all the setback
requirements. And then the third condition that was raised at the Planning Commission was the
height in the shoreland district, and we have changed when we updated our city code to make all
residential property consistent with the shoreland district so we don’t run into that and that’s 35
feet so that would be consistent with that when the building permit comes in we would check
that. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of this subdivision with the variance
with the findings in the staff 6-0.
Councilman Lundquist: So do you, if you put that picture back up. Kate, draw where, when this
property subdivided, what each of those two lots looks like.
Kate Aanenson: So this would be the existing home.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And then there’s a private driveway that goes to Mr. Martinka. And then this
would be the new, the flag lot.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so that’s the flag lot is the new.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So then, then you know you’d come off that common driveway and
we’ve learned sometimes that causes issues so we felt at that time the prevailing pattern would
be best just to leave it the flag lot, which again was in place in 1995 and the road needed to be
put in place with the Burlwood subdivision which just happened recently so it’s kind of a timing
issue too.
Councilman Lundquist: So the flag lot essentially, or the flag on that lot essentially just has a
driveway on it?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
8
Councilman Lundquist: For the new lot.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and then the question was the setback. The closest to the street, the
dimension which is this fascia, would meet the 30 foot so it is consistent with the zoning
ordinance. So again the only variance would be the flag lot.
Councilman Lundquist: Creation of a flag lot.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Which we kind of laid out ahead of time. And I think you know Mr.
Martinka then moving that driveway when he’s ready to subdivide.
Councilman Lundquist: So when he develops it, when the Martinka property divides then Lot
number 8, that other driveway will go away?
Kate Aanenson: It should, yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: You comfortable?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Anything else? Are there any other questions for staff on this? No? Okay. Is
there any discussion on it? Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: No, I’m comfortable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. If there are no other issues, or if there, Mr. Gerhardt said there were
some people here. If they’re interested in commenting on it were you aware Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: I think the applicant was here. I don’t know if the, no changes. I think they
were in agreement with staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I don’t want to shut anybody out but if there’s new information or
something you want the council to consider, be happy to listen to it now. Otherwise we’ll move
forward. And I don’t even know who I’m looking for in the group so.
Kate Aanenson: Mr. Christensen is back there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay good, alright. Okay, you okay with the staff report Mr. Christensen?
Robert Christensen: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, good. Thank you. With that if there are no other questions
from.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
9
Councilman Lundquist: I would move approval of item 1(n) as published.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the
preliminary plat to subdivide the Christensen property into two single family lots with a
variance to allow flag lots, Planning Case 05-44, as specified in the staff report dated
January 3, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to
0.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2006 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 06-01.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark & Pat Ruhland 6275 Yosemite Avenue
Lee Clasen 6351 Yosemite Avenue
Brian & Julie Evers 1799 Koehnen Circle
Kent Louwagie Bolton-Menk, Inc.
Marcus Thomas Bolton-Menk, Inc.
Richard Cullen 1630 W. 63rd Street
Barbara Solum 1630 W. 63rd Street
Emma St. John 1621 W. 63rd Street
Tracy & Chuck Cool 1601 Koehnen Circle E.
Adele Pint 1641 Koehnen Circle E.
Mike Schmidt 6470 Yosemite Avenue
Chris Charlson 581 Big Woods Boulevard
V.C. Wertz 1620 Koehnen Circle
Jean Bogema 6371 Yosemite Avenue
Lance Ford 1711 Koehnen Circle East
Bruce Koehnen 1830 Koehnen Circle
Willard Johnson West 63rd Street
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Tonight staff is requesting the council
open a public hearing for the 2006 street improvement projects. Staff is requesting that the
Koehnen area be discussed tonight and that the public hearing be continued until the next City
Council meeting on February 13th to discuss the other project items in the project, in this project.
The streets in this year’s project have been planned for several years. Streets were identified in
the city’s pavement management program and due to the problems that we had with utilities in
these areas. The streets considered for improvement can no longer be maintained effectively
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
10
with minor preservation of pavement techniques such as seal coating and such. We did receive
several comments from property owners in this area too and we, staff has forwarded those
comments onto the council. They are in your packet. At this time I guess I’d ask Mr. Marcus
Thomas, the consultant on this project who drafted the feasibility study, give just a brief
overview of the Koehnen area street improvement project.
Marcus Thomas: Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Marcus Thomas. I’m a project
manager with Bolton and Menk Engineers. First and foremost thank you for allowing Bolton-
Menk to assist the city with this important project. We’ve enjoyed working with the staff on
preparing the feasibility study and report. Their input and guidance has been very valuable for
us in preparing the report and similarly the input that we’ve gotten from the residents thus far has
been very valuable too. We’ve had an open house that was held on December 8th where we were
able to solicit public input and there are future opportunities if this project were to move forward
for other informational meetings with the residents so we look forward to continuing to work
with your staff and with the residents. In the report, and I’m not sure if, how the council has the
report and all the associated figures with this evening. I’ll be referring to the figures in the
feasibility report but I’m going to focus on that portion of the report that discusses the Koehnen
area, neighborhood. Figure 1. We illustrate that neighborhood on Figure 1 of the report. In
general there were a number of infrastructure improvements that we were proposing throughout
the neighborhood. I’ll go into some in more detail in just a bit but some of the more significant
items of general improvements include the addition of concrete curb and gutter throughout the
neighborhood along the street corridor. We established a goal to establish a consistent 30 foot
wide standard street width throughout the project area where allowable. When I say where
allowable I mean above and beyond the average widths of about 27-28 feet that exist out there
right now. If we can get a standard 30 foot wide street width without significant impacts to
significant boulevard improvements such as mature trees, etc, we would like to do that.
Yosemite is one exception where our goal is to establish a 32 foot wide street width, to qualify
for state aid, municipal state aid funding. As a state aid route Yosemite Avenue is eligible for
this funding if it meets the applicable design criteria. Just also point out that this funding that
would be received for this roadway would go into pay for the over sizing of Yosemite Avenue,
above and beyond what the city would normally do on a local roadway. Over sizing being the
additional width and the additional pavement thickness. Other elements considered are the
addition of storm sewer throughout the project area including the construction of 3 pond areas
that would ultimately collect runoff from the storm sewer system. We are proposing the
complete replacement of the watermain throughout the neighborhood in conjunction with this
project. There’s been numerous documented breaks of the watermain system throughout the
neighborhood, and we see road improvements ultimately outlasting the existing watermain in the
area, so we want to make sure that we improve that watermain as well. And finally we propose
partial replacement of the sanitary sewer throughout the neighborhood in specific locations that
we found were in need of repair. With that I’ll refer you to Figures 25 through 27 that detail the
improvements along Yosemite. Figures 25 through 27 in your report illustrate the improvements
along Yosemite Avenue. In general the, we propose to reconstruct the roadway along it’s
existing alignment from the house at approximate address 6481 at the south end, all the way to
the northerly city limits in Chanhassen. The improvements would include the construction of
two independent storm sewer systems, one at the south end, south of West 63rd Street. That
would collect runoff and then ultimately route it into a new pond on the east side of Yosemite at
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
11
the south end. And a second storm sewer system that would extend north from Creek Run Trail
north ultimately through a storm water treatment manhole and into an existing ditch at the north
half of the corridor. Along Yosemite we propose to replace the existing watermain along the
east side of the street. And we also propose to replace most of the sanitary sewer along this
corridor to address problems that we found, including indentations in the pipe and significant
sags. Through the report you’ll notice that the sanitary sewer delineated in red, which is kind of
difficult to see in the screen here but those are the segments of sanitary sewer that are proposed
to be replaced. For West 63rd Street I’ll refer you to Figures 28 through 29. Feel free to interject
any questions or comments that you have as I go along. I’ll try to be concise.
Mayor Furlong: Oh, Councilman.
Councilman Labatt: Where Yosemite terminates at the Shorewood city line, how wide is it
there? The road. You’re going to, you’re starting at 32 feet?
Marcus Thomas: Yeah, the proposed width is 32 feet, but then as we get to the Shorewood city
line we do taper back to the existing street width, which is approximately about 27 to 28 feet
along Yosemite. So if you look at Figure 27 you can see how the road kind of narrows into that
existing street width.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, go ahead.
Todd Gerhardt: I was just going to add that I think the City of Shorewood’s considering
establishing their portion of the road as MSA tonight at their council meeting.
Paul Oehme: I can interject and answer that question. I did have a conversation with their City
Engineer and it’s my understanding that they would be considering establishing Apple Road in
the City of Shorewood as a MSA road.
Todd Gerhardt: So if they were to upgrade Apple from Yosemite to Powers in Chanhassen, that
would have to be a 32 foot width also?
Paul Oehme: That would have to be a minimum of 32 feet wide, correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Also I noticed on Yosemite here on some parts it looks like there’s some
retaining walls that are going to be put in. Are those existing or are those going to be added?
Marcus Thomas: Those would be added. Those would be proposed retaining walls.
Mayor Furlong: And about how high are those?
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
12
Marcus Thomas: They vary in height from approximately 4 feet up to about 9 feet high. Those
retaining walls are.
Mayor Furlong: What’s there now, just a hill?
Marcus Thomas: Yes, there’s a very steep hill right now. Again on the east side of Yosemite,
given the existing narrow width of about 27 feet, it drops probably at about a 2:1 to 3:1 slope
down from the roadway along the east side of Yosemite. With the wider road extending out
along that slope, we need to bridge that drop as opposed to carrying fill out further into the
properties. We’d basically construct a retaining wall to accommodate the wider road there.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a requirement for fencing or anything…
Marcus Thomas: Yes there is. There’d be fencing on any wall that would exceed 4 feet in
height.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Marcus Thomas: You’re welcome. I’ll continue with West 63rd Street again on Figures 28
through 29 in your report. West 63rd Street is proposed to be reconstructed along it’s existing
alignment from Cardinal at the west end all the way to Yosemite at the east end. Again we’d be
constructing storm sewer along West 63rd Street. Here we would have two different systems.
The one at the west end inbetween Cardinal and Blue Jay would ultimately collect runoff and
route it into a proposed storm water pond immediately south of West 63rd. At the east end
between Audubon Circle and Yosemite Avenue there’s a second storm sewer system that would
route water east, ultimately into the Yosemite Avenue system. Again we’d propose the complete
replacement of the existing watermain along the south side of West 63rd Street, and along West
63rd Street we found that there was no necessary sanitary sewer improvements that were
required. Moving onto Audubon Circle on Figure 30 of your report. Audubon Circle is
proposed to be reconstructed along it’s existing alignment. We would be deviating from the
standard 45 foot radius for the cul-de-sac bubble at the north end, and instead matching the
existing 35 foot radius that’s in place right now and that’s a direct result to input from residents
regarding existing trees along that cul-de-sac that would be impacted by the larger radius cul-de-
sac so we’re going to stick with the existing 35 foot radius there. Along this block of Audubon
we would be constructing storm sewer that would flow into a pond immediately north of the cul-
de-sac. Again we’d completely reconstruct the watermain along this block with exists along the
west side of the street. And on Audubon Circle again we found no need for any sanitary sewer
improvement. Blue Jay Circle is illustrated on Figure 31 of your report. Blue Jay Circle would
be a, it’s roadway would be reconstructed. Again acknowledging the potential impacts to a
larger cul-de-sac bubble, up to the standard 45 foot radius, we’re proposing simply to match the
existing radius in the cul-de-sac. We would propose to construct storm sewer that flows,
ultimately flows into the West 63rd Street storm sewer system. The existing watermain along the
east side of the street is proposed to be replaced and we propose to replace the sanitary sewer
along this entire block to address the significant sags and deflections that we found in this pipe.
In conjunction with replacing that sanitary sewer we also wanted to acknowledge a comment
from the resident at 6271 that has indicated that he’s got a very flat sanitary sewer service that
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
13
backs up on him on a regular basis, so in conjunction with replacing the main line pipe, we’d like
to look at the potential to lower that pipe giving him a little bit more fall and hopefully
improving his situation. Figure 32 illustrates improvements along Cardinal Avenue. Cardinal
Avenue is proposed to be reconstructed along it’s existing alignment from West 63rd Street at the
south end all the way up to the northerly city limits, similar to Yosemite. The improvements
proposed would consist of a storm sewer system flowing south from Koehnen Circle East
ultimately into the West 63rd Street storm sewer system. We propose the complete replacement
of the existing watermain along the east side of the street, and the replacement of a section of
sanitary sewer immediately south of Koehnen Circle West where we found some significant
sags.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Thomas, on Figure 32 here where West 63rd comes up to Ringneck Drive,
will the curbs and gutters align with the existing roadway there?
Marcus Thomas: Yes. Yeah, the existing width of Ringneck at that point is really close to that
32 feet, so it will be a smooth, it should be a very smooth transition at that intersection.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Marcus Thomas: Did I say 32 feet? It’s not 32 feet there. It’s closer to 30 feet there. Okay
moving onto the Koehnen Circle East, on Figures 33 and 34 of your report. Koehnen Circle East
is proposed to be reconstructed from Cardinal Avenue at the west end to it’s terminal point at the
east end at the cul-de-sac there. Again what we found is that the city standard radius for a cul-
de-sac wouldn’t be so suitable for these existing conditions so we’re proposing again to match
the existing radius of 40 feet at that bubble to minimize boulevard impacts. Construction along
Koehnen Circle East would include a new storm sewer system flowing east from Deer Ridge and
ultimately into a new proposed pond just southeast of the cul-de-sac bubble. Again we’d be
replacing the watermain in it’s entirety along this block, along the north side of the street,
including the loop that heads from the cul-de-sac south into the Audubon Circle system, that
watermain would be replaced. And finally on Koehnen Circle East, no sanitary sewer
improvements were deemed necessary. Last but not least, Koehnen Circle West as illustrated in
Figure 35 of your report. Koehnen Circle West is proposed to be reconstructed along it’s
existing alignment west of Cardinal Avenue. Again matching the existing cul-de-sac radius to
minimize impacts. We propose a storm sewer system that would flow east into the Cardinal
Avenue storm sewer system. We propose the complete replacement of the watermain system
along the south side of the roadway. And we propose to replace the westerly segment of the
sanitary sewer system to address some significant deflections that we saw along that pipe. With
that I’d like to get into a summary of costs but I just wanted to pause, give the council an
opportunity to ask any questions that you might have at this point of the proposed improvements.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Thomas, the, along Yosemite, widening that road, if we left that at
the current 27, would those retaining walls and fences and that need to go in?
Marcus Thomas: I think if we matched the existing street width we could certainly minimize
those walls. In many cases probably eliminate them in their entirety. Unfortunately we’ve got a
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
14
minimum width to meet in order to be eligible for the state aid funds, that’s kind of what’s
dictating that so, but the answer to your question is yes.
Councilman Lundquist: And from an engineer’s perspective, the drawbacks of or the other side
of leaving those cul-de-sac’s at the current radius, what’s the, Paul or Mr. Thomas, what’s the,
what are we missing there? What are we losing out on there, if anything?
Paul Oehme: Well I’ll let, Kate can address that. We’re matching the existing cul-de-sacs
because of one, the comments we received from the property owners but two, we had limited
right-of-way out there. Typically under new plats the right-of-way in those areas is significantly
wider than our typical 60 foot right-of-way width, so in order for us to include our standard cul-
de-sac, which is 45 foot in diameter, we’d have to purchase additional right-of-way and due to
the setbacks of the houses in these areas too, we did not think it would be advantageous for the
city to pursue that at this time.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And the 45 foot diameter cul-de-sac, where does that number,
it’s a standard from somewhere. Where does that come from and why is that number?
Paul Oehme: We work with the fire department on those cul-de-sac radiuses. Those are, our
cul-de-sac radiuses are to facilitate turn around’s by our larger pumper trucks and our ladder
trucks. So the cul-de-sacs in question here are on a very short cul-de-sacs. They’re 400 foot cul-
de-sacs.
Marcus Thomas: Yeah about that.
Paul Oehme: And in these type of situations, if we do need to bring larger fire trucks in, they can
drive them in and we can back them out. That was I guess.
Councilman Lundquist: So the drawback is once they pull in they can’t turn around. They’ve
got to back out.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
Councilman Lundquist: And is that fire trucks only or are there other, school buses and
everything else get down there okay?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we have never, to date we have not talked to the schools. The school district
about these particular streets but I am not aware that school buses would be able to make a turn
around on this cul-de-sac. I don’t know exactly how the school picks up the children in this area
but.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I can respond to that just from observation. The school buses stick to
West 63rd and Yosemite generally. Now that might mean, at least the larger buses. There might
be the smaller buses, more van style but that would probably be able to handle the existing.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
15
Paul Oehme: Yeah, another drawback smaller cul-de-sacs, the driver runs, goes down to the
street, he doesn’t want to and there’s limited opportunity for him to turn around in the street as
opposed to driving in somebody’s driveway and backing up and turning around so the larger cul-
de-sacs allow for that turning movement as well.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And the MSA designation, even though we only take it to our
city limit or nearly our city limit, no issues there with not having, I mean as I look at the
definition of MSA, doesn’t it have to connect those two roads so if Shorewood doesn’t do their
piece, then there’s no need for us to do our’s, is that a fair statement?
Marcus Thomas: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That’s all I had.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point with regard to the project. Is there, I
know this is something that we discussed earlier when we were discussing this project last year
with regard to Yosemite and it’s, the length of the project down towards Lake Lucy Road. Right
now these plans don’t show any improvements south of, whichever that property is on Yosemite.
Is that something that we’re still considering looking at or are there some limitations?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council, City Engineer Paul Oehme and I talked this afternoon on
that. That area was kind of outside of the assessment area. One of the things that we could do to
add to this project is a mill and overlay to finish that out to blend the two units, or the roadway
into Lake Lucy to match it up.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Todd Gerhardt: So right now it’s not included in that, what was the property owner’s name?
Mayor Furlong: I don’t know that there are any, on the south end of Yosemite?
Marcus Thomas: I guess I’m not sure.
Todd Gerhardt: How far away are we from Lake Lucy? I think it’s about 600 feet or so.
Mayor Furlong: To the extent we’re looking at that, you know as long as we’re, and if you can
look at what the options are and what we can do.
Paul Oehme: Okay, we can easily add that in. We might have a problem with the assessment
methodology if we continue it on from there with the adjacent property owners but we can easily
add it into the project at any time. One of the other reasons why we did not consider adding that
section of roadway into this project was due to the fact that there are no public utilities along that
corridor there to service those properties so we had envisioned leaving that section out consistent
with the roadway section. We didn’t want to improve the roadway with curb and gutter at this
time and 5 years down the road we have to rip it out to put in utilities.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
16
Mayor Furlong: For utilities so if that property divides.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. But at the time that that property divides, when it does, that will be the
time that utilities would have to be installed and that would be the time to.
Paul Oehme: That would be the time to improve the road as well.
Mayor Furlong: To the level that we’re doing the rest of it.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this point in terms of the scope of the
project? At this time. Okay. Continue then.
Marcus Thomas: I guess I just wanted to conclude going over a summary of the project costs
and potential assessments for the improvements. I think page 25 of the report has a lot more
detail of costs but I summarized it in this table that I’m showing on the screen here. The overall
cost of the Koehnen area improvements has been divided as such. Street improvements along
Yosemite Avenue only are estimated at approximately $486,778. Street improvement costs to
the remainder of the roadways within the Koehnen neighborhood are estimated to have a cost of
$1,074,000. Watermain improvements throughout the neighborhood are estimated at $545,000.
Sanitary sewer improvements within the neighborhood are estimated at $186,000. And storm
sewer improvements within the neighborhood are estimated at $586,000 for a total estimated
project cost of $2,877,348. On page 26 of your report there’s discussion of what has been the
city’s standard assessment practice on past projects similar to this one. In general the past
practices the city has assessed 40% of the assessable street costs of a project to benefiting
properties within the area. For this project, again we’ve got over sizing costs along Yosemite.
That would be subsidized by municipal state aid funding so those over sizing costs would not be
included in the assessable cost. In general what the 40% of the assessable street costs boils down
to is a total assessment amount of $475,700. Again that is the portion of the assessment out of
the total project cost of approximately $2.9 million dollars. Just wanted to remind the council
and everybody that following this project that utility improvements such as watermain, sanitary
sewer, storm sewer are not assessable improvements. They’re paid for by their respective utility
funds so given the assessment amount of $475,700, divided amongst the 67 benefiting units
within the Koehnen neighborhood, we’ve come up with an assessment rate of $7,100 per
benefiting unit within the neighborhood. With that I guess that pretty much concludes, well.
Paul Oehme: One note would be that again with, these are just assessments. These are only
estimated assessments at this time, projected assessments. Once this project were to be moved
forward, like to get bids from a contractor, we’d look at you know how the bids come in and all
of the indirect costs, including engineering fees to look back at those actual costs and then adjust
the assessment accordingly based upon the actual dollar amounts that the city, the project would
actually cost. So that number could fluctuate.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
17
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Fluctuate up or down?
Paul Oehme: Correct, depending upon how the costs of the project, the contract costs come in.
Mayor Furlong: The amount is per benefiting property. How was benefiting property defined?
Paul Oehme: The property, benefiting property is property that abuts the project and has the
driveway at the property itself so if a property owner does not have a driveway onto the
construction street, streets being constructed, you would not use that street. It’s just the property
that has a direct access on it, and that’s been consistent for other projects that we have done
recently as well.
Councilman Lundquist: So that’s the long of saying if you live on a corner lot you don’t get hit
twice, right?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: How about if you have a subdividable parcel? I know we’ve dealt with that in
the past with other projects. How have we dealt with that?
Paul Oehme: Well in this situation, it’d be very tough for us to look at how many lots you could
really subdivide. We’d have to do a really in-depth study on exactly how many lots, potential
lots could support if it subdivided so we did not take it to that level. We just looked at how many
lots are out there with access and made a determination to use that methodology.
Mayor Furlong: Is that consistent with how we’ve done others? I think we had that situation
with Lake Lucy Road project last year and other projects in the city.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, Lake Lucy Road is a little bit different. If I recall right, we looked at the
sewer and water extension under that project and looked at spreading the costs over for those
improvements to actual properties that could be subdivided. When Lake Lucy came to be
assessed for those improvements, we did not look at you know how many lots could potentially
be subdivided for the street improvement. We looked at it just for the sewer and water.
Mayor Furlong: Right, okay. Thank you. Okay, any other questions at this point? From the
council. If not, anything else at this point or should we?
Marcus Thomas: I’ll stand for questions and you can follow through with the public hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why don’t we open up the public hearing then and to the extent that the
questions can be answered this evening, we’ll try to do that. And if it’s a question that needs
some more research or information, we’ll be able to get back to people as well. So at this point
I’ll open up the public hearing. Given that the, I don’t know given the nature of it, would it
make sense to divide it up by street or the improvements along Yosemite unique enough to deal
with Yosemite first and then the rest of the streets or?
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
18
Paul Oehme: We can discuss Yosemite first and then talk about the 63rd, Koehnen area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Just so we don’t bounce back and forth. Why don’t we try that and see
how it goes and we’ll change if we need to so, we are opening up the public hearing. What we’d
like to do is start with property owners along Yosemite. We invite them forward at this time.
Please state your name, come to the podium. Please state your name and address. Good
evening.
Mike Schmidt: Mike Schmidt. I live on 6470 Yosemite. You had a total here of $2.8 million
dollars. Our letters that we got were $3.8 million.
Marcus Thomas: I think this letter acknowledges the Chanhassen Hills assessments as well.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, the letter that you received was for the total project. Just not for the
Koehnen area. It included the Chanhassen Hills and park improvements associated with the
larger project itself. Tonight we’re just talking about the Koehnen area improvements along
Yosemite and 63rd. It does not include those other project areas.
Mike Schmidt: Where are all the retaining walls going to go? That’s kind of a hazard isn’t it?
Marcus Thomas: Retaining walls are, again I’ll refer to the council’s packet and figures…26.
The retaining walls…here’s one at the intersection of West 63rd Street. Another one of Creek
Run Trail. And again where those walls exceed say like at 4 feet, we would be proposing
fencing.
Mike Schmidt: And you’re making it wider just to get the money from the state?
Marcus Thomas: The state has minimum design requirements.
Mike Schmidt: You’re getting the money just to get the money from the state?
Marcus Thomas: Well the city’s designated the route as a state aid route and…
Mike Schmidt: This will be a through street then.
Marcus Thomas: Well the street designation won’t change.
Mike Schmidt: We’re going to have more traffic and it’s going to go faster.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Schmidt, I guess if you can address your issues to the council, it would help
the discussion.
Mike Schmidt: We have a through street now and we’re going to have more traffic and the
traffic will go faster because the road’s wider now. I mean I can see the plow coming. And they
go by pretty fast now. Luckily I don’t have any kids out there, but there are families there that
do have kids.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
19
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Mark Ruhland: Hello. My name is Mark Ruhland. I live at 6275 Yosemite and of course we
would be directly impacted by the work here. I’m speaking on behalf of my neighbor as well,
Mrs. Lee Clasen. Just a couple of comments. Like Mr. Schmidt just said, we don’t really feel
there’s a need to accommodate any higher traffic volume on Yosemite. The area is pretty well
built up. There’s really no more room for any existing housing to go in. There might be a few
stray lots here and there but there’s no need to be able to accommodate any increase in traffic or
volume. In fact what we would like to see is a reduction in speed. We feel that there is quite a
bit of speeding going down that street as it is and I’m not sure what can be done to accommodate
that but widening the street is probably not going to make that happen. It will just speed things
up. So and the other thing I’d like to propose or suggest is, what happens if we give up the MSA
funding and keep the width of the street the same as it is now? I’m sure we lose some of our
funding but presumably the cost of the project is also going to go down. And so I guess it would
help me to know some of those rough numbers there. If we can reduce the cost of the retaining
walls and some of the other side work that’s going to be necessary, how does that compare with
the loss of the funding? And so that…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that something we can address right now? One of the comments
made, and I guess the question is, the funding sources here on the street for Yosemite include a
portion of it being assessed, a portion the city picking up and then the widening and the MSA
dollars. Maybe we can talk a little bit about how that calculation was made and because that
may answer Mr. Ruhland’s question there.
Paul Oehme: Maybe I can take a shot at that Marcus. I think again the MSA funds were
envisioned to utilize, be utilized for the widening of the street and then the extra pavement
section that would be required to be used as this road is designated as a MSA route. The cost
would also include some of the city cost at 60% of the cost for the improvements as well instead
of coming out of the general fund or the pavement management fund system. We were looking
at even taking some of those, some of the MSA funds to offset some of the city costs as well. If
this road would be just put back to it’s existing width, normal pavement sections and everything
else, we would have to sit down and take a look at you know what those costs implications
would be. Right now I don’t in the way the budget is right now, it’d be hard for me to see us
staying within the budget and taking on those additional costs without going above and beyond
the budget number.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. On page 25 it has a breakdown of the estimated
project costs and in there you have the percentage for MSA for Yosemite, so you’re looking at
about $486,778. And Marcus I believe we’re not assessing for the retaining walls and that the
retaining walls are included in that dollar amount?
Marcus Thomas: Yeah the intent of those state aid funds is to capture those additional costs
associated with the wider road like retaining walls and such so, those additional extras to make it
a state aid route are paid for by state aid money.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
20
Mayor Furlong: The calculation of the assessment portion along Yosemite then, if the state aid
money is being used to widen it, then that tells me if we build it to it’s current width, would the
assessments change?
Paul Oehme: No. Because, help me out here but if we would put the road back to it’s existing
width, I mean those costs theoretically are the costs passed onto the property owner at 40% so
the assessment amount would not change because the city is picking up for the over sizing of the
street and the retaining walls and everything associated with making it an MSA route, so no.
The assessment amounts wouldn’t change. It would just be the funding mechanisms, the city
portion, the 60% that we’re paying for. That’s the offset. That’s the numbers, whatever that
number is, that’s the number that the city would still have to make up under the pavement
management fund or some other funding mechanism.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And just to add to that, the $486 that’s allocated for Yosemite, right now we do
not have, the city would take out the retaining walls and the extra width of the road. We have
not allocated that extra money. Say it’s 20%, you’re going to take about $100,000 out of there
so you need to find $386,000 of additional money if you don’t follow the state aid standards. If
you use the 20% ratio. So that leaves $386,000 that the city would have to come up for it’s
portion of Yosemite.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there any comments, we’ve had two individuals. Now Mr. Schmidt
and Mr. Ruhland speak about the issues of speed and traffic. Do we have any other experiences
Mr. Oehme or Mr. Thomas with regard to traffic or speed?
Paul Oehme: Well Yosemite is a through road right now and we did take traffic counts this fall
and they are at the low level of a collector roadway. You know speeding is an enforcement
issue. With a wider street, wider streets do enable or make it a safer condition as well for
pedestrians and the traffic quality as well so wider streets, you know it’s, I don’t, you know when
this length of road that we’re talking about, the street at Lake Lucy Road is still going to be 28
feet wide. The street Apple Road in Shorewood is still going to be 28 feet wide. The section in
the middle, that’s the only part we’re talking about is going to be 32 feet wide. It’s not that long
of a road where I would anticipate a great deal of speed being able to, the traffic…to really
generate a lot of speed in the short amount of distance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We still have a public hearing, and again at this point if we
could have residents along Yosemite or other interested parties speak about Yosemite to come
forward at this time. Okay. I guess what I’d do then is I would open it up to other residents or
interested parties on any of the streets that are included in this project area. That we’ve been
discussing this evening. Please come forward. Yep, please.
Tracy Cool: My name is Tracy Cool. I’m at 1601 Koehnen Circle.
Mayor Furlong: Pull the microphone closer to you so people at home can hear you too, thank
you.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
21
Tracy Cool: Okay. Tracy Cool, 1601 Koehnen Circle. Our big concern is when we get the pond
and we have little kids and I also, I don’t know what you have. We have little kids. I’m not too
happy about the retaining walls on Yosemite because we’ve still, you know we have all the kids
in the neighborhood and to me you know that’s just a big green light for them to go climb. So
that I’m not, I wasn’t too happy to hear about how high the walls would be over there, but my
big concern is how deep is this pond going to be. It’s now going to be in my back yard and you
know, we have a sump pump that runs all the time now. How deep is it going to be? Is it going
to flood into my house? Am I going to you know have foundation trouble? You know my
property level has now gone down.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Fair question so maybe we can talk about the pond.
Tracy Cool: There’s safety, you know mosquitoes. Are we going to, you know we already have
a pond that’s across the street that they put in when they built the new houses. You know we’ve
dug kids out of those. Have to keep our kids away from that. We already have issues with
mosquitoes. We’ve called before, we’ve had them come out and spray for mosquitoes. I know it
gets to be…and we do get a lot of runoff in our yard and it does back up so I mean I understand
there’s issues there. I’m just not thrilled about the pond.
Marcus Thomas: Figure 38 of your report council illustrates the pond that the resident speaks of.
It’s the one on the left side. This pond is proposed to have a dead storage depth of about 3 to 4
feet, or what we sometimes refer to as a normal elevation of 3 to 4 feet. Above that depth we
propose approximately a 10 foot wide shelf or safety bench before increasing the depth of the
pond up another approximately 4 feet, so on average the pond is going to be about 3 or 4 feet
deep. On a large storm when the pond bounces it could be up to approximately 8 feet deep
before it subsides again.
Mayor Furlong: And you said a ledge, where’s the, is that within the water itself?
Marcus Thomas: Yeah, typically design, yeah it’s within the water itself. Typical design
standards for the ponds, I like to have a nice kind of a broad, flat area before it drops down just,
it’s called the safety bench for that reason.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Paul Oehme: It’s also an area where vegetation would grow, cattails and what not and it kind of
screens the pond as well in the future so it kind of prohibits children, people from actually going
into the pond…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anyone else? Sir, good evening.
Todd Gerhardt: And I just wanted to add a point to the pond. We’ve got over a thousand of
these ponds in Chanhassen and they’re pretty much all located in residential areas and they’re a
typical design like this. You have the ledge and then it drops down. In your neighborhood
Mayor, my neighborhood, I’ve got 3 of them and kids all over the place that play in the park so,
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
22
they’re in our parks. They’re all over the place. They’re a necessity to pre-treat the water before
they go into our lakes and streams so.
V.C. Wertz: V.C. Wertz, 1620 Koehnen Circle. I’d like to address the city manager. How
many kids have you pulled out of those ponds?
Todd Gerhardt: Knock on wood, I’m not aware of any to date.
V.C. Wertz: We have a new one that Mrs. Cool is talking about right in our back yard, excuse
me. And I’ve pulled out 2 kids out of there. So they are a danger, but more than that, who’s
going to spray for mosquitoes? And how often? Is there going to be a fence around it? And
how high is the fence? You’re shaking your head.
Todd Gerhardt: We typically do not put fences around storm water ponds. The reason for that is
that silt goes into these ponds so you have to go back and maintain them over a period of time.
And as to the mosquito control, we all pay property taxes into the Mosquito Control District.
Periodically they come to Chanhassen and spray. You’ll notice the helicopters flying around
putting out the briquettes and pellets, so through the Mosquito Control Agency we’ll.
V.C. Wertz: And how often are they supposed to be spraying in our area? We’ve never seen
them there.
Todd Gerhardt: Well you know they’re concentrating to the larger areas. You know trying to
get the numbers of mosquitoes. You’re not going to go into the smaller ones.
V.C. Wertz: I see, so then we put up with our mosquitoes so you can have your pond.
Todd Gerhardt: Well, the ponds are designed to pre-treat the water that go into all of our lakes
and streams.
V.C. Wertz: We’re not talking about the other ponds. We’re talking about the pond in our
neighborhood. Now where that pond is going is the wetland. Why do we need the pond when
the wetland does the same thing the pond is going to do?
Todd Gerhardt: You want to pre-treat runoff from your roads into your ponds first to take the
sediments, the sand, silt and soils, whatever may be on the streets, you want that to go into your
ponds first before they go into your wetlands and then it goes into the wetlands, then into your
streams and then ultimately into the lake.
V.C. Wertz: So you’re going to take the wetland out and put a pond in?
Todd Gerhardt: We’re not taking the wetland out. We’re putting in a pond to pre-treat it to go
into the wetland.
V.C. Wertz: And how big is the pond going to be?
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
23
Todd Gerhardt: Marcus.
Marcus Thomas: You’re referring to the pond that’s adjacent to your street sir?
V.C. Wertz: Right.
Marcus Thomas: Yeah, that’s the pond that I was just describing earlier. Again about 4 feet
deep on a normal basis.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have the dimensions?
Marcus Thomas: Diameter wise probably it looks like it’s about, just over 100 feet long by
approximately 75 feet wide.
Todd Gerhardt: Marcus, is that located in a wetland?
Marcus Thomas: That is not located in a wetland, no.
V.C. Wertz: Isn’t a swamp a wetland?
Todd Gerhardt: Oh we could be here all night to classify wetlands. There’s a variety of different
wetlands.
V.C. Wertz: So the pond you’re putting in, you’re using more of the wetland that’s there to put
in a pond. You know explain. I don’t understand it.
Todd Gerhardt: We have a wetland inventory map and we have different classifications of those.
This is not a primary wetland per se and it’s a low area that probably ultimately drains into a
wetland.
Marcus Thomas: Yeah this area where the pond is located is actually upstream of a wetland so
it’s not directly adjacent to it or an expansion of the wetland. It’s it’s own separate entity.
Tracy Cool: …it’s not the natural…but now he says off of Audubon they’re going to run into it
too. So now you’re redirecting it down to that pond…
Paul Oehme: I can try to answer that one. The Audubon Circle, we’re not changing the drainage
area off of Audubon Circle. Where it drains now, a portion of Audubon Circle naturally drains
into this area. All the City’s trying to do is treat the runoff before it ends up in the wetland so it
has some rate control too so the streams and the wetlands you’re not getting impacted by…
Mayor Furlong: So this area is already, Audubon and other areas, properties, streets and such are
already draining into this area right now and it’s what? It’s just sheet draining over back yards?
Paul Oehme: Exactly. Audubon does not have curb and gutter. Naturally drains to this area.
It’s naturally low. It’s my understanding the water sits out here during large rain events as well.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
24
We are not adding any more drainage area to this natural low lying area than already is going
into there right now.
Mayor Furlong: So is the expectation then to improve the standing water or the drainage on
other areas so it’s going to channeled to this area? Is that an expectation?
Paul Oehme: No. I mean what’s draining there right now is the only water that eventually will
be.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s going through right now. It’s still going to go through, it’s just going to
be slowed down as the City Manager said so to take out particles.
Paul Oehme: As it leaves the pond it’s going to be improved into the wetland so it won’t be as
much flow going through this area if we construct it as it is right now. So we’re looking for rate
control. We’re looking for water quality improvements. Trying to capture that silt and sediment
before it ends up going into the wetlands. Trying to improve those areas. It’s advantageous for
us to collect those sediments in ponding areas so it doesn’t end up in the wetlands so the city
staff has had opportunities to clean out those ponds on a regular basis and try to improve the
water quality for the city of Chanhassen.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Please. Good evening.
Adele Pint: Adele Pint, 1641 Koehnen Circle East. I too would not care to see this holding pond
in my back yard, and I guess the question that I wanted to ask was, what will this do for the
water that stands say in the ditch in front of my house, as well as in my neighbor’s ditch. She
lives to the west of me. Her lawn is wet most of the year, as well as there’s water in the ditch
right in front of my house and what will this do for those issues?
Marcus Thomas: Can you show me where you’re at?
Adele Pint: I would be probably right here. So the pond is going here. I live just to the west of
it.
Marcus Thomas: Well the nature of the improvement is a road improvement project and not
intended to go out and do any significant changes to the grading within individual lots so if there
are places where water stands on your property today, that most likely is not going to change as a
result of the road improvement out in front of the house.
Mayor Furlong: You said the ditch. Is that the ditch by the road itself?
Adele Pint: Right by the road.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s road water, since we’re adding curb and gutter aren’t we?
Paul Oehme: I know what you’re talking about in that area. It is a low lying area. Naturally
sheet drains down to this, the pond area we’re talking about right now. With the improvements
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
25
that we’re talking about, with the curb and gutter, we are going to have to raise up that, the back
of that curb there a little bit. This is the opportunity to build up the lot up to our right-of-way
there to eliminate that drainage swale because there is no storm sewer per se that’s out there right
now. The swale we’re replacing with curb and gutter and storm water, and storm water pipe to
direct that water to the pond itself.
Mayor Furlong: So to her question, with the addition of the curb and gutter, and with the grading
that will take place within the right-of-way, we’re going to be eliminating that ditch and taking
that water out?
Paul Oehme: As long as that ditch is in the right-of-way, in the city right-of-way, we’re not
going to go outside, onto private property to do any improvements but as long as it’s in the right-
of-way in back of the curb there, we will be eliminating that. Direct that water onto the curb and
eventually into the storm sewer pipe and into the pond.
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer the question or?
Adele Pint: I guess what I’m hearing then is that you would.
Mayor Furlong: Speak into the microphone please ma’am, thank you.
Adele Pint: I guess what I’m hearing then is that you will put some type of drainage sewer area
so the water will run down and it will be below ground is what I’m hearing?
Paul Oehme: You can show her on the map. On page 34. There is two catch basins I believe
right on her property or right in front of her driveway.
Marcus Thomas: This must be your driveway that comes out at an angle. Yeah, there’s storm
basin drains in the street. That will accept runoff from the property.
Adele Pint: And those are new ones?
Marcus Thomas: Those will be new ones. There’s no existing storm sewer out in the street right
now, so that will be new drains that will take that water and route it into the pond.
Paul Oehme: There is a few little.
Adele Pint: There is one that’s right below the cul-de-sac and that is out in front of my house
too. I guess my other concern would be in heavy rains I have seen the rain, the water coming off
of Audubon Circle, which is right behind me, and literally you can have 10 inches of rain down
in that low lying area and I guess I’d be concerned if the depth of the pond is going to hold that.
And I guess other than that I’d like to know what other alternatives were there to this pond?
Because I literally hate to see that. I had no idea it was this big as what you just described also.
Paul Oehme: Well maybe I can help out here too. The pond will have an emergency overflow
system designed into it, correct Marcus?
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
26
Adele Pint: And where does that go?
Paul Oehme: And that basically is to the outlet that’s directed in the east. So you know in the
event where we have over a 100 year rain event, the pond will naturally overflow it’s banks into
the existing drainage area to the east so, you know the pond will be designed to handle the
smaller rain events where we really want to treat the water, and also be able to handle the larger
rain events where it will just sheet drain out of the pond and into the adjacent wetland and
stream.
Adele Pint: And what were some of the alternatives to the pond?
Marcus Thomas: Well, sure. Sure. The pond is the most effective way to do two things for the
city and that is to control the rate of runoff. That’s how quickly it leaves the site, and to treat the
runoff. For rate control that is the solution. For water quality improvements there are
alternatives. In fact we’re utilizing a water quality treatment structure at the north end of
Yosemite. It’s just a larger sized manhole that can collect the runoff. Give it some pre-treatment
before continuing it into the storm water conveyance system. It’s not going to do the same job as
a traditional pond will do, and it will do nothing for rate control, so as a pure perfect alternative
to these ponds, there really isn’t one.
Todd Gerhardt: Marcus could you show on Figure 38 the overflow on the map. When the water,
say you get an 8 inch rain within 2 hours, where is the overflow?
Marcus Thomas: The overflow is in general going to coincide with the pipe outlet of the pond
that exists. At the east end of the pond it routes the water to the east, so what we’ll be seeing in
an emergency overflow situation is that it would embank first near that outlet structure, over the
bank there and then the water will go where it always goes. It’s just going to go over the pond
instead of through the pipe.
Mayor Furlong: I think she also asked about water coming down from Audubon as well, with
the curb and gutter improvements up there, storm water improvements. Would we expect to see
improvements or no worst or, off Audubon Circle.
Paul Oehme: Now the improvements we’re talking about, the proposed improvements are,
include again the storm, the curb and gutter and the storm sewer pipe. There won’t be any sheet
flow…so in terms of erosion and rate control down on, specifically on that, her property. That
water’s not going to be directed there anymore. It’s going to be directed into the pipe, into the
pond directly so.
Mayor Furlong: Does it come off Audubon right now? Sheet drainage just to the north down
towards her property?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
27
Mayor Furlong: And you’re saying with the curb and gutters on Audubon that will capture it and
direct it through the system.
Paul Oehme: Right, and into the pond without going onto private property.
Mayor Furlong: Without sheet draining, or at least through, conveyed through pipes. Okay.
Please come forward.
Jean Bogema: Jean Bogema back on Yosemite. 6371. Got a couple of things first off. I think
the project is quite expensive and one of the concerns I have is that with this project that it’s
going to raise the value of our property from what I understand and are we going to get doubled
taxed on it? I have the property that’s going to have a major retaining wall put on with a fence,
and I’m a little concerned about it. The road coming, West 63rd down, basically would go into
our driveway. We’ve had vehicles go into our driveway that couldn’t get out. We’ve had
vehicles in our ditch where this retaining wall is going to be put. If you have a fence there,
we’ve had a bus, the Breck school bus ended up in our ditch. So it’s a very dangerous
intersection right there and we have to be concerned about that. Not real happy about the
retaining wall. I’m not sure why the pond is going to be on West 63rd.
Marcus Thomas: Here’s West 63rd and here’s the one pond just east of Cardinal. And then yes,
you have the pond off of Yosemite is further south.
Jean Bogema: The other thing, the traffic does go fast, even in that short distance. It goes really
fast. We’ve had some people go by there so fast that you just, you can’t let your kids out there.
Even if it is a short distance, you have to take that into consideration. So we too are very
concerned about the traffic flow through there. Been very bad with some of the construction, the
trucks that have gone through. That…got to get out there because those big trucks were so fast.
So we have to let construction people going through there know that you know they have to slow
down. And then the fence. I’m a little concerned about the fence that’s being put on the
retaining wall. What is it going to look like? Is it going to look something, chicken wire?
Marcus Thomas: There’s certainly options and there’s no firm requirements as to what it looks
like. We can do something as simple as a chainlink fence. It can be something as simple as a
wood picket fence. The options are wide open for that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you Jean. Anybody else who would like to speak at the public
hearing, please come forward. Got a couple more.
Barbara Solum: Barbara Solum at West 63rd Street. First, I need for you to reiterate how wide
that street will be?
Marcus Thomas: West 63rd, our objective is to establish it at a 30 foot wide roadway. I can say
that as we’ve advanced on some of the design, it looks like a 28 foot roadway is what’s going to
be going in place which is similar to what’s in place now.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s about the same as what’s, okay.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
28
Barbara Solum: Okay. And our issue we have is how fast people drive down that street so I’m
wondering are they going to post that street at all and second are they going to light that street.
We have two street lights on it which but it just is not enough. It’s very dark on the one end on
West 63rd and on Yosemite. It’s very dark in that area. I don’t know if that’s done at the same
time but to me it would be an appropriate to fix that. Also what did they do on maintenance for
the end of our driveways when they were doing the widening and correcting that street. What
was done with that? And mail boxes. What happens to them?
Mayor Furlong: What happens to them? They go away. They keep delivering the bills. Great,
let’s see if we can address some of those questions.
Marcus Thomas: As far as the street lighting is concerned, there is no additional street lighting
proposed at this point. I’d defer to the city engineer, if you want to discuss any further but at this
point we weren’t going to change anything as far as existing street lighting. As far as impact
during construction, the driveways and mailboxes and things of that nature, yeah typically what
we’ll find in a reconstruction project like this is that because the work is happening right there on
the boulevards, those mailboxes are temporarily removed and they’re replaced after the project is
completed. And most of the time the contractor will basically gather what they call gang boxes
in strategic locations throughout the project area so that mail can continue to be delivered at
these temporary mailboxes. As far as driveways are concerned, in order to match the new street
that’s constructed, driveways are improved up to the right-of-way. Along the project corridor as
well. So at each one of the driveways, we’ll replace that driveway in kind as to what’s there so.
Paul Oehme: The street lighting issue I can maybe just touch on that. Typically in newer areas
street lights, or in all of the new developments street lights, we require street lights for our new
project areas. This is an existing neighborhood which obviously doesn’t have that much street
lighting to it. And what has been our city practice, if property owners wish to have street lights
on their street, those costs are assessed back to the existing property owners at 100%. The city
has not contributed to those improvements, so just based upon past practice if the property
owners wish to have street lights put in, we can easily send out a petition and see if the property
owners are, want street lights and get together or come up with an estimated cost for those
improvements as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. That interest may depend on what those costs are so, but that is.
Paul Oehme: It’s not cheap, I know that.
Mayor Furlong: That is a dark area at times so that’s a good question. Maybe something to look
into. Okay, thank you. Sir. I think there was somebody over here too.
Lance Ford: I’m Lance Ford. I live at 1711 East Koehnen. Is there a copy of this? Can we get
a copy of the feasibility report? Pick it up here at city hall then?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
29
Lance Ford: Okay. This project, if it goes through, what do they intend to do on ingress and
egress as far as phasing of the project? Are they going to come in and mill everything off at one
time to where we’re going to be driving on Class V or whatever, or is it going to be phased? Are
they going to do Yosemite first then 63rd then the Koehnen Circles? Because that’s, and at what
time the project goes through, what time of year do you anticipate to do it? And then how often
do they intend, I know it’s a hard one to answer to clean that pond at the end of, and what will it
be trucks going in and out and backhoes and things of that nature? That’s all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Maybe we can address some of those.
Paul Oehme: In terms of the project schedule, you know we would anticipate this project would
move forward, start construction in the summer time. And we do limit the contractor to specific
roads that he can start on and certain areas that he can only open up in one time. Typically the
contractor would work on the sanitary sewer and then jump to the watermain to the next street,
so we would require that the, and then move on to the roadway section so in the past we have in
bigger project areas limited the contractor to a certain linear footage of streets. The Koehnen
Circle East and West. Those streets first. Get those buttoned up and then move on to Cardinal
and 63rd Street and work his way out. Those type of things. We haven’t gotten to that level of
detail but we do limit the contractor to opening up amount of roads in the project area at one
time. In terms of the construction of the pond depths, I mean I would anticipate backhoes being
out here to, and dozers. Bulldozers to grade out and dig out the ponds. So there is going to be
equipment out here during the construction project.
Lance Ford: I’m talking about cleaning once the quality.
Mayor Furlong: How often do we clean the ponds, with regular maintenance?
Paul Oehme: Well yeah, we clean ponds as an on need basis. We have our water personnel that
inspect these ponds on a regular basis and if they need to be cleaned out, we have, we clean them
on a yearly basis so. It’s not a 5 year or 10 year schedule. It’s an as needed basis.
Kate Aanenson: I was just going to add, that’s part of what we’re doing with the storm water
management plan update is putting together that. As the City Engineer indicated, it’s an as
needed basis so annually the ponds are inspected. Made a determination. It could be 3 years. It
just depends on how much erosion is occurring there. Silt is being traveled down so, they’re
checked annually.
Todd Gerhardt: On an average I’d say somewhere between 5 to 8 years. Sometimes we can get
in there with a bobcat or a small backhoe to clean it out. Try to do as minimal disruption of the
turf in that area. Typically I’d say 5 to 8 years is usually the average schedule on our ponds.
Usually it’s a functionality of the pond that creates us to come in and clean that pond out. If they
have a capacity problem or a release of the water at the pipe’s outlet, we need to get in and pull
out the delta that’s created in that area.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to during the construction process itself, and this goes back to
similar projects such as Santa Fe neighborhood and along Lake Lucy Road earlier this year. Or
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
30
last year, excuse me. Access to homes, is that something that’s maintained throughout the
construction process?
Paul Oehme: Absolutely. The property owners would have access to their homes on a daily
basis. There will be sometimes during the construction project when the contractor’s working in
front of their house with sewer improvements or watermain improvements where they might not
be able to access their driveway at a certain time, but all the excavated areas will be filled back in
on that day and other’s Class V so they will have access to their driveway. The only other time
that they would be…getting onto their driveway would be the time when they pour, actually pour
the curb and gutter in front of their driveway. We typically require about 3 day waiting period
before we allow vehicles to drive over that, just because of the cure time. We don’t want it to
crack up.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s similar to the type of project that we did in the Santa Fe area 2 years
ago was it?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. To the residents comments, there will be a period of time where you will
be driving on Class V. I’d say a month to 2 months you’ll be driving on the Class V material.
You know like Paul said, the first step is to put the sewer and water in. When you do that you’re
going to lose your current blacktop. After that then they come in and bring in the Class V.
Establish the grades for the curb and gutter. Once curb and gutter’s in, then they’d come in with
the blacktop.
Lance Ford: How much disruption is there going to be for the sewer and water?
Paul Oehme: That’s a good question too. For, typically we have isolated sewer areas that we’re
going to be repairing. The contractor will bypass pump, actually pump from one manhole to the,
one manhole if we’re working in a certain section of that area. There might be a time, a couple
hours where we would not like water run at a certain time when they’re working right in front of
a service or something like that, but we try to limit those to an hour or two during the day. In
terms of water, yes we are replacing all the watermains in this project area, or at least we’re
proposing to. What we do in those situations, we do have to shut the water down completely for
a length of time to install the watermain but we do have temporary water we actually run
temporary water service from hydrants to houses through pipes on top of the lawns to have the
water service provided at all times to the property so, you know there will be interruptions for an
hour or two to make those transitions from normal service to temporary service, but it won’t be
for hours, days or a couple hours for those transition periods so. It is an inconvenience, we
understand that but construction is…
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Marcus Thomas: I’ll just add a comment. Bolton Menk, you know we work with these types of
projects on an annual basis in a lot of different communities and the concerns are very similar as
far as impact during construction, access and availability of water, things like that. And over the
years as we’ve gained experience in assisting with these types of projects we’ve kind of, we’ve
customized our specifications and requirements that we impose on contractors to address the
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
31
regularly occurring issues like this. For example in the event that there are times where water
needs to be shut off to a neighborhood, we’ll require the contractor, it’s just our standard to
require the contractor to give advance notice of that. 24 hour advance notice of that minimum so
that the residents are prepared for that so, it’s that continual information, getting that to the
residents so that they’re prepared for the disruptions. It’s not an easy process, we all know that
but if we can at least prepare you for what to expect, it, at least you can plan your life around it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. I think there was a gentleman over in this
area.
Bruce Koehnen: Good evening. Thank you. I’m Bruce Koehnen. I’m from 1830 Koehnen
Circle. I’ve got a couple of comments and a couple of questions here. Question. I didn’t quite
understand for sure, it sounded like if I interpret it correctly, the MSA funds for Yosemite does
not require that the full length of the street from Lake Lucy to Mill Street needs to be redone at
the 32 foot, is that how I’m interpreting it? That the state funds will apply to just sections of that
road.
Paul Oehme: Right, as the project moves forward, you know the State allows cities,
municipalities to improve certain sections of roadway without improving the whole length at one
time.
Bruce Koehnen: And dealing with the retaining walls on West 63rd, I also have a little concern
about the safety issue as was stated earlier. I’ve also witnessed, I’ve lived in the area many
years. My whole life as a matter of fact, and there’s over the years been a number of vehicles
that have left the roadway, both on Yosemite as well as West 63rd Street. Both those areas do
have sharp declines off of the pavement. Nobody’s been seriously injured or killed. I don’t even
think we’ve had a rollover. It’s not steep enough to cause those problems, and so my concern is
if we put a retaining wall, I don’t believe fencing on top of a retaining wall will prevent the cars
from going over that have in the past. So I think it will be a more dangerous issue. As well as
I’m concerned about the continuing maintenance cost where we find those fences do get ran into
and damaged. And also with the retaining wall I’m not sure, I don’t know if West 63rd on the
south side, particularly probably in front of where the drainage pond will be. Now the grade on
the edge of that road, I haven’t been out and measured it but my guess is it’s steeper than it is
over on Yosemite and I haven’t heard any mention of a retaining wall on that road. Is there one
planned?
Mayor Furlong: It’s on West 63rd right where Cardinal comes in, just to the east of Cardinal.
Bruce Koehnen: Between, just to the west of where Blue Jay comes in.
Mayor Furlong: Yep, between Cardinal and Blue Jay.
Bruce Koehnen: South side of Cardinal.
Marcus Thomas: There’s no retaining wall planned for that, no.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
32
Bruce Koehnen: Why would there be one not planned for that road on Yosemite is the question I
have?
Marcus Thomas: The street width on Yosemite, the wider street width pushes that curb line out
basically extending over the existing slope so we would build that. Along West 63rd, we’ve got
the opportunity to essentially match that existing street width again so we don’t have, we’re not
infringing on that slope like we are on Yosemite so.
Bruce Koehnen: So again if we don’t make Yosemite 32 foot wide, we most likely could
eliminate retaining walls on Yosemite.
Marcus Thomas: With the narrower street width, yes.
Bruce Koehnen: Okay. Then my next comment is, earlier the chart described how they took the
cost of the project and divided it by the amount of lots, property owners that would benefit from
the project and it was asked about potential lot splits. I know there’s one. Probably more.
There’s minimal lots that could be split in this project so I don’t think it’s a lot to ask the city to
look at. It’s not a large area. There’s not that many lots to begin with to look at. I think it’s only
fair if somebody has a lot that they can split with simple metes and bounds, that they be assessed
for two lots. You mentioned about history. I personally myself, I’ll say since 1972 have been hit
up for assessments on two of my properties. One of them was a large lot that was not split yet.
It was never requirements to be split which later I did split, and I assume some of these people
later will split and reap the benefit, even if they don’t pay an extra share. And another lot, I did
have a driveway on but I also am, I just had a driveway on because that’s one of the comments
that was used whether they have a driveway or not. So I don’t think that’s a good criteria to go
by. Because I’ve been assessed too for property that I have. That did not have a driveway out to
the street. So I don’t think those are fair ways to look at it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Brian Evers: Brian Evers, 1799 Koehnen Circle West. Just kind of want to repeat a little bit on
the Yosemite, from what you said earlier that the MSA is covering basically the added couple
feet of road width and then also, that would also be covering the retaining walls and guard rails
or guard, so if…is not doing it and we’re not doing it to the south, right now you are proposing a
32 foot wide in the middle with nothing connecting it, wouldn’t it make more sense to leave it as
is? With the 27 foot. If you’re not planning to do it to the south anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme or.
Paul Oehme: Yeah I could maybe just try to touch on that. Again we’re not planning to do to
the south at this time because of the sewer, the utility services aren’t to the south at this time. In
the future those services potentially will be provided, if those lots were to develop. At that time
we would require that that road be upgraded to our 32 foot wide roadway standards at that time
to make it a consistent roadway section throughout, on Yosemite all the way up to the city of
Shorewood. The City of Shorewood, they, I don’t know if they would have a proposed project.
When I talked to the City of Shorewood they had not indicated to me that they are looking at
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
33
improving that roadway at any time in the near future so, and I know they don’t have any MSA
funds available at this time either for those improvements so. So that’s kind of the methodology
we used for MSA.
Mayor Furlong: Are the MSA dollars, maybe Mr. Gerhardt, if I understood your earlier
comment, the MSA is a source of funding to the city for street improvements that are being used
here, and they are, as I understand it, correct me if I’m wrong, they are covering the wider street
and the relationship, but they’re also covering the cost of the 60% of the existing street
improvements as well.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Mayor Furlong: So that’s part of it, is it’s not just what’s right.
Brian Evers: You’re getting a better benefit out of it.
Mayor Furlong: Right. The resident, the assessment portion is 40% of the existing width of the
street. The 60% is part of the MSA dollars but to do that we also have to spend more MSA
dollars and MSA dollars are money from the State that comes through gas taxes that we all pay
so.
Brian Evers: Second question I had was regarding, there’s a couple of gravel roads entering
Cardinal and every time we get more than 2 inches of rain there is a ton of gravel coming down
Cardinal. Have you addressed what kind of improvements upon those to prevent all that gravel
going down into the road?
Paul Oehme: I believe you’re referring to the gravel driveway on the west side?
Brian Evers: East side of Cardinal and then there’s a west one I believe at Cardinal Court that’s
right on the border of.
Paul Oehme: I’m aware of that one. That one, there is a gravel driveway out there that I’m
aware of. We are putting curb and gutter along that section of roadway. We will be looking at
improvements in that area to try to minimize the amount of runoff at that point. We can adjust
the grades to try to slow that water down in that area to minimize the amount of gravel that
leaves that property. I believe that driveway, we do have several other gravel driveways in the
city of Chanhassen that we are, you know it’s a private issue and I don’t know what our recourse
is from a planning perspective.
Kate Aanenson: I’m going to speak from a storm water management issue. We did change our
city policy. All driveways now have to be gravel. We also have a policy of, excuse me asphalt.
If they’re, no gravel. If you do have a gravel driveway, which is permitted in agricultural
zoning, you have to have so many feet of it to be pavement to reduce exactly what we’re talking
about, and I’ll just throw this out for maybe engineering to look at this, that we might want to do,
look at doing some asphalt aprons on some of those driveways and looking at, as the City
Engineer was indicating, ways that we can do it through our storm water management techniques
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
34
to, again I just want to emphasize this is an important issue in this area too is to reduce the rate of
some of the water problems that we’re having up there. Whether it’s the driveways or the
ditches, so that’s an important element that we want to look at, so if we can maybe do asphalt
aprons on some of those to help reduce the gravel. Those are the issues that plug up the pond
that we have to go back and do lots of maintenance so those are the things we try to be proactive
on to reduce.
Brian Evers: I know the one is a, I believe as driveway but the other one is actually a road.
There’s 4 houses, 5 houses.
Kate Aanenson: It would be a private street, but we can still look at that too. Even the private
street can do some sort of approach. We can look at their techniques to see what we can do.
Brian Evers: And then the last, you mentioned the watermain replacement. Are you also doing
the complete service lines to the houses then?
Paul Oehme: We do not replace the services on private property. We try to replace the curb stop
boxes, which are typically right on the property line. Those valves that are on your lot. We try
to replace those and then connect into the existing system. Your copper line that goes into your
house at that point so we do not replace it all the way up to the house.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I just wanted to make a point of clarification on Yosemite. The reason
Paul said that we’re not doing the southerly part is that there are some property owners that
would be serviced sewer and water down the line and we could go ahead and pave Yosemite
now but then we’d have to tear up that brand new pavement for those future utilities. I just
wanted to be clear on that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else for the public hearing or comments on this project?
Chuck Cool: Hi, I’m Chuck Cool. 1601 Koehnen Circle. Why curb and gutter? Why now?
I mean it’s a naïve question but it sounds like it’s going to cost a lot of money. The MSA stuff,
that’s kind of funny too. You guys are building a road. Widening it out but it doesn’t go, you
don’t widen it out to the end, to both ends. Just to get state money. And kind of state money is
our money, isn’t it? Just because the money’s available doesn’t mean you have to use it. I’m
also concerned about the pond too. You said that you’ve got all these ponds around and no one’s
every drowned in them. There’s been no accidents as far as you know, right?
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Chuck Cool: Who is liable if someone does die in one of these ponds? The City?
Todd Gerhardt: I’ll let the City Attorney answer that one.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
35
Chuck Cool: I mean I have little kids. What you’re talking about is, I mean they’re talking
about depth of an 8. I don’t know if you guys really have been there when you’ve seen it really
rain. It’s draining off of 3 or 4 cul-de-sacs. It comes right up to my back door. With that pond
there, that’s fine. I mean I understand why you have to have a pond and stuff, but if you’re
going to rely on the existing trench that I dug and the pipe that Shoreview put in that leads into
the actual creek bed because that whole part you’re talking about is a natural creek bed. That’s
where the deer run. It was filled in to build homes. But it was naturally the creek. But who has
a liability in case something happens there?
Roger Knutson: If a tragedy happens, it really depends on who’s negligent. Just because, this
may sound harsh but just because someone has an accident doesn’t mean anyone is liable.
Chuck Cool: Well I understand that too but there’s also laws, if I put a pool in my back yard and
I don’t fence it in and the neighborhood kid goes swimming and drowns, as far as I know, I am
responsible for it.
Roger Knutson: For storm water ponds, if someone wanders into our pond and we engineer it
properly as the engineers have been discussing, and tragedy happens, probably frankly no one is
liable because there’s no negligence.
Chuck Cool: Well you guys are saying but you aren’t putting a fence around it. You’re saying
that some cattails are going to stop kids from going in there?
Roger Knutson: Fences have been discussed in this community and every other community in
the state for as long as I’ve been doing this business and most people think those fences don’t
help. They actually cause a greater safety issue then not having.
Chuck Cool: Have there been any reports to that, that you have access to that say that?
Roger Knutson: I’ve read the literature in the past on that subject, yes. It’s just like lakes. I
mean the lakes are a natural attraction to children. I think most of us at the table have children.
Lakes attract people. You can’t fence the lakes. No one would even suggest it. That’d be silly.
Chuck Cool: Right.
Roger Knutson: And it’s also the same conclusion in part. It doesn’t make sense to fence.
Chuck Cool: But the volume of a lake is not going to change as much as one of these pools are
going to change. You’re talking anywhere from 4 to 8 feet and actually I think you’re
underestimating. I think it’s going to be a lot more with a heavy rain.
Roger Knutson: Well I don’t know about your lake but I have my cabin, it changes 4 feet
anyway. But anyway, the people, the safety experts that have looked at it have said, they don’t
recommend fences.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
36
Chuck Cool: Okay. And then you talk about maintenance. Someone’s got to come out. Do you
have records of when people come out? Do you have records of when they’ve been out to take a
look at these ponds?
Kate Aanenson: Yes we do. We do do that now. As a matter of fact we’re updating our storm
water management plan and one of the outcomes of that will be a maintenance schedule of when
we review all the ponds in the city.
Chuck Cool: And will we have access to that information?
Kate Aanenson: Yes you will.
Chuck Cool: Okay. And then once again, why curb and gutter?
Todd Gerhardt: Well the curb and gutter in the street is going to help with some of the drainage
issues that people are having in their back yards. Right now your road is sheet draining so
gravity is taking the water on the road and letting it spill wherever gravity will allow it to go, so
having curb and gutter will catch the water. Have it drain into a catch basin. In that catch basin
there’ll be a pipe. That pipe will go down into a storm water pond. Pre-treat it but the sand, silt,
oils from the automobiles settle out into that pond and then there’ll be an outlet that will
ultimately go into the wetland. Into the wetland, into a stream and then into the lake.
Chuck Cool: Now are you guys talking about a pond that’s going to be by my place? I mean it
sounds like you weren’t going to do anything about the little 6 inch pipe that’s in the back. It
was all going to just overflow onto the ledge back into the creek, is that correct?
Marcus Thomas: The pond will be graded to have an overflow that needs to kick in once, on
those larger storms when the pond has crest. You’re referring to a 6 inch pipe?
Chuck Cool: That goes into the creek bed. At the back end into Shorewood.
Marcus Thomas: Well I guess that won’t be expected to serve this pond.
Chuck Cool: Well then, are you going to knock down part of the woods and dig a trench? I
mean how’s it going to, because that’s a natural run of the creek bed…
Mayor Furlong: Can you show us on the map perhaps which pond or where your property is so
that we speak of the same thing.
Chuck Cool: So there’s the pond right there. There’s my property right here.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Chuck Cool: So right here, back in here is a natural creek bed. And I suppose it’s a ravine
maybe 20 feet deep or so. I mean it’s a true, original creek bed. What they did is they filled in
all this area here. Well right now it just runs through here off of this slip trench and then right
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
37
here is a 6 inch pipe where it drains into that creek bed. If I don’t keep that pipe clean, I get
water building up to the back of our house. I’ve talked to the City about it before and they said it
would be too expensive to remove the trees or do anything to it. And now you guys are talking
about putting in a full pond, that’s great but then you’re going to have to grade this area out into
the creek bed. I mean what are you going to do? Where’s it going to go? When it overflows.
Marcus Thomas: We haven’t nailed down the final design details yet for the pond but the pond
will be, will facilitate an overflow so that it’s not endangering adjacent property. Our goal is to
get that water out of there before it raises to a level to cause damage to other properties so that’s
the whole objective of the design. The feasibility report doesn’t go into that detail as far as final
design is concerned.
Chuck Cool: You were able to tell me though how big the pond was going to be. How deep it
was going to be.
Marcus Thomas: That’s correct. That’s the level of detail that the feasibility report does go into.
Chuck Cool: Okay. And the whole idea for the curb and gutter then, and all this money is just
for better drainage?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. It’s going to catch the rain water off of the roads, off of people’s
driveways that drain into the road. Go into the catch basins. Go into this pond. Now if I
understood what you were saying right now, the water is draining between your house and, your
house and your neighbor’s house? And then it goes, sheet drains down to this pipe. In your back
yard.
Chuck Cool: Basically follows the natural creek bed.
Todd Gerhardt: And then it goes into that pipe, into that creek.
Chuck Cool: That’s correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Now what it’s going to do is the water’s going to collect on the road, go into the
catch basins, come down the pipe, go into the pond and then in those cases of 100 year rains, it
will overflow out into where your old pipe was into that creek, into the back of the pond that’s
heading east.
Chuck Cool: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And then naturally flow like it did before. In those occurrences if the pond
should happen to clog or if you get a rain event where the pond can’t handle the amount of rain
that’s going in there, so the pond is designed to pre-treat the runoff from the roads.
Chuck Cool: Right, okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So the catch basins are to divert the water into the catch basins into the pond.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
38
Chuck Cool: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So that’s what the curb and gutter’s for.
Chuck Cool: Okay. But then for the overflow of it, when it does overflow, what happens if it
doesn’t? What happens if it starts building up? Who do I call when it’s coming into my back
door?
Todd Gerhardt: Well.
Chuck Cool: I mean do you guys come out and throw a pump in there and drain it out or what
do you do?
Todd Gerhardt: We did this summer.
Chuck Cool: I know, I saw you. And that’s why I’m asking.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. That’s the key thing about this is to make sure it’d designed properly.
Marcus, designed properly right up front and to make sure it works as the engineers have
designed it. And the emergency flow, where we were before this summer, our emergency
overflows weren’t graded properly and there was modifications made to those. We also had new
construction that played a factor in some of that too, so the key thing is to get this designed
properly and get it to overflow where it’s flowing right now.
Chuck Cool: And then if it doesn’t, you guys will be out and correct it, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Chuck Cool: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Call the non-emergency number or the emergency numbers down at Carver
County. They’ll dispatch out our utility department and we’ll clean out the catch basins like we
did in Longacres and some other neighborhoods.
Chuck Cool: Okay thank you. That’s about it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else who’s interested to speak at the public hearing this
evening on this project? If you want to speak, this would be the time to come forward before we
close the public hearing.
Mike Schmidt: How far down Yosemite does that go? You said there was a small section in
there. This here driveway here, that’s a cartway that goes to the guy behind us who’s got 3 lots
back there where he wants to divide it into 3 lots. We’re sitting here, is this going to end right at,
at the top of the hill?
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
39
Marcus Thomas: This is essentially where it’s going to end…
Mike Schmidt: That’s the Hennepin County line.
Marcus Thomas: Excuse me?
Mike Schmidt: That’s the Hennepin County line, right? Shorewood?
Marcus Thomas: No, no, no, farther south… Let me just go back…
Mike Schmidt: So all of this new blacktop that they just put in, they’re going to dig that up?
They just put that in a few years ago.
Marcus Thomas: Well we’re going to matching at the existing line. At the new line…storm
sewer pipe that may disturb the edge of the existing road where…but the intent of our road
improvements…
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else? Sir.
Bruce Koehnen: I have one question just out of curiosity sake. We’re talking of this section of
Yosemite at the south end that does not have, it sounds like utilities in it right now. Why aren’t
we at this time put utilities in there and assessing the property on that section of road like we did
back in ’73?
Mayor Furlong: I wasn’t here in ’73 so I’m going to defer to, Roger were you?
Roger Knutson: No, no.
Mayor Furlong: I know you’ve been here longest. Is there a particular project or area that
you’re referring to?
Bruce Koehnen: Yeah the whole city. That’s when we had city sewer and water installed in the
city of Chanhassen, the outer areas and they put it in and all the properties that benefited were
assessed. And so this seems like a simple thing to do here at this time while we’re doing this
project, so it’s maybe a dumb question but just out of curiosity sake I’m wondering why not.
Todd Gerhardt: I’ll tackle that one. This is similar to the 2005 MUSA area. We go in and
establish an assessment against benefiting property owners. Some of these individuals probably
were originally assessed that had homes for sewer and water for one unit, and at the time
typically somebody comes in and subdivides you get them for the rest. At this point this area
wasn’t able to be served. I believe it’s from Lake Lucy. It would have to be served from the
north.
Bruce Koehnen: Is that still the case?
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
40
Todd Gerhardt: That is still the case. Because when we upgraded Lake Lucy, I know we’ve
looked at this over the last 5 years of trying to service them off of Lake Lucy and just couldn’t do
it. So it would have to come from the north and I believe that probably Ann Nine’s property got
to develop first when you bring sewer and water in there, and then that would property would
have sewer and water available to it. It’s kind of a stepping stone.
Bruce Koehnen: But there’s one house there on, kind of in the middle of that strip of Yosemite,
do they have private well then and private septic systems?
Resident: Yes. They pump their sewer but they have a well. They live right next to me, yeah.
All those houses down there. If it’s going to go, if it’s going to go north, it’d have to be pumped.
Because I’m almost flat…
Todd Gerhardt: We may have to put in a lift station. I’m not sure.
Bruce Koehnen: Well that kind of goes back to one of my concerns, which I think you all have
an e-mail that I sent about the depth of the sewer in the city. If we are having a problem in areas
with the sewer not deep enough to service all of the residential homes, this really seems to me
the time that we should lower all our sewer mains, sanitary sewer mains also as long as we’re
digging up the streets and spending some money on the project, I think we should do it right if
we’re going to do it at all.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and I think to that point, if I recall, there are some areas, I think Mr.
Koehnen because of your e-mail in fact, there are some areas that we are looking at dropping
that, the sewer line to try to improve the flow or the angle between some of the existing homes.
Marcus Thomas: Yeah, that was on one specific cul-de-sac that we talked about at Blue Jay.
Blue Jay Circle.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Public hearing is still open here. Is there anybody else that
would like to speak this evening? On this. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I’d just like to add that if anybody has any questions between now and
February 13th, contact either Paul or myself and we’ll try to answer any questions that we didn’t
answer tonight. Come in and meet with us. Anybody that wants access to the feasibility study,
we can make copies of that. I believe it’s also accessible at our web site if you have access to a
world wide web, just go to our web page.
Mayor Furlong: I guess just one question that I had, there’s, a few people brought up the issue of
the retaining walls, and that’s because we’re widening the street and as I understood, because the
curb is going to be extending out now at the current grade off the side of the road. We need to
build retaining walls. What’s the alternative or alternatives to not doing that?
Marcus Thomas: Yeah I think the alternative would be to construct a more suitable and safer
slope that would obviously extend out further away from our road, and I think what we’re
dealing with on the east side of Yosemite, if I recall, I think we’ve got some low area, wetland
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
41
areas that in lieu of a retaining wall, if we were to do that sloping, it would encroach into
wetlands or private properties and kind of subject them to these grade changes that may not be
desirable so, the intent of the retaining wall is to eliminate those far reaching impacts of grading.
Mayor Furlong: With the change of grading, having driven the road, there are a number of trees
along the road nearby that would likely take out some of the trees as well.
Marcus Thomas: Huge part of it as well, and that’s one thing that we’re looking at too is those
retaining walls really keep us within those tree lines so we aren’t having to go in there and clear
cut a lot of trees to facilitate slope instead of the wall.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. At this point if there’s nobody else that wishes to speak at the
public hearing tonight, oh yes sir. Mr. Johnson. You got in at the last minute there.
Willard Johnson: I’m Willard Johnson. Live on 63rd Street. You were just talking about Blue
Jay. Are you going to lower the sewer line there?
Marcus Thomas: That’s what we’re looking at doing for a particular property owner at the end
of the cul-de-sac, they indicated that they have a flat sewer line. Sewer service line. That’s not
your’s is it?
Willard Johnson: Mine runs to the back lot line, no that isn’t mine.
Marcus Thomas: Okay, okay.
Willard Johnson: Is it going to affect me is what I was wondering.
Marcus Thomas: The only affect it will have is along steeper slopes along your service line to
the sanitary sewer itself so it would not cause any adverse impacts.
Willard Johnson: You’re just going to lower Blue Jay?
Marcus Thomas: Yes. Yeah, it looks like we’ve got the opportunity to lower that sewer on the
order of about 12 inches or so which is a lot in terms of a private sewer grade.
Willard Johnson: It runs across the back of two lots here and goes off to me and I was just
curious.
Marcus Thomas: This was the particular property I think that had an issue with flat service
line… Yeah, and the extent of our sanitary sewer improvements in this area are strictly along
Blue Jay. Nothing outside of there.
Willard Johnson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there anybody else this evening that would like to speak at the public
hearing? If not what I’ll do then is entertain a motion from the council to continue the public
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
42
hearing to February 13th at which time we’ll consider comments with regard to other parts of the
project, the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood and Lake Ann.
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion to continue?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the public hearing on
the 2006 street improvements, Project 06-01 to the February 13, 2006 meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody for coming this evening. Mr. Thomas and staff, thank
you. If we can take into account the comments and recommendations we heard this evening
from the public over the next couple weeks and see how much the recommendations can be
accommodated, we appreciate that. Okay, very good. Thank you everyone. Looking at the time
we’re going to take a short recess, about 5 minutes subject to the call of the chair.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING ON METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST WITH A
VARIANCE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, PAUL & ANDREA EIDSNESS, 630 CARVER
BEACH ROAD.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you stated Mayor this was an application for metes and bounds
subdivision that does go before the City Council. And also approve a variance. The subject site
is located off of Carver Beach Road, just north of the existing Creekwood subdivision. The
proposed plat, so you have to back in and out here for a minute. Comes off the recently built Big
Woods subdivision and they’re proposing to build, create 2 lots. Lot A which has the existing
house, and Lot B. I just want to back out here a little bit and show a little bit of the area so you
understand why the conditions, how they relate to the subdivision. Again this is Carver Beach
Road. The subject home we’re talking about is right here. There are some out buildings. When
this property came in for subdivision there was some interest shown from some of the adjoining
properties of further subdividing. …part of our job is also making sure that we provide adequate
access to other property owners that may want to subdivide. So with that, when we looked at
this larger area, again this is Carver Beach Road. This is the Big Woods Boulevard, and our
subject site here tonight the existing home. Can you zoom in on that just a pinch more Nann?
And then this would be the future lot. So what we did is looked at how could this property be
subdivided? Obviously it’s not being proposed more than just the 2 lots but if future
development was to occur, how could it be served by a public street? Carver Beach Road right
now is 40 feet. We did take additional right-of-way with the Big Woods subdivision because
that’s 50, so we are recommending 50 foot for the new road that will be built through here, so
that’s one of the requests that’s being made for the subdivision, and I’ll go through those in a
minute. Keep everything going in the same direction here. Show that again so again this would
be Big Woods Drive. This is the 2 lots that are being created and we are requesting for right-of-
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
43
way and again to maintain the prevailing development pattern in that area, recommending the 50
foot right-of-way, so that’s the variance before you tonight. The lot itself is a little over 2 acres,
so both lots would meet the requirement. We are requesting that while those lots meet the
requirements with the variance, that they do provide the easement for a future road. There are
conditions in there that have been drafted by the City Attorney to provide for at such time that a
building permit is requested on this lot, or if the city chose to…subdivide, that we could build
that street. This street does provide access to the rest of those properties so we want to have that
available to, availability to provide that. In addition to that, there are some other issues that need
to be resolved with the subdivision besides the right-of-way easements. Construction easements
and then also typical drainage and utility easements and those are conditions of approval. One of
the other things we did mention in the staff report, the city does have sewer and water lines.
We’re working with the applicant to get those in. We had originally recommended that just a
generalized utility easement be shown over that but they would request that they actually be over
the lines themselves so that’s fine. We’ll agree to that. Then the other request at this time is,
when we do a subdivision at the time that we would take additional right-of-way because the
property is being subdivided. We would request, similar to what we did on Big Woods, that they
show a 10 feet for street right-of-way. They would also submit to showing utility easements…
at this time. And those are all conditions in the staff report which are found for your
recommendations on page 7. Again the variance findings are also in the staff report, as well as
the mentioned summary of that is the prevailing development pattern in this area is really set at
50 feet. So with that we are recommending approval of the metes and bounds subdivision with
the variance with the conditions and the findings in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer
any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the variance is 50 foot instead of 60 foot?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate I have a question if you go back to the picture of those lots. Is
it possible to subdivide those lots again?
Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. I tried to show it on… But this is the existing home right here.
There’s a common driveway right now that serves this home and this home. Sorry, push it up
here. You can see that, I’m sorry Nann I’m doing this to you. This is…so what happens if a
building permit were to be pulled on this lot, they would have to get access via this road and then
this home’s driveway is then also served up the street. Does that make sense? So now they’re
all being accessed via public street. So right now as long as there’s no homes, there’s no
violation of existing conditions. But this would be that large lot. It could be subdivided. One or
two times. You could get 2 lots depending on how, with the layout.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. If not then I’ll
go ahead and open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come and address the
council on this matter.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
44
Paul Otto: Good evening Mayor and members of the council. I’m Paul Otto with Otto
Associates, 9 West Division Street is my address, and staff report looks real fine. We’re happy
to see about the 20 foot easement. We will work with staff to work that out. The one thing that
we would like to request is the additional right-of-way along Carver Beach Road. We’d like to
request that at this time we maintain it at the 20 foot. That would fall outside of the tree line, and
basically keep what’s there and at the time of future subdivision look at going to a 30 foot right-
of-way if indeed. Our thought is that if this property does not split, there are some significant
trees in that area and we’d like to try and make sure that they’re preserved so that’s kind of the
reason for that. And I’m available for questions.
Kate Aanenson: Can I address that? It’s not our intent to build the street at this time but it’s our
intent to take it as a road easement so if we do widened that street, that it would be built at that
time…take down the trees and remove any at this time. We want to dedicate that as a road
easement so if we did, build the road, which we intend to and… So this is Carver Beach Road.
This is the area that we’re talking about that would be an additional, right now it’s at 20 feet. To
get to 50 feet, which we took on the Big Woods subdivision, we’re just saying we want to look at
a condition of approval it states that there be an additional 10 feet as a roadway easement. So we
wouldn’t have to remove any trees or anything at this time but at such time in the future that we
decided to upgrade that road.
Mayor Furlong: What are the consequences of, or a situation that would present itself if that’s
not taken at this time?
Kate Aanenson: Then they’d probably have to come and say that we wanted to upgrade the road
if the rest of this came in and we had that missing link.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? Okay. Anyone else that would
like to speak at the public hearing on this matter? No? If not then, I’ll close the public hearing
and bring it back to council. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Seems like a fair presentations…any substantial issues. I think the one
that the applicant brought up, and to Kate’s point, if we don’t do it now it’s going to cost us
money later and we’re not going to take out the trees until we need to so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I watched, laid in bed and watched the Planning Commission
meeting regarding this issue. I think they did a good job smoothing out all the wrinkles and
getting it ready for us tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist, any comments?
Councilman Lundquist: Just good to see that we’re, staff is looking ahead putting that road in
there for access for the future and looking at that will simplify down the road if it does divide,
great. If it doesn’t, then nothing will be done so it’s good to look at that now and take out some
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
45
of these long driveways, narrow roads, shared driveway issues that we come up with, especially
in this area so. I think it’s reasonable and with the conditions in here.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt. No additional comments?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I won’t repeat. I would concur with Councilman Peterson
and Lundquist as well. We’re planning ahead. We’re doing this at this time to try to make the
situation easier down the road. That’s what planning’s all about so I’ll commend staff. If there’s
no additional comments or follow up questions, is there a motion on this matter?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that? Hearing none, we’ll proceed
with the vote.
Resolution #2006-08: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that
the City Council approves the metes and bounds subdivision (#06-02) of 2.18 acres into two
lots as shown on plans stamped “Received January 5, 2006”, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans are to be submitted to
the City for review and approval with the building permit application for Parcel B, or
with the subdivision application if Parcel B is incorporated into a future development
proposal, whichever comes first.
2. Park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication for one new lot (1 lot x
$4,000 per lot = $4,000).
3. The sewer and water hookup charges for Parcel B will be payable with the building
permit application or assessed with the property taxes.
4. The survey must be revised to dedicate a 30 foot wide roadway, drainage and utility
easement over the east half of Carver Beach Road, measured from the centerline of
Carver Beach Road.
5. Parcel B will be specially assessed $10,000 for the street. The assessment will be
deferred without interest until the street is constructed. When the deferment ends, the
assessment shall be paid over a five year period at 8% interest.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
46
6. The applicant shall enter into the attached Development Contract and Special Assessment
Agreement.
7. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the city as described in the
UTILITIES section of the staff report.
8. The plans must be revised to show the exact location of the existing utilities (watermain
and sanitary sewer) and easements. Additional easements may be required as described
in the UTILITIES section of the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
JACOB’S TAVERN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5
AND CENTURY BOULEVARD, APPLICANT, TRUMAN HOWELL ARCHITECTS:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 6,808 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT
BUILDING ON 2.02 ACRES.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This request is for site plan approval, variance free. It’s a request
for approximately 6,800 square feet of restaurant located at the corner of Highway 5 and Century
Boulevard. This site has been identified as a restaurant and was put into place when we actually
put the, oops move in a little bit on that. So this would be Highway 5 and Century Boulevard.
This is where the Holiday Inn sits. When Holiday Inn went in we actually anticipated and they
rough graded for that site and always anticipated a restaurant so we’re pleased to bring one
forward for you tonight. Just wanted to give you a couple other background issues that were
some points of discussion and looking at the picture of this property, again I mentioned the rough
grading that when this project came in, the staff actually, the engineering department actually
undertook the curb cut issue on Century Boulevard. There is a little bit of a concern about that
but I know we did adequate, this piece has always topographically separated from the rest of this.
This is our natural area that we preserved. It’s beautiful views looking out the hotel side and the
restaurant seating. We believe it’s a really nice asset that really gets the best use of circulation
we provided for a curb cut in there. If you go down to Corporate Place, that is actually would be
how you would get to Lifetime Fitness, so they’re not on the same road access wise but
eventually they may get on Century Boulevard. So if you look at in the staff report there is some
discussion regarding the conditions of approval that we’re monitoring that and that’s one of the
items we’re actually going to do some traffic counts and bring back to the Planning Commission
to see what the actual traffic modeling for that is fulfilling that after the restaurant would be built
and kind of see how that’s functioning. Again that was a big issue. So with that back drop, talk
a little bit specifically about the site itself. It’s a unique… It’s unique in the fact that there’s that
larger berm in front so what the developer or the architect actually made a more vertical roof line
on the site to actually provide for the berm that’s in front. Has some interesting orientation. This
would be the, if you can see that, maybe you can just zoom in… This would be the drop off area
or the drive through for the Holiday Inn. So there’s easy sidewalk access to get to that. There’s
also additional sidewalks to get to the back of the building. There is a trail…that trail was put in
place…which is again a really nice asset for people staying in that area. The restaurant itself has
a nice fire pit on the outside, and then also has nice seating around the perimeter. So there is
some shared parking that was set up in place between the two pieces at the Holiday Inn and the
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
47
restaurant itself. We believe again that will be successful. So I’ll just take a few minutes to talk
a little bit about architecture itself of this particular building. The Planning Commission
did…the big issue then, I talked about is the very vertical building…with outdoor seating. The
silo. Kind of similar to some other things that we have on the other end of town…the culture of
that area. So I think all and all, looking at the, based on the sight lines…is pretty limited but
what you can see is the top of this first. It’s low key as far as the signage in itself. The one issue
that did come up was the canvas awning on the top of the silo itself. We’re looking at making a
recommendation of changing that, the roof and the canvas. I think there was concern about, I
know another material would be more expensive but just the long term maintenance…and the
height of that, that we wanted something more durable. So again…which is consistent under the
PUD itself. I did mention the street, talking about how we get access to this via the Century
Boulevard cut through and shared parking with the Holiday Inn. That shows on the other
drawing it was massed graded so there’s minimal grading that needs to be done with this. So all
in all it’s a pretty clean site plan…most of the work will be in the building itself. So with that we
are, I also wanted to talk to you a little bit more about that, but I think I won’t steal Truman’s
thunder. Let him go into a little bit more detail about the material itself. But the Planning
Commission did recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report and there were a
couple modifications… With that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Peterson: Kate if you would, just to highlight the two views that we have there.
They are from what direction?
Kate Aanenson: This is…south and then this is…this side, and this side is which you see right
here. And this is the outdoor fire pit.
Mayor Furlong: Is the silo on the northwest corner of the building? Does that answer your
question?
Councilman Peterson: Not, so the silo is in the northwest.
Mayor Furlong: Toward the intersection.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And again that’s the part to get the visibility, right. So there was some
discussion, quite a bit of discussion actually at the Planning Commission regarding, changing
that roof line but they’re actually at the end of the discussion…
Councilman Peterson: What’s the discussion of signage so far?
Kate Aanenson: Essentially pretty well…they are allowed a monument sign that does say, the
plans itself show a monument sign along, I believe it’s, they’re looking at somewhere over in
here for the, which would be the entrance.
Applicant: At the corner of 5 and Century.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
48
Kate Aanenson: I was told that that was going to be the spot where you wanted to put it so,
apologize for that. It shows a monument sign but at the Planning Commission that was, so. But
the building itself is actually pretty, it’s shown on this…it would be allowed. Two wall signage
and then the monument sign would be additional.
Mayor Furlong: And a follow up to Councilman Peterson’s question, is there any signage
allowed on the roof line itself or it looks like right here it’s on the wall.
Kate Aanenson: Right, because architecturally if they were to do something different, it would
have to be integrated into the building and I think at this point we’d want to say that that would
be no. To have it come back and try to put something artificial into it. Right now I believe it’s a
more softer signage and that would be actually the silo.
Mayor Furlong: It’s on the building as well as the monument sign?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And there’s…where they put the monument sign…put in the staff
report. We’ve actually showed 2 locations. We didn’t put it in on the south side, but again I
think the silo’s going to be what catches your eye. Because right now it’s hard to see the
Holiday Inn on certain perspectives, which is…
Mayor Furlong: Other questions?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate question on how this is or isn’t impacted by the retail market study
we just… Because we’ve always looked at a restaurant on that spot, a restaurant next to a hotel,
and I mean that makes sense as well, any reservations or hesitations at all?
Kate Aanenson: That’s a good question. Actually this area, when we put together this PUD we
actually allowed for some ancillary support use. We always anticipated a hotel and a restaurant
at this site, so it is consistent and doesn’t require rezoning. Anyone that’s looking at rezoning…
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Ms. Aanenson, real quick. You had mentioned in your report,
your verbal report and it was also mentioned in the report about the materials for the top of this,
canvas versus some other recommendation. Is that a condition in here?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: I’ve been.
Kate Aanenson: I hope it is. There should be a strike out in there.
Mayor Furlong: There was a strike out on number 4 which, that was the roof line and looks and
gables and stuff.
Kate Aanenson: If it’s not we need to, I think we’re willing to look if there’s something more
durable. You know we talked about metal standing seam, so I think we’re willing to work with
them on that but I think what we want to have is something beyond canvas.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
49
Mayor Furlong: Okay, but is there something right now in there or does that need to be
discussed?
Kate Aanenson: I think it needs to be added.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe you could propose some wording and…
Kate Aanenson: Number 32. We’ll put something together.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? At this point. The applicant’s here. Good evening.
Would you like to come forward? If there’s anything you’d like to add for the council?
Truman Howell: Well I’m Truman Howell, Truman Howell Architects. Good evening Mr.
Mayor and council people. Any questions we could answer, we’d be happy to. The client came
to me and asked for something of a vernacular in what would typify a Midwestern feel.
Obviously if you go to the farming identity but what we’ve done is kind of stretched some of the
basic forms and tried to do something more interesting than is common. The silo’s and the
cupola’s on the building are actually wire frame as opposed to being solid. The silo actually
identifies 3 large fireplaces that you find in the, on the ground. One for the outdoor area, and one
for the waiting area on the inside and one for the bar area. So they’re all three there and the silo
basically caps those off. They’re large timber trusses on the inside which will identify the space
and the, will be a very, it’s going to be a very comfortable and exciting interior. If there’s any
questions I’d be more than happy to answer those.
Mayor Furlong: Questions.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: When is this expected to be completed?
Truman Howell: I think as soon as they can. They’re making, putting together the project as we
speak and they’ve been quite successful so.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Howell, the question that came up with staff’s recommendation with regard
to material for the top of the silo. Is that something that working together with them.
Truman Howell: We will work with them, yes. We had…of course we’ll work with them. Our
initial idea was that it would be a fabric. Cloth of course, but then it came back with yeah, but
you’re going to have to change that stuff and so we had some discussions and I think standing
seam’s a good and expensive a bit much. We may try talking about something that, we’ll work
together to make that happen.
Mayor Furlong: That’d be great, thank you. Any other questions at this point? Okay, very
good. Thank you sir.
Truman Howell: Thank you.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
50
Mayor Furlong: Are there any follow up questions for staff? If not, I don’t know that this
changed much coming from Planning Commission. I know they spent quite a bit of time and had
the public hearing there so I don’t know if there’s anybody wishing to make public comment but
they’d be welcome at this point if they do. No? Okay. With that, I’ll open up council
discussion then. On this project. Thoughts, comments.
Councilman Peterson: I’m one probably that raising the flag on architectural interest and
expressing the need for that and I guess I say that with a grin because this clearly has that. I
commend the applicant for pushing the window and that’s what I’ve been espousing over the
years and it was enough of a push where I had to look at it twice and go do I like that? But then I
said to myself, it’s not necessarily my opinion. It brings a distinctiveness…and I think we’ve
accomplished that and I think that, everybody involved should be commended for that so I think
it will be a nice asset to the community.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you for those comments. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m just happy they’re coming. I think it’s a long time coming for a
new restaurant in Chanhassen so welcome and look forward to eating in your establishment.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would echo. We need more restaurants. Glad to have something new
and different and I look forward to eating there as well.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I would echo it. I would change the word from different to unique. I like it
very much.
Mayor Furlong: It’s not a brown, beige box.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Which is good. It’s going to work well along that. It looks great and I think it’s
definitely going to be an asset. It’s a great location and looking forward to seeing it come
together so, I would, Kate do you have some recommended language there for 32?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. The silo shall be durable material similar to a metal, working with staff.
Mayor Furlong: How about the applicant works with staff to identify a durable material?
Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. Okay, is that, okay.
Mayor Furlong: Is that okay?
Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. And they’re…
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
51
Mayor Furlong: This is going to have to come back for.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: This is it? Okay. So we’ve got to make sure that, do you want to make it
acceptable to staff then?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Well at it’s clear that your intentions is that it’s not canvas. More
durable material.
Roger Knutson: You might as well say durable material which does not include canvas.
Kate Aanenson: That’s what I would say, right.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sounds like we’ve got some, we can work on something. It sounded
like, I just want to make sure we’re good. Okay, so the idea is staff proposed condition 32.
Councilman Peterson: It’s actually 31 because we’re deleting number 4.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we’d add that as 32 and we delete 4 as shown on the staff report.
Conditions 1 through 32. Okay, is there a motion to that effect?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d move that City Council approves Site Plan Case 05-40 as
presented by staff this evening with conditions 1 through 32, with the addition of 32 as noted
earlier.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves
Site Plan Planning Case #05-40, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated
November 10, 2005, for a 6,808 square-foot restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Park 6th Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A recorded parking easement for the benefit of Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th
Addition for the use of nine stalls on the Holiday Inn Express site (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Park 6th Addition) is required as part of the site plan.
3. The developer shall install site furnishings including benches, bicycle racks, and tables.
4. All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
52
5. Mechanical equipment, either roof-mounted or at grade, must be screened.
6. The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
7. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
8. The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
9. Pedestrian ramps shall be provided in all locations where the sidewalk ends at a curb.
10. The full access driveway onto Century Boulevard is allowed. However, should the driveway
cease to operate in a safe manner in the opinion of the property owners of Lots 1 or 2, Block
1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition, or Lots 1, 2 or 3, Block 1, Arboretum Business
Park 4th Addition, or if any of the following conditions are met, the property owners of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,
Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition shall be assessed 100% of the costs incurred to correct
the conditions in a fashion acceptable to the City of Chanhassen:
a. Level of service “F” at the intersection during peak AM and PM times.
b. Level of service “D” or below at the intersection during non-peak times.
c. Significant accidents that are attributed to the configuration of the intersection occur that
indicate a mutually recognized safety concern at the intersection.
11. The slope located along the southern property line shall be seeded with a native grass mix
and left natural. The applicant will be allowed to mow along the parking lot and trail if
necessary.
12. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the existing downstream storm water
infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development.
13. Two details for silt fence are included on the detail sheet. The old detail for silt fence (Detail
5300 last revised January of 2003) should be removed from the detail sheet. The plans
should be revised to show inlet protection around all storm sewer inlets.
14. Wimco-type inlet controls should be specified for inlet protection. Inlet protection shall be
provided for existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project.
15. During installation of the proposed storm sewer infrastructure to the existing storm sewer,
temporary caps or plugs should be provided until the installation of the pipes and inlets are
complete.
16. A temporary cover of mulch and seed is needed within 14 days of final grade for any
exposed soils or if any exposed soils are not actively worked within a 14-day time period.
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
53
17. Any sediment tracked upon paved surfaces must be scraped and swept within 24 hours.
18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of
Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
19. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
20. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event with storm sewer drainage map prior to building permit issuance.
21. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
22. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City’s Building Department.
23. Add the latest City Detail Plate Nos. 1004, 5214, 5300 and 5302.
24. The site will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of
building permit issuance. The 2006 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,575.00 per unit for
sanitary sewer and $4,078.00 per unit for water.
25. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited
to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc.
26. On the utility plan show all the existing utility sewer type, size, slope and class.
27. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the lots.
28. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
29. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and location of signs to be installed.
30. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policies.
a. #1-1990 regarding fire alarm systems,
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
54
b. #4-1991 regarding notes to be included on all site plans,
c. #7-1991 regarding pre-fire drawings,
d. #29-1992 regarding premise identification,
e. #34-1993 regarding water service installation,
f. #36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing,
g. #40-1995 regarding fire protection systems.”
31. The applicant will work with staff to identify a durable material for the top of the silo which
does not include canvas.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? Okay. There was, Mr. Gerhardt and I did attend, a
week ago Saturday Carver County, the Emergency Preparedness Meeting was put on by Carver
County. It was very well attended. It was nice to see from across the county, including cities,
townships, school districts, and I think the flavor that I took away from that is we’re well
prepared as a county and we have a good emergency operations plan in place. We put part of it
to use when the President visited just over a year ago, in terms of the emergency operation center
and there seems to be good coordination between the different levels of government in this area.
That meeting itself I think demonstrated that we had for example, which was very nice to see.
Our city is served by two school districts, both 112 and 276, Minnetonka and Chaska school
districts and there were representatives from both school districts there at that meeting, which
was I think from most school districts across the county as well so, it was a good meeting and,
there continues to be different levels of government working together from an emergency
preparedness standpoint so. Other discussions or council presentations? Seeing none,
administrative reports Mr. Gerhardt.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Just want to update the council, the storm water study is done. We’ll be having
a joint meeting with the Planning Commission at our work session on February 13th so we’ll
update you on the progress and final draft of the study. Update on the water treatment plant.
This coming Wednesday all the foundation walls will be up. They will then in the next couple
weeks be capped off. Little bit of utility work to be done so we’re out of the ground and that’s a
good thing. Paul’s promised me he won’t find any other surprises out there.
Councilman Labatt: How many did you find?
Todd Gerhardt: Oh, quite a few. But that project’s moving along. The mild winter we have,
they continue to work every day. If you noticed the boom truck pouring cement, so it’s been
nice. We already talked about the depth at Lake Ann. We’re looking at 9 to 11 inches of ice out
there. We will not be allowing people to drive out onto the lake, but 9 to 11 inches is more than
enough to handle the crowds that we usually attend the February Festival. And then you have a
park commission meeting tomorrow night and so Todd Hoffman will be there. Staff as usual and
City Council Meeting – January 23, 2006
55
he wanted to share that with you. And also you have the Chamber luncheon tomorrow where
we’ve been nominated as Business of the Year for the City of Chanhassen, so we’ve got a couple
council members that will be present for that ceremony so. Other than that, that’s all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: What time is the luncheon?
Todd Gerhardt: Noon.
Mayor Furlong: Gathering starts at 11:30.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, the luncheon starts at noon. If you want to get there early, 11:30, quarter
to 12:00.
Mayor Furlong: Is it in the different location as well?
Justin Miller: Country Inn and Suites.
Mayor Furlong: Country Inn and Suites, not the Legion tomorrow? Thank you. Any other
questions for Mr. Gerhardt. Any discussion on the correspondence packet?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Mayor Furlong: Those letters to the fire department that were included in the council packet, I
encourage everybody to take a look at those. They’re very heartfelt. With that, are there any
more musical motions to adjourn?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2006
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Dan
Keefe, Deborah Zorn, and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant
City Engineer
2005 YEAR END REVIEW/ ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Discussed the significant projects that were completed in 2005, issues that arose and mitigation
strategies. Staff will be developing a retaining wall policy and ordinance, follow up with
neighbors to measure perceived impacts prior to development; and work and creating a site on
the city home page where information on any going project can be found.
FUTURE SUBMITTALS
Reviewed the possible development projected for 2006 and the beginning work for the
comprehensive plan, especially the Storm Water Management Plan and the Transportation
element with the 101 Study. The Commission viewed the Met Council wet site regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Update Process.
RETAIL STUDY (MCCOMB GROUP, LTD.)
The commission reviewed the marketing study with McComb Group. It was discussed that any
changes in the land use or zoning would require a public hearing. Ultimately the
recommendation of the study will be brought into the update of the comprehensive plan.
DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The year end summary of all applications (planning cases) was reviewed. The numbers of cases
was about average except for signs which was significantly higher. The number and types of
permits was also reviewed in context of annual summary. The data on building permits was also
shown in type of housing products approved and the projected population based on these new
units.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Kim Meuwissen
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 24, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Paula Atkins, Ann Murphy, Steve Scharfenberg and
Jack Spizale. Tom Kelly arrived late to the meeting.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor; and Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent
PUBLIC PRESENT:
David Dines, Minnetonka Lacrosse 4238 Heathcote Road, Wayzata
Todd Neils, Chanhassen Little League 990 Saddlebrook Curve
Tom Nygaard, CC United Soccer Club 1071 Wildwood Way, Chaska
Tim Litfin 5621 Co. Rd. 101, Minnetonka
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Jerry Ruegemer introduced Nate Rosa, the new Recreation
Supervisor to the commission. Nate Rosa reported on February Festival schedule of events.
Jerry Ruegemer reviewed other programs happening in February such as Daddy Daughter Date
Night and Sweethearts Dance. Todd Hoffman reported that the City of Chanhassen was honored
by the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce as Business of the Year.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scharfenberg moved, Atkins seconded to approve the
verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated
December 20, 2005 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
INVITATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 2006 BALLFIELD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Stolar opened the floor for
public comment. David Dines with Minnetonka Youth Lacrosse stated their organization has
been using the facilities at Instant Web and that they don’t have any safety concerns at this time
Park and Rec Commission Summary – January 24, 2006
2
but was attending the meeting to introduce himself in the hopes of building a closer relationship
with the commission. Todd Neils, recently elected President of the Chanhassen Little League
outlined their request for improvements for the ballfields at Lake Ann Park and Bandimere Park.
Commissioner Kelly asked Mr. Neils to elaborate on his request for additional fencing.
Commissioner Spizale asked about the cost for dugouts. Commissioner Atkins asked for
clarification on past injuries, storage facilities, and handicap accessibility to fields. Tom
Nygaard, President of the CC United Soccer Club, which serves the Chan-Chaska area, informed
the commission that the Bandimere Park complex is by far the premiere soccer site. He is
constantly getting compliments on the quality, upkeep and size. The only thing that has ever
been missing is some type of barrier, netting, or fencing on the fields behind the goals to prevent
balls from going into the woods on one side and the pond on the other. Commissioner Kelly
asked for clarification on where Mr. Nygaard would like the fencing to be placed. Todd
Hoffman explained the process the commission will follow in determining ballfield
improvements in the parks. After commission discussion, staff was directed to gather prioritized
lists from the different organizations and bring back a list for the commission at their February
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING APPROVAL OF 2006 LAKE ANN LIFEGUARD
CONTRACT.
Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item. Tim Litfin with Minnetonka Community
Education and Services thanked the commission for putting their faith in them last year and
stated they look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen again this year. Commissioner
Kelly asked staff to explain why they did not ask Minnesota Safety Services for a bid for the
2006 season.
Kelly moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the contract for Minnetonka Community Education and Services
in the amount of $25,900 to provide lifeguard services at Lake Ann beach for the 2006
season. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY SIGNAGE – POWER HILL PARK SLIDING HILL.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. The commissioners discussed additions
and modifications to the proposed signage.
Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommends approval of the proposed Power Hill Sledding Hill signage and direct staff to
order and post an appropriate number of the signs at the park. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPOINTMENT OF 2006 CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON.
Kelly moved, Atkins seconded to appoint Glenn Stolar as Chairman and Steve Scharfenberg as
Vice Chairman for 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
Park and Rec Commission Summary – January 24, 2006
3
RECREATION PROGRAMS:
2006 FEBRUARY FESTIVAL.
Nate Rosa presented the report on the 2006 February Festival and passed around a volunteer sign
up sheet. Commissioner Kelly asked under what conditions the ice fishing contest would be
called off.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE 2006 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION BAND
CONTRACT.
Jerry Ruegemer presented the report on this item.
Scharfenberg moved, Kelly seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the contract for CBO in the amount of $4,500.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
SELF-SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 3-ON-3 ADULT BASKETBALL LEAGUE.
Jerry Ruegemer presented the report on this item.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET:
Commissioner Kelly asked to discuss the results of the ice skating observations by other
commission members.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS.
Chair Stolar presented an update on the Surface Water Management Task Force meetings.
Larry Doran, past President of the Chaska Lacrosse Association, thanked the City and Todd and
Jerry for their excellent facilities, and explained what the lacrosse teams need are space and nets.
Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Paula Atkins, Ann Murphy, Steve Scharfenberg and
Jack Spizale. Tom Kelly arrived late to the meeting.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor; and Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent
PUBLIC PRESENT:
David Dines, Minnetonka Lacrosse 4238 Heathcote Road, Wayzata
Todd Neils, Chanhassen Little League 990 Saddlebrook Curve
Tom Nygaard, CC United Soccer Club 1071 Wildwood Way, Chaska
Tim Litfin 5621 Co. Rd. 101, Minnetonka
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Ruegemer: Thanks Chair Stolar, members of the commission. Good evening. I just wanted to
introduce Nate Rosa. He’s our new Recreation Supervisor. Nate started January 4th. He’s been
here I think 3 weeks now. Busy working on February Festival. Getting ready for that and
looking ahead to spring with some programs and that sort of thing so Nate was the successful
candidate out of 59 candidates so we went through a couple interviews with Nate. A graduate
from Mankato State and has worked with the City of Moorhead, the City of St. Louis Park, the
Mankato YMCA and recently the Carver-Scott Educational Coop in Chaska so beyond that Nate
would like to say anything, we certainly welcome him and will be enjoying his work in our
office.
Stolar: Welcome Nate.
Rosa: Well first off I’d like to thank the City of Chanhassen for giving me the opportunity to
grow along my career in the recreation field. One thing too I’m very impressed already is the
longevity of every current employee here in the city. So I mean I look forward to being with you
guys for quite a while.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
2
Stolar: Thank you very much. And would you like to make your first public announcement here
about Feb Fest or shall we?
Rosa: I would love to make my presentation.
Stolar: Then we’ll talk more in detail later but if you want to just announce it.
Rosa: This will be one of many shameless plugs that I do during my tenure here. February
Festival is going to be Saturday, February 4th on Lake Ann. The schedule of events, the whole
event will start at noon and with that we’ll have concessions, our bonfire, our s’mores cookout,
our sliding hills, our open skating and our medallion hunt will also be going on which the clues
are going to start coming out next week also. And then we’ll have our…on the ice and then, the
actual fishing contest will go from 1:00 until 3:00 and with that altogether we have over $6,500
in door prizes and fish prizes.
Stolar: Thank you. I’m sure we’ll hear more about it during the reports later.
Rosa: Oh I’m sorry.
Stolar: No, that’s okay. I wanted to make sure in public announcements to talk about it. And
what else do we have coming up before our meeting. Any other major events?
Ruegemer: The Daddy Daughter Date Night is coming up and Sweethearts Dance is also
coming up. Todd was doing that one. Nate’s going to Elmo on Ice, or Groucho. Who is it on
Ice?
Rosa: Supergirls on Ice.
Ruegemer: Supergirls.
Stolar: You were close.
Ruegemer: One of the Sesame Street so Nate’s going to be.
Stolar: Any kids going?
Rosa: We have 8 kids, 4 kids and 4 adults going but what we did is we had to postpone it. Not
postpone it. We just did a will call. We had low numbers on there but instead of canceling it we
offered them the option of taking a will call so they’re going to drive down there themselves.
Ruegemer: Daddy Daughter Date Night right now is currently full on Friday night and we’re at
about roughly 30 for Thursday night for numbers and that’s Nate’s busy talking to the caterer
and getting all of that information kind of lined up for that as well.
Stolar: Great. Any other public announcements?
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
3
Hoffman: We’d like to announce that the City was honored today at the Chanhassen Chamber of
Commerce luncheon as Business of the Year. So there was 5 I believe nominees for Business of
the Year. Mayor Furlong accepted that award on behalf of the City and the elected appointed
officials and staff and parks and recreation plays a significant part in that award. It was
mentioned first hand on a number of occasions throughout the presentations so I’m sure you’ll
see more about it in the paper this coming week but that was a nice honor the City received today
at noon.
Stolar: Anything else? Alright, commission members anything else? Okay.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scharfenberg moved, Atkins seconded to approve the
verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated
December 20, 2005 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
Stolar: Actually it’s not in these minutes. I’d like to thank Jack and his wife Eileen for hosting
us at our holiday party. Christmas party. Appreciate it. It was very nice.
Spizale: You’re welcome.
Stolar: Should we give Tom a little more time or should we, what do you guys think? Wait until
Tom gets here for the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson decision? Okay.
INVITATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 2006 BALLFIELD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar, members of the commission. As a part of the development
of the 2006 CIP we included $60,000 in one line item for ballfield improvements. We also have
an additional $25,000 at Bandimere Park for athletic field netting and so you combine those two
and you’re at $85,000 in ballfield related improvements for the 2006 season. This started as a
part of a conversation that you had last year. Different athletic associations specifically Todd
Neils who is here this evening and presented to the commission on a couple of occasions and I
think, did we count 42 ballfields the other day when we were discussing this? Soccer and
baseball. 42 fields. Our fields are very well known as being in good condition for public
facilities but there’s always room for improvement, especially as it relates to safety needs at our
athletic field complexes. So in response to those desires this money has been recommended by
the commission, approved by the City Council as a part of your 2006 CIP and now the best way
to do a quality project is to hear from those who actually utilize those facilities and take some
input about their ideas and then make some recommendations back to the City Council so that’s
our intent this evening. We have some people here representing different athletic associations
and sports if you’d like to take the chance to hear their input.
Stolar: And for clarification we are talking, it’s not just ballfields. It’s athletic fields because
there might be other uses outside of ballfields.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
4
Hoffman: Correct.
Stolar: Alright. So why don’t we open it up then for public comment. Would you like to, are
you here for the ballfield issue?
David Dines: Yes, I’m David Dines.
Stolar: Would you mind stepping up here. Introduce yourself and your address. And your
association.
David Dines: Thank you. Okay, I’m David Dines. I’m with Minnetonka Youth Lacrosse. We
have been beneficiaries of using Instant Web in years past. I’m relatively new to the
organization but I’m here representing the organization tonight. I would tell you that we’ve been
very pleased with Instant Web. I’m here to say that we have no safety recommendations other
than I’m here to introduce myself. It is our goal to get closer to you and to build a relationship
with you because youth lacrosse is growing leaps and bounds and quite honestly we’re going to
need and ask for more field space so it’s just a way for us to introduce ourselves but I have no,
no needs from a safety aspect. So I’ll stop there. Thank you.
Stolar: Thank you. If you don’t mind waiting a second. Are there any questions from the
commission? Great, thank you very much.
David Dines: Okay, thank you.
Stolar: Appreciate you stopping by. Todd, you want to go next?
Todd Neils: My name is Todd Neils from Chanhassen Little League. I was recently elected
President in October, taking the place of Jack Jensen who served for 16 years. As you know
we’ve spoken on several occasions over the past year about the need for additional ball park
space, whether it be lighted fields at the Lake Ann complex, or a more well rounded experience
for the youth that are playing baseball in the community. There are I think some safety issues
that need to be addressed, at least from a ballpark standpoint. A baseball park standpoint. I
don’t know if you want me to go into detail about those right now or if you want to wait until a
later time.
Stolar: Now’s fantastic.
Todd Neils: We have made the recommendation, or at least the request in the past that Lake Ann
Park and Bandimere Park be outfitted with dugouts. We have changed our stance to the extent
that there are some additional needs for those parks, specifically the extension of the fences
along any of the ballparks at Lake Ann, specifically Lake Ann 1 and 2. Lake Ann 3 and 6 are
completely surrounded by fencing at this point. Additionally we feel that there should be some
type of topping. I know that down in Chaska they have a yellow plastic topping to the fields so
if any children do stick their hands over, they don’t get caught on the fencing itself.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
5
Scharfenberg: Just to clarify Todd what you’re talking about is on the outfield fence, some sort
of protective covering over the, what would be the home run fence, just to designate or more of a
protective device.
Todd Neils: I think that all fencing should be capped in some manner because whether it’s a foul
ball next to the dugout or down the either base line, there’s till the opportunity for a child to
reach over in some manner and cut themselves on the fencing. Additionally there is a cracked
base, specifically home plate at Lake Ann 2 that I know about. I’m not quite sure necessarily
what would be under the, what would be under the responsibility of the City to fix some of these
items versus what this additional windfall shall we say of money is going to be used for. Beyond
that, we have made a request for additional storage space. I know that some of the storage space
that has been used in the past, specifically the metal containers had, could have easily fallen and
almost did on someone’s head where we stored our equipment for umpires. So there was an
umpire that almost got bonked in the noggin when he went in to get his umpire equipment. So
some additional storage with possibly, you know whether it be a storage shed that is split up into
sections would be very helpful. Additionally if there is extra money involved after all that is said
and done, there are numerous things that we would like to see the Park and Rec Commission, as
well as the City take on to improve the experience of our ball players. Again from a safety
standpoint, foul balls are always a danger and whether we add dugouts for safety reasons or for
aesthetic reasons, or for a well rounded experience, it’s irrelevant. I think dugouts are necessary,
particularly during the hot days of summer when some screening of some type over the top of the
dugouts is necessary. Because the kids, particularly the catchers are wearing catchers masks
during the game and get quite warm and need some place to kind of cool down.
Stolar: Anything else?
Todd Neils: I can go on forever.
Stolar: Those are your top?
Todd Neils: I think those are the top concerns at this point because I think when we originally
started having our conversations, there was an interest as I said to add lighting and dugouts.
Once the safety concerns are taken care of, and again if there is extra dollars to be spent, if
there’s any way we can add those dugouts as requested, that would be fantastic.
Stolar: Great. Any questions for Todd?
Kelly: When you say extend the fences, I mean could you elaborate on that a little more? I
mean are these fields are what fully enclosed right now and instead of making them 300 on the
lines you want to make them 330 down the lines? Is that?
Todd Neils: No, no, no. What I mean is on, if you walk Lake Ann 1 or Lake Ann 2, currently
there is fencing only to the extent that it goes past, I think 1 or 10 feet past the dugout. We have
quite a few parents that sit along either side line, along the fencing there in the foul territory
watching games. When there are over throws or again fouls, but over throws specifically, there’s
always that danger that a parent who may be conversing with another parent is in danger of
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
6
getting hit. I don’t know necessarily that you need to extend the fencing all the way down the
line to the outfield, but at the very least it should be extended another 20 to 40 feet to ensure
those parents are not being in danger in any way. Additionally we use some of that area for
warm up pitching and so again our children that are warming up for their next pitching, or
pitching performance and therefore there’s that possibility that they may be hit by a ball as well.
Stolar: Any other questions?
Spizale: I’ve got one. What does a dugout cost to put in? Does anybody have a figure on that?
Todd Neils: I don’t necessarily have the figures. I would suggest however that if in fact your,
the cheapest alternative, and we’ve seen these in Hopkins and I believe they also have them in
the Chaska district, they have an enclosed fence dugout with a fence top and then they have some
sort of wind screen that covers the dugout, which I think would provide both ample protection
from foul balls as well as the opportunity to keep the kids cool during the hot summer.
Hoffman: And those are probably a couple thousand dollars on each side versus you could spend
up to $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 on a dugout if you made it out of masonry and roof tops and
stuff too.
Todd Neils: I know that one of the requests that has come from members of our league is the
inaccessibility of some of the fields and some sort of path, particularly for disabled in
wheelchairs or with walkers would be greatly appreciated so that they have the ability to get to
the fields and watch their grandchildren or children play sports.
Atkins: Has anyone, have any of your players been injured going over the fence or jumping for
balls?
Todd Neils: Not yet. Not that I know of. I wasn’t alerted of anything last year as the Vice
President. I sure would not ever want to see it happen because I know those things can be sharp,
you know. But I’d like to see something to ensure that it never does happen.
Atkins: The storage equipment that you have, was that provided by the City initially?
Todd Neils: The storage facility?
Atkins: For your equipment. Whatever you’re storing your umpire’s equipment in.
Todd Neils: The umpire’s equipment is supplied by the league itself. The storage facility I
think, if I’m not mistaken was supplied by the City.
Ruegemer: The storage boxes at Lake Ann were actually made by Ziegler back in the early 90’s,
by the ex-President of the CAA, Jeff Bros. And those were.
Atkins: Donated?
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
7
Ruegemer: Made by Ziegler and donated to the City for the fields so those go back quite a few
years. 15-16 years.
Atkins: I was just wondering if the City is required to provide storage for something like that.
Hoffman: We provide storage at the fields. When we remodeled City Center Park, we put
storage boxes at those fields.
Todd Neils: I think we’d like to see something, if possible, a little larger in scale because our
intent is to have trucking equipment and umpire gear and possibly temporary mounds that the
Little League will use on the fields. Provided they will take them out to the field at night and
then return them to the storage shed after they’re done using them.
Atkins: From my experience it appears that maybe the only fields that aren’t accessible to
handicap would be 3 and 6, the ones down on the end because the path extends to the top of the
hill all the way down.
Todd Neils: I agree with that. I think one of the concerns of the difficulties is, as you walk the
tree line along the path between I think it’s 1 and 6 at this point, it does go up a grade and so it is
difficult to get down that grade if you want to get low enough to see the field because the
overhang of the trees may shade that.
Atkins: The trees are getting bushy.
Todd Neils: A little bit.
Stolar: Any other questions?
Todd Neils: Thank you.
Stolar: Thank you Todd. Appreciate it.
Tom Nygaard: Hi I’m Tom Nygaard. I’m the President of the CC United Soccer Club, which is
the Chan-Chaska Soccer Club that serves the Carver County community here and just briefly
talking with Todd when I came in, I guess we’re all on the same page of these, there’s some
discussions at least regarding some of the expenditures, but tonight I just bring forward one
about the Bandimere Park, the complex. I have to tell you guys, you haven’t heard, when we
have visiting teams come in from the other metropolitan areas from outstate, that Bandimere
complex by far is probably the premiere soccer site. A 3 field site grant you but premiere as far
as quality and upkeep, the size. Constantly get compliments. Everyone wants to play at
Bandimere so thank you. We appreciate it and it’s been a pleasure working with Jerry I think
probably 8 years. I’ve been with the club for about 12 years and just, it’s a great facility. In
conjunction with that though, the only thing that was ever missing was some type of barrier,
netting, fencing on the fields behind the goals to prevent the balls to go into the woods on one
side and the pond on the other. And that would be the only reason we’re really here tonight is
looking for a field improvement is to do something in that regard. Our proposal we, if it’s
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
8
cyclone fencing. If it’s a temporary netting that has strings that you pull up. I guess we’re here
to say we’re willing to work with you to find a solution that works not only for the soccer fields
but also I know there’s residents around the park that are going to have concerns about seeing the
fence up all the time. But we want to work with you and find a solution to that one detriment
because I think we’re still looking for 6 kids from last year that went to… I’m kidding but we do
lose a few soccer balls and we do have the balls go in the ponds and if anything more, it’s not so
much safety as it is inconvenience but I guess there is a walking path and shots can be taken and
shots are taken into the parking lot, and we’d love to teach our kids to put the ball on frame but
that’s not going to happen so. So we’re here tonight to help solicit ideas, funds and see if we
can’t find a working solution for Bandimere in regards to some type of protective or barriers for
the soccer balls behind the nets. And in conjunction with that we’ve always been trying to be the
club that has, that gives back to people that work with us well and if it’s labor that you need,
we’re willing to invest labor. We have a lot of talented people within the club that would be
willing to help with the labor to help save costs. In other notes, I mean we have 490 competitive
players. About 53% are from the Chanhassen residents or boundaries. That’s up 60 players
from last year. Our rec program will probably near 2,000 this year so we’ll be about a 2,600, I’m
sorry, 2,500 play organization by next year easily so we want to continue working with you and
finding ways and parks and solutions to continue helping our program grow. And before I
forget, do you take care of the rec program for soccer in the fall then for, is that? Because what
we’d like to do is offer the services of a Director of Coaching because we do that. We don’t
have a rec program in the fall, so he’s looking to help communities like Chanhassen, Chaska,
Carver, Victoria. If they have a rec program going, he’s there to assist you in any way he can so
that’s also an extended offer to the City of Chanhassen.
Stolar: Okay, thank you.
Tom Nygaard: And that’s all I have. Any questions?
Kelly: I guess the netting or the fencing you’re looking at, are you looking at, would it be
preferred that to be on the field side of the path or on the opposite side of the path?
Tom Nygaard: If it’s on the field side of the path, it’s probably best it be a little bit higher
initially because once the shot goes by the goal and gets down to the path, your projectory is
lower so it’s not such a concern. It could be a lower fence. The problem is that you still have
people walking dogs, bicycling and that. We’re willing to talk about it. I mean we’re not ruling
anything out. We want to provide the safety. We haven’t had any incidents but that doesn’t
mean there couldn’t be an air shot that takes someone down one of these days but if it is on the
field side of the walk, it might have to be a little bit higher just to keep the shots, the higher shots
and stopping them initially.
Kelly: Okay, thanks.
Tom Nygaard: Alright, thank you. Appreciate it.
Stolar: Actually David I have a question for you. Where do you currently play in the city for
lacrosse?
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
9
David Dines: Where do we, we practice at Instant Web. Behind that, Friday and Saturday of
last year for Chanhassen. And we practice at other fields in the Minnetonka area.
Hoffman: Most commissioners aren’t aware, Instant Web is a temporary field situation that the
City is just, we have a long term relationship. That field’s been available for 8 to 10 years now I
bet. Yeah. But it’s not owned by the City. The property is not owned by the City. We did do
some grading and field improvements there, but the field will not be there forever. It will be a
building some day most likely.
Stolar: Okay. Good to know. And then Todd, do you want to talk a little bit about the process
that we’re going to follow on these improvement suggestions.
Kelly: I had a quick question. Was there something in our CIP that, for Bandimere
improvement that talked about fencing along the, okay.
Hoffman: Bandimere Park athletic field netting, $25,000 for this year and that’s in addition to
the $60,000.
Kelly: Right, okay. So it’s possible that we wouldn’t even need to tap into the $60,000 to satisfy
that concern. Probable actually. Okay. Just some more about that netting. I know last, a couple
of years ago they had the orange netting that went, I want to say was it the north side of the
fields. Is it, do something a little different this time than the orange netting? Because I do live
around there so I know how well that stood out at the time. So okay. I just wanted to address it
because I thought there was something in our budget that kind of addressed the Bandimere fields.
Hoffman: Yep. There’s some challenging grade out there as well. On the south side of the
field, if you take the netting away from the back of the net, you drop down the hill real
dramatically as well so you’re going to lose that advantage, the height because you’ll have to
regain it in the height of the fence so there’s some challenges out there, but we can find a
solution.
Stolar: So after we get this input, the process will be.
Hoffman: Process will be your thoughts from the commissioners and then staff would make a
recommendation at a future meeting for the commission to consider and then to make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Stolar: And specifically to the offer that was on the table, and I believe your organization has
talked to us many times before also. That as we go forward we would ask for their participation
as we start finalizing some of the information, actual designs and implementations of what we
chose to fund, as well as we would welcome any assistance in implementing.
Hoffman: As staff moves forward with developing each of these projects we would work with
those different representatives and talk about where appropriate, where they could participate in
assisting the site.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
10
Stolar: And I appreciate the offers that everyone has put forth because Todd, you wanted to.
Todd Neils: Todd Neils again. I’d like to mirror what Tom suggested. I’ve been given the go
ahead by our board that if there is anything necessary in terms of labor that needs to be done,
we’re more than willing to throw people at it. Whether it’s pounding nails, I’ll put my tool belt
on all weekend on a Saturday if I need to. I missed a couple points earlier and if you don’t mind
I’d like to hit them really quick. The sole baseball mound at Lake Ann 2 is made out of, I’m not
quite sure but I can tell you that it is so hard that it gets, it’s very slippery for the kids. And so
that may be necessary to be chopped down and redone. Additionally, some type of re-grade for
3 and 6. Well all the fields at Lake Ann because with all the rain we had last year, we had swim
meets rather than baseball games, and whether they are, whether they are re-graded from the
mound out, or whatever the city thinks is necessary. Some better drainage really is necessary at
those fields. There are minor things that we can always get by, new spikes for base pads and
mounds. I know that from a softball standpoint, as the softballers use Lake Ann 1, they’ve got 2
spikes set up for pitching. They bring temporary, the temporary pitching rubber…
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Kelly: Is there a need for part of that money to go to installing those scoreboards or are you
taking care of all that?
Todd Neils: Absolutely not. We purchased the scoreboards out of the budget of the Chanhassen
Little League. The scoreboards when they came were not quite what we expected. Two of them
were damaged. And only one was in working condition. I think last year, I think it was May
you approved the donation of scoreboards, and it was going to go to City Council. Because we
received the scoreboards in such poor condition we felt we weren’t going to pursue it at that
time, so we’re looking for other alternatives for scoreboards. When we do receive them or find
that alternative, we definitely will be either coming back to you, if that’s necessary, or
approaching the City Council. I’m not quite sure what the path will be at that point, or the
necessary path. I suspect I’ll talk to Todd about that in the future. To offer our assistance in any
way to have those, to install those scoreboards.
Kelly: Thanks.
Stolar: Thanks. Any comments from commissioners? We’ll start with Steve. Any questions,
comments for staff. Thoughts.
Scharfenberg: Well part of what I think what we talked about in 2005 with the CIP and that with
that $60,000 was primarily for lighting. If I remember right. Wasn’t that right?
Hoffman: We pushed lighting out, athletic field lighting, 4 fields, $300,000 to 2008.
Scharfenberg: Oh okay.
Stolar: This was for ballfield improvements.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
11
Scharfenberg: Alright. I think the necessary thing is to kind of prioritize some of the things that
we want done and you know say here’s priority 1, 2, 3 and 4 and say, can we get those done
within the amount of money that we have. That’s I think what we need to do.
Stolar: And that’s something you would suggest the commission does tonight? Or at a later
meeting have this list kind of put together for us?
Scharfenberg: Yeah.
Stolar: Okay. Paula.
Atkins: The CAA would have to do that. Prioritize? Present us. I mean you listed 4 or 5 things
that you thought were most important but I don’t know if you listed them in order exactly.
Stolar: Or I guess one of the questions I have for the commission is, if we ask, if you could
submit that to Todd and then maybe at the next meeting we have your prioritized list based on
some input priorities also. Would that work for you all? Because that’d be easiest I think for us
is that if you can just mail your list with your priorities, and feel free to copy commissioners. I
don’t mind you sending it to us, but look to Todd and Jerry to take the different priorities, plus
things that maybe Dale or you guys have seen also, you know you didn’t get a chance to give the
input. That’s where you would give the input of things you’ve seen also.
Hoffman: Mr. Neils referred to it. Some of these items are not CIP items. They’re maintenance
items so we’ll differentiate between the two at our future recommendation.
Stolar: That’d be great because yeah, there might be a set of these that you say, look at. We’ll
deal with some of these in a different fashion this year. Here are the ones that belong in the CIP.
Great, thanks.
Kelly: Actually I have a question about the lacrosse. I just want to make sure that a well
maintained soccer field is good enough for lacrosse. There’s no additional needs that you need
on a lacrosse field other than just.
David Dines: As long as it’s 60 yards by 110 yards. Once in a while we need…we just need
more of them, that’s all.
Kelly: Yeah, the only thing I would request of the netting that we do around Bandimere is to
make sure it’s sufficient to stop lacrosse balls as well because those things, they go a lot faster
and they’re a lot easier to lose than soccer balls. And they hurt a lot more when they hit
somebody. I’ve been there so.
Murphy: I have to go along with the idea of having the CAA prioritize the needs that we have
because we heard a lot of them tonight so if you can have those prioritized.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
12
Stolar: And just for the record, since no one said on record, Chaska, Chan-Chaska Soccer Club
put their priorities on the handout that they gave us. As far as which field you feel should have
first, the netting so thank you.
Spizale: No additional comments.
Stolar: Okay, great. Anything that you guys would like to add?
Ruegemer: No. Just it’s exciting time for staff too to go through this process with the
associations and for some much needed improvements so just for the record too, District 112
baseball did send an e-mail to me today expressing regrets that they couldn’t be here tonight but
they fully would like to be involved in the process and look forward to that.
Stolar: Great. So should we target our February meeting? Is that sufficient time for you guys?
That’d be great. And then you know as always, we welcome comments and participation and
again appreciate your offers to be here, to help us as we do this process and also appreciate you
being here tonight. Thank you. To facilitate for our guests here, why don’t we move to the
lifeguard contract.
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING APPROVAL OF 2006 LAKE ANN LIFEGUARD
CONTRACT.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Stolar. The City does review the annual contract at Lake Ann
every year about this time if possible. The City of Chanhassen has had a long standing
relationship with Minnetonka Community Education and Services and that relationship dates
back to the 1970’s. It started as a handshake between, it was Jim Jones I believe and Don
Ashworth was back in the day so. They’ve had a presence at Lake Ann for a long time and the
City values that relationship. 2005 we did go through the process of having two different entities
bid for those services at Lake Ann. Minnetonka Community Education Services and also
Minnesota Safety Services. A new company that was formed by former employee of
Minnetonka. Went through that process last year. After much debate from the commission and
City Council, ultimately City Council did approve the contract for Minnetonka Community
Education and Services in 2005. Staff had a good working relationship with…Sarah Best,
representing Minnetonka Community Education Services last year. Everything seemed to go
just fine with the swimming lessons and also the day to day operations of the beach contract.
Staff asked Minnetonka Community to submit a contract for the 2006 beach season, as they did
and that’s attached for the commission’s viewing tonight. The contract amount came in at
$25,900, which is less than the 2005 contract in the amount of $1,655. Tim has looked at, Sarah
and Tim with Minnetonka have looked at the contract and kind of fine tuned it a little bit and are
going to be looking at things a little bit more efficiently this year. Doing some functions of the
contract and that was kind of the reasoning for the reduced price for this year. Same, it’s
essentially the same contract as the 2005 contract. That does include lifeguards 7 days a week,
from 10:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. at Lake Ann, from June 10th until August 20th, 2006. It is staff’s
recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the contract for Minnetonka Community Education and Services in the amount of $25,900 to
provide lifeguard services at Lake Ann beach for the 2006 season. This amount has been
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
13
budgeted in the Lake Ann Park operations budget again for 2006. That’s my recommendation
and the contract attached. Mr. Tim Litfin is also here from Minnetonka Community Education
Services tonight if the commission would have any questions for Tim.
Stolar: Tim, did you want to make a statement?
Tim Litfin: Thank you. Good evening and thank you for having me here tonight. My name’s
Tim Litfin. I’m the Community Education Director at Minnetonka and I’d like to first of all
begin by saying thank you for 2005. You put your trust and faith in Minnetonka Community
Education and we, I believe we delivered well. We trained, equipped and outfitted our staff to
provide for the City of Chanhassen on excellent service and I believe we did not only represent
ourselves and community education well, but ultimately you as the City of Chanhassen. And we
were proud to do that and we very much look forward to doing that again this year at 2006. The
bid is a little less than last year as Jerry mentioned. And that just goes to show that we’ve fine
tuned things. I’ve been on the job there for Community Ed Director now 16 months so we’ve
fine tuned a few things in our operations and some costs were shifted where they perhaps should
more likely be and not in the beach contract, and that is why it is reflected that way, and it will in
no way reflect less services. In fact last year we provided more services than what we said we
would. We over staffed on certain days, specifically on hot days and on July 4th we were there
with extra staff and we met the need at the beach for the lifeguard. As well as for the lessons.
We provided 104 people with lessons last year, 90 of which were city of Chanhassen residents.
So that’s about 87% of the beach lessons were given to city of Chanhassen residents. We were
also there for other services as well. Any time Jerry would have a need, we would try to help out
and I look forward to doing that again this year, 2006.
Stolar: Okay. Any questions for Tim?
Spizale: I don’t have any questions. It seems great the price is lowered. That’s all I got.
Stolar: Ann, anything?
Murphy: No.
Kelly: I’ve just got a question for Jerry, but not for Tim.
Atkins: Nothing.
Scharfenberg: No.
Stolar: Okay Tim, if you want to sit down. One may come up as we’re in discussion but thank
you.
Tim Litfin: Sure. Thanks for having me here tonight. Appreciate it.
Stolar: Tom, you have a question for Jerry.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
14
Kelly: I’m just curious, did you solicit Minnesota Safety Services for a bid as well?
Ruegemer: I did not this year.
Kelly: Okay. Can I ask, all I remember, I remember about the meeting last year was that, I think
we were impressed with both companies. I believe our concern with Minnesota Safety Services
was they were a brand new company and just didn’t know if they would stand the test of time.
And I’m just curious why you didn’t go back to them for, just to get a competitive bid. I
understand this one’s you know a 5% lower but just to get a second bid.
Ruegemer: I think really the main reason was really value of relationships. This is really, we
have a lot of relationships with the School District of Chaska. Looking at the Minnetonka
School District, we certainly value their expertise and that sort of thing from that. And it really
is our only connection or one of our limited connections to the Minnetonka School District.
Knowing that and with the history and our good relationship of them, that’s the reason why just
sought out one bid this year with Minnetonka.
Kelly: Alright.
Stolar: Other questions? Paula? No? Okay. Do we have a motion on the table to approve
staff’s recommendation?
Kelly: I move to approve staff’s recommendation.
Atkins: Second.
Stolar: Moved and seconded.
Kelly moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the contract for Minnetonka Community Education and Services
in the amount of $25,900 to provide lifeguard services at Lake Ann beach for the 2006
season. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Stolar: And Tim, thank you. Looking forward to working with you again.
Tim Litfin: We do as well.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY SIGNAGE – POWER HILL PARK SLIDING HILL.
Hoffman: Chair Stolar, members of the commission. Item number 5 has to deal with Power Hill
sledding hill, and implementation of safety signs or safety related signage. I’ll have to imagine if
you stepped out on Power Hill tonight it would be just about a single sheet of ice. Slipper with
moisture and probably quite dangerous if you approached the sledding activities in an unsafe
manner. This signage is an attempt to help educate the public. I think we, the City has to do due
diligence when people go to a public facility, if there is not signage there, they have some sort of
an expectation that this is a public facility operated by Park and Recreation Department and that
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
15
if there are hazardous situations associated with particular activities, that we should warn them.
Power Hill is a popular destination. For those of you who have been there, you know it’s 300
feet long. 50 feet down the hill. Stand at the top, you can’t see the bottom. It’s a fairly exciting
sliding hill. On nice weekends cars pack that parking lot up there. We’ve actually, if you’ve
seen it, it’s a parking lot in the summer and then cordoned off into a basketball court in the
winter. The area comes out and we have the basketball court as parking as well and so we try to
accommodate as much parking as we can in actually a fairly small neighborhood park area at that
location. You can see 50 to 100 sledders up there. There’s been some recent publicity, you saw
a young girl seriously injured here in a sledding accident and then that was up there on Sunday,
January 9th and witnessed a variety of injuries just in about an hour that I was sliding so it was,
those two things together prompted me to investigate the risks associated with sledding. If you
ever want to scare yourselves, and you probably…all you’ve got to do is do a search on the
internet about anything at risk and you can certainly find many reasons to be afraid of a
particular activity or not. And just the first search and found dozens of documents, most
incidents were attributed to collisions with fixed objections, collisions with people. Ice
conditions were talked about a lot increased the risk associated with sledding. Poorly
maintaining or broken equipment. And sledding head first or backward position and so in an
effort to educate the public I’ve proposed some wording and certainly an open to changing this
wording as the commission would see fit. But it would say Power Hill Sledding Hill and this
would be a sign or two posted at the top of the hill. Sledding is a hazardous activity and presents
substantial risk. Sled only during daylight hours. Park hours are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and we
do see people out there in the evening but again you can’t see who’s at the bottom of the hill, so
you’re liable to increase your risks substantially. At the top of the hill along the outside edge of
the sledding area. Some people just out of common courtesy but without some sort of sign there
to suggest this, many people don’t, and I’m not saying that all people will but at least it will be
recommended. Building ramps and jumps is prohibited, and again we see built many times. We
actually have our maintenance department recognize the risk associated with those as well so as
they have time they go out there and take those out because they do get fairly large and this is
how the young girl was making, going over one of these jumps. And then ice conditions
increase the risk associated with sledding. Our recommendation is that the park commission
approve this proposed Power Hill Sledding Hill signage. Make any changes and the direct staff
to order and post appropriate signs at the park. You all probably have some experience with this
so comments as you see appropriate.
Stolar: Any questions?
Scharfenberg: Well I was just thinking as you were reading that Todd that, would we want to
add something about in case of emergency call 911. Something that to effect. Just because some
people may, you know, may not know what to do. Or do we want to say anything, I’m thinking
in terms of like a beach you know, no attendant on duty. You know do you do this at your own
risk to some extent.
Hoffman: Yeah that’s a good one, and that was, if sledding, the Mayor actually read this today
just as we were sitting down and that was one of his recommendations as well. Make the people
know that they’re sledding at their own risk.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
16
Scharfenberg: Yeah. And my only other thing was, I know you had mentioned, is it Curry Hills
Farms that has sledding there. Would we want to post something there also?
Hoffman: We have a variety of locations. Nothing to the extreme nature of Power Hill.
Roughly the second steepest one is right here at Pond Park. Kerber Pond Park. Curry Farms.
They slide at Lake Ann. They slide and so I’m recommending at this point we sign only this
location and see if we should move into the other locations as well. There’s a lot of informal,
there’s a new one down on 101 by the, just where they put the new pond and the creek. They put
the big bank there so there’s a new sliding hill there. It’s actually not on public property but it’s
being used very heavily as well.
Stolar: Paula?
Atkins: These are guidelines I presume. You’re not going to try and enforce our stop people
from sledding at night.
Hoffman: Just an educational sign.
Atkins: Because I know a few kids who do that at night so. But prohibited, that’s a strong word
so that means if they do that, somebody can stop and tell them take that jump down or don’t
build that jump or we’re going to dismantle that jump, right?
Hoffman: Correct. And these jumps represent hazards to kids that are just not expecting, like
this young girl that got herself into trouble by going over one of those jumps.
Atkins: That’s all for me.
Stolar: I’m fine. I assume that someone from legal will look at the wording and all that also.
Hoffman: City attorney’s reviewed it. He’s comfortable with it.
Stolar: He’s comfortable with it?
Hoffman: Yeah. If I make modifications, we’ll submit it to them again.
Stolar: Okay. Yeah I just, I’m fine with the sledding is a hazardous activity and presents
substantial risk. Just seems rather strong.
Hoffman: It wasn’t, it’s no…the signage that I reviewed. There were many of them mentioned
that severe injury.
Stolar: I was thinking sledding can be a hazardous activity and presents substantial risk.
Because if we’re done correctly by following these guidelines, it may not be. So I’m just trying
to sugar coat it a little bit.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
17
Hoffman: All the doctors quoted said, how can it not be dangerous when you’re letting your kids
go down on an icy hill at 30 miles an hour without a helmet. It’s dangerous. So the doctors were
all pretty convinced that it was a hazardous activity.
Stolar: Was this injury, did that, that didn’t occur here?
Hoffman: It was.
Scharfenberg: Are you talking about the one, the high school?
Hoffman: Yeah.
Scharfenberg: That was north…
Murphy: I don’t know if you’ve been to Power Hill, I don’t think the language is strong enough.
Stolar: I’m not big on, just a suggestion. You choose. I’m fine with what you have.
Murphy: The only thing I would say is that return to top of hill along edges. If that could be
like maybe moved up because what happens is people don’t go to the edges so people are
coming down as they’re walking up. I’m just amazed that somebody hasn’t gotten seriously
hurt, because you have little kids walking straight up the middle of the hill and people just
coming right down.
Hoffman: So just move it farther up the list?
Murphy: I would say, yeah. That’s the big problem with Power Hill is people don’t go the
edges to go back up the hill.
Stolar: I guess we need a motion then on this. Do we have a motion to approve the
recommendation?
Murphy: Motion to approve the recommendation.
Scharfenberg: Second.
Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommends approval of the proposed Power Hill Sledding Hill signage and direct staff to
order and post an appropriate number of the signs at the park. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Stolar: We have to jump back to number 1. Chair, Vice Chair.
APPOINTMENT OF 2006 CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON.
Stolar: Nominations. Anyone interested? Or nominating.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
18
Spizale: I nominate Glenn because I think he did a great job this year. You got it down.
Stolar: Thank you. Well what I told Todd was, if someone wishes to be Chair, I don’t mind at
all sharing it. Relinquishing it. Whatever you call it, but it is fun. So if someone wants it, please
don’t hesitate, but if no one wants it, I absolutely would enjoy continuing but I do want to share
the opportunity so anyone interested? No? Steve? Okay, should we elect Kevin while he’s
gone?
Hoffman: Wouldn’t he be surprised.
Stolar: No one else? Alright. Do we want to take a vote or not? Okay. Okay, what about vice
chair.
Hoffman: Vote on the package.
Spizale: I nominate Ann. You’d enjoy that.
Kelly: Who’s up? Does anyone expire this year? Their term expire this year?
Hoffman: Ann expires and Kevin Dillon. And they have to re-apply if they choose to re-apply.
Stolar: Are you going to re-apply?
Murphy: I don’t know the answer to that right now. I haven’t made up my mind. Therefore I
don’t think I should be in the running for Vice Chair.
Spizale: How about Steve?
Stolar: You’ve been sitting on the end for a number of years.
Spizale: I nominate Steve then.
Stolar: Tom, you interested in having a little contest? Alright. Shall we approve the
nominations I guess. Well you actually have to.
Kelly: I move to approve Glenn Stolar as Chairman and Steve as Vice Chairman.
Atkins: I second that.
Kelly moved, Atkins seconded to appoint Glenn Stolar as Chairman and Steve
Scharfenberg as Vice Chairman for 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
RECREATION PROGRAMS: 2006 FEBRUARY FESTIVAL.
Stolar: Nate, welcome. You can, since Tom wasn’t here you can talk about Feb Fest again.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
19
Rosa: Alright. Well thank you Chair Stolar and commissioners. Sorry for going on before a
little bit there earlier but we’re back on track now. With the Feb Fest coming up on January, or
I’m sorry, February 4th, 2006, it’s going to be a similar set up to last year. Information brochures
have been sent out as you read here. Past anglers have received that in the mail. Throughout the
community we have put out registration forms such as this that they can apply to or they can
purchase tickets at various businesses throughout the area too, or at City Hall and the Rec Center.
Again we have over $6,500 I prizes donated from throughout the city and those are outlined,
companies within the area, which has been very great. We actually were at one point decided do
we turn them away but we said, no. We’re going to take them, but again they showed a
tremendous showing in giving us prizes for that. Also with that, the event again is going to start
at noon and that’s going to include the sliding, the concessions, the bonfire, the s’mores, the open
skating, medallion hunt again with clues are going to be starting to hand out next week from
Friends of the Library. And then bingo. And then the actual fishing contest will be from 1:00 to
3:00, as it was last year. Tickets again are $5.00. All the contest rules have been mailed out.
We’ll have numerous contest rules there of the day. In relation to the ice, we did measure it on
Friday. We’re at 12 inches closer to shore and about 7 to 8 inches a little farther out so we’re
good on ice right now. We do ask that it be noted to everyone that no vehicles will be driven out
onto the ice, just for safety precautions on that. And at this time I would like to solicit the
commission to help volunteer at such event. I have this lovely form here that anyone can feel
free to sign up on there.
Stolar: Do you want to pass that around? Do we have an emcee this year?
Rosa: We do have an emcee. Fred Berg has agreed to do it again.
Stolar: Two years ago I had to do it by default.
Hoffman: And you did a great job.
Stolar: Thank you.
Ruegemer: Fred’s looking forward to it.
Stolar: Yeah, he’s good. It was fun. Great. Any questions for Nate?
Spizale: Are tickets being sold on the ice too?
Rosa: Tickets will be sold at the day of the event, correct.
Spizale: That’s the only question I’ve got.
Atkins: So is the ice strong enough to hold like the figure skating section like we’ve had in the
past?
Hoffman: Yep.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
20
Rosa: Right now it is. We do have some 40 degree weather coming up this week so we’re
crossing our fingers that the weather man is incorrect like he was last time, which was nice for us
so. But with this cold snap that we have over the weekend, we probably built up 1 or 2 more
inches on top of the 12 and 7 that we had measured on Friday, and we’ve been there on a
consistent basis once a week so.
Kelly: What’s the threshold, I’m sorry. In terms of safety. I mean is it 2, 3, 4? I guess what
level would you call off the ice fishing contest?
Hoffman: Well, we’re not going to lose any more ice and so, as long as we don’t get a 12 inch
snowfall on top of that, that would be the problem. And you know if you put 12 inches of wet
snow pack on top of that 7 inches of ice, you’re going to have more weight there then you would
ever imagine having with 1,000 people on the ice. And so that’s the limiting factor. If we get a
big snowstorm, it pushes the ice down. All the slush and water comes up. Then we would have
a, mainly just a real wet situation. The ice should be safe for the contest no matter what. It just
depends on how wet it gets with the additional weight of snow on top.
Atkins: I seem to remember it being very wet, maybe on Lake Susan like 6 inches of water.
Ruegemer: Lake Ann last year was.
Stolar: We had that big puddle right there by the Lion’s food sale.
Hoffman: And in the past it has been slushy out there.
Stolar: Any other questions? Thanks.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE 2006 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION BAND
CONTRACT.
Ruegemer: Thanks Chair Stolar. The City of Chanhassen again was very pleased with the
performance last year of CBO. They really do pack and retain our…they’re high energy and we
think that we would be remiss on not recommending them again here for next year. It is staff’s
recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission recommend approval to the City Council
for the contract for CBO in the amount of $4,500. The performance will take place on Monday,
July 3rd, 2006 from 7:00 to 11:00 p.m. at City Center Park. The cost for the entertainment has
been included in the 1600 recreation program budget of the 2006 budget. And that is $400 lower
than last year as well.
Hoffman: That’s why I came to this meeting.
Spizale: Boy everybody’s coming in lower.
Ruegemer: The right person just has to do the talking. I can’t take all the credit.
Stolar: Any questions?
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
21
Spizale: I think they’re fantastic band but every year I’m always suspicious of this Hoffman
Talent. Other than that.
Stolar: Have we done any research into that?
Scharfenberg: Jerry, could you check that out?
Ruegemer: Yes, it’s Todd’s vacation fund.
Hoffman: I sign a waiver every year. No conflict.
Stolar: Do we have a motion to approve?
Scharfenberg: Move to approve staff’s recommendation for, to accept the contract with CBO for
the 4th of July.
Kelly: Second.
Scharfenberg moved, Kelly seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the contract for CBO in the amount of $4,500.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Hoffman: If the band really was a dog, Jack then you’d have an argument there.
SELF-SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 3-ON-3 ADULT BASKETBALL LEAGUE.
Ruegemer: We did start Monday, January 9th. We have 14 teams this year in that league. Are
you playing this year?
Kelly: I’m not playing this year, no. No, I’m not playing. It got to be a little too much there.
By at least 10 years I think.
Ruegemer: So we did split it into an 8 team division and a 14 team division out there. Had some
feedback from people enjoyed kind of how I placed the teams this year so it kind of, based on
kind of talent level and that sort of thing so I think people are having a good time. And we’ll
play til the 20th of February and we’ll have a post season tournament after that. So it’s pretty
much in cruise control right now for that league. It’s a 3 on 3 league. You’ve got format, no
officials. Everybody calls their own fouls. It really, it’s a good competitive league but people
have fun with it too so. We really don’t have any problems with it, knock on wood. If I could
do 5 on 5, people just never had fun so. It’s been a good revenue source for us as well.
Stolar: Great. Any questions? Okay.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET:
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
22
Kelly: I just wanted to know if the commission wants to talk a little bit about what they’ve been
seeing at the ice rinks.
Stolar: We can do that.
Kelly: With the exception of my, it must have been an aberration when I saw 14 people at, I
counted twice. Besides that, I think personally because I’ve actually gone two times since and
I’ve been somewhat disappointed in the numbers and actually kind of surprised given how many
residents were here this fall to see just you know 1, 2, 3 skaters there so I mean I’ve gone two
times since and I think I’ve seen at most 3 people at one rink and just a bunch of goose eggs at
the others so I don’t know what all the other commissioners. I’ve actually walked on the ice and
tried to look at you know the ice itself to see if there’s any skate marks out there, and it’s pretty
smooth. I don’t what other commissioners have been thinking as they’ve been doing their kind
of inspections.
Stolar: I think it’s very difficult to tell. When I went the first time, Chanhassen Hills Park I
could see there was skating there and even saw a puck out there that someone had left, so I know
it was used. And Rice Marsh Lake was just covered with skate marks. Just absolutely covered,
but then we got the warm weather around Christmas and I think the second day I went, I think
what was the first day I went was the Friday and then Saturday, they were just, I mean they were
wet. There was water on them, so it was quite a change. But in fact I talked to some people at
Rice Marsh Lake and, although it says Thursday 10:00 a.m. that they weren’t on there, that
Thursday night before Christmas, they had a party out there, so that’s why it was all tracked. A
bunch of people had gone out there, so it’s probably an occasional draw is what I’m suspecting
but not necessarily a constant use like some of the other, the city rinks are. I don’t know what
others have seen.
Atkins: I sent my results in for Monday the 16th. Jerry, did you not get them in time?
Ruegemer: …before we went to print part of that possibly. But we can fill those numbers
involved.
Hoffman: Remember what they were Paula?
Atkins: Zero, zero, zero. And I went and checked them on site on the 30th too but I didn’t
realize they were closed. That was when we got the snow, but I still went.
Stolar: And Dale what have you seen, and what has your crew seen?
Gregory: It’s really varying. Some days we’ll see skating on it and that and some days, there’s
absolutely nothing and that. We’ve kind of got it marked down on the schedule, but I agree with
you. It seems like you might have a group on some evening and that and then you might not see
anybody for 2-3 days on a rink.
Stolar: That’s what it’s seeming to be.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
23
Gregory: It’s been a bad year with the cold and everything else and it’s been tough to do it this
year.
Hoffman: The main rinks have been seeing pretty good, it looks like they’re being used.
Stolar: I’ve noticed when I come home, I can pass, you see the parking lot and there’s quite a
few and I’m assuming they’re using the rinks and not the playground or things like that, but you
can hear…so it seems like the main rinks are getting good use.
Hoffman: Jerry can comment on it more. He’s got the statistics from the rink attendants.
Rosa: I’d like it to be noted that I did receive a phone call from one of our residents about
Chanhassen Hills. She’s very impressed with it that there is a rink out there and she’s used it
numerous times herself. So probably when no one’s out there looking but I did receive a phone
call about that.
Stolar: Oh good. That’s good. Thanks Nate. Appreciate that.
Scharfenberg: You do have to turn that light on at Chanhassen Hills rink to use it?
Hoffman: No. It comes on.
Scharfenberg: Oh, it comes on automatically? Okay.
Stolar: Well it is interesting, if you look here that there, each of them have had a time where
there’s been use, so that’s you know, it’s not unused. But we’ll have to make some better
judgments at the end of the year. Alright, any other comments on that?
Murphy: I had my numbers from the 22nd. It was 3 for Chanhassen Hills and then 0, I didn’t see
anybody at the other two.
Hoffman: Did you talk with any of the neighbors during your visits? Nobody around?
Stolar: I talked with them after, some of the people I know who live there. I talked with them
afterwards and they had mentioned about that, you know they get groups together and go there
occasionally.
Scharfenberg: I was waiting for some mom to make a phone call that there was a peeping Tom
in the neighborhood or something like that so.
Hoffman: No calls.
Stolar: You do get some stares though when you park over by that Pheasant Hills Park. They
aren’t used to people parking right there on the street. Okay, thanks.
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
24
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS.
Stolar: Just real quick updates, the Surface Water Management Task Force. We’re going to be
wrapping that up on the February meeting. It’s been an interesting time. You know Todd
mentioned about the fields at Lake Ann, but again I think I mentioned to this group, we had two
100 year rain events this year, so yes. We’re going to have flooding on fields. It just happens to
happen that way, but the interesting thing I think that this group might be interested in is the, as
part of this process we’re prioritizing water bodies and saying you know, you can have different
level of improvement plans and developments attention to these different bodies, and again this
is all proposed because the City Council would have to agree to it, plus you have 4, 3 watershed
districts and a county and I think one other agency all have to review this from what we
recommend, and then it goes to the City Council so there’s quite a few different ones. We’ll
review our final draft on the 15th of February, but Seminary Fen and, what’s the name of the
creek? Assumption Creek, are all going to be labeled as pristine water bodies. Meaning the
strictest code should be involved in any development around there, which is really nice to
separate those out. And then it actually after that we had a little bit of debate because it was
focused more on what bodies need improvement, water bodies need improvement and that’s
Riley Creek, because of the flow I think was one of those issues, and Lotus Lake because with
these 100 year flood events it brought the, to light some erosion issues and things along those
lines. But overall the quality of the water of the recreational lakes were pretty good. It was
actually very good so that, you know in classifying them to manage these, let’s keep the quality
that we can. So I thought that was a pretty good approach that Lori and Don put together. With
the consultants that we used.
Hoffman: A variety of staff members are currently reading the draft document. Proof reading
the document for content so.
Stolar: Are you one of those?
Hoffman: (Yes).
Stolar: Any thoughts or updates?
Hoffman: Briefed it all today and just haven’t gotten down to the details so I really didn’t…
Stolar: And did they give you the wetland one also, which was a little, there’s a separate
initiative regarding wetlands that feeds in and we tried to coordinate the two, but they are two
different initiatives between the surface water and the wetland. But I thought Lori did a great job
and the consultants in bringing that together.
Hoffman: It’s a great map too.
Stolar: Oh yeah the map. I should bring one of those in. Because they’re showing the different
water bodies and they had 8 or 9 different maps. Also showing how we were doing road
improvement projects and how we can try and use those activities to put in better surface water
Park and Rec Commission – January 24, 2006
25
management approaches and practices so. Any questions on that? Great. Do I have a motion
for adjournment?
Ruegemer: Before we do that Chair Stolar. Larry is here. I think he’d like to make a couple
comments on the, regarding the youth association.
Stolar: Oh yeah, I’m sorry.
Larry Doran: My name’s Larry Doran. I live in Chaska. The last 4 years I was President of
Lacrosse Association, not past President and prior to that field coordinator with both the soccer
clubs. One, I’d like to thank Todd and Jerry for the 10 or so years I’ve been involved with them.
They’ve done a great job. Chan really does have from a community point of view, the nicest
facilities for bringing groups in from other areas. Maple Grove, Plymouth and that, they’re all
envious of the soccer facilities and now it’s being used for lacrosse off and on. So I salute you
guys and your park and rec group, they do a great job. Guys and ladies that are maintaining the
stuff. Got the letter from Jerry and Todd. I appreciate that. Todd, that was nice adding my
name…Mr. Doran letter, that was a nice touch. I appreciate that. That goes a long way.
Lacrosse is a growing sport in the area. Now the girls has gone varsity at the high school level.
Boys is still being club. There’s roughly 63 boys now, so it’s a growth of almost double of last
year. Last year was 40 boys. Now it’s 63. The biggest thing they need really is space and the
nets. I know the city has done the last couple years made some nets and put some out and that’s
really the biggest thing. The youth level is just getting developed so you’re going to start seeing
leagues or request for fields for leagues in the next few years. I know right now we’re using
Carver and a little bit in Chaska but the club was set up similar to the soccer club in which it
mirrors District 112 instead of being in these little pockets. It creates one club versus several
clubs all vying for the same spot. So I think in response to the letter with the monies that have
become available, if you can look for some nets for the lacrosse program. I would also, I believe
Tom Nygaard mentioned about netting behind the nets at Bandimere’s probably 1 and 2. Having
been involved in that, I think that’s a good use of the money. Keeping balls from rolling down
the hill over into the retention pond so I think if you can prioritize the money that way, that
would work out real well so. I thank you for your time and I thank you for the support of the
youth programs in the area. It really is a great facility you guys run here with the different parks
so thank you.
Stolar: Thanks Larry. Do you have any questions for Larry? Thank you. Anything else from
commission members? Motion for adjournment?
Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director
DATE: February 2, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 18 Concerning Parkland
Dedication Requirements
As vacant lands continue to be developed across the city, more and more
properties with existing homes or buildings are being “redeveloped” through the
subdivision process.
The dedication of parkland, or payment of park fees in lieu of land dedication, is
a part of the subdivision process. This amendment is intended to clarify
Section 18-79(d) dealing with changes in density of plats or the redevelopment
of existing parcels. Specifically, that all new lots or redeveloped lots created
through the subdivision process shall be subject to parkland dedication
requirements unless they have previously satisfied this requirement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached ordinance
amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning parkland
dedication requirements. Approval of this amendment requires a simple
majority vote of those City Council members present.
ATTACHMENT
1. City Code Amendment
120966v02
RNK:r10/13/2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING
PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 18-79(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(d) Changes in density of plats shall be reviewed by the park and recreation
committee for reconsideration of park dedication and cash contribution
requirements. If the property being subdivided was previously subdivided, a credit
will be given for similar requirements satisfied in conjunction with the previous
subdivision. Requirements will be calculated based upon the increase in the
population calculation and any change from residential to non-residential or non-
residential to residential.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2005, by the City Council
of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________________
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ________________, 2005).
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Public Works Director/City Engineer
FROM: Harold Brose, Equipment Superintendent
DATE: February 13, 2006
SUBJECT: Purchase of 2006 CIP Vehicles
REQUESTED ACTION
Authorize purchase of vehicles.
DISCUSSION
Annually, the City considers replacement of vehicles that have reached their
average life expectancy and are showing signs of needing major maintenance. It
has been the City’s practice to replace these vehicles before major repairs are
required. All of these vehicles are used regularly and have to be reliable to
maintain appropriate City services. Vehicles to be replaced are showing signs of
wear and it is appropriate to replace these vehicles to present a good image to the
public.
DISCUSSION/JUSTIFICATION
One dump/plow truck, two pickups, and an asphalt roll packer are scheduled for
replacement this year.
1. STREET DEPARTMENT – DUMP/PLOW TRUCK
The 1994 Ford LT 9000 #119 tandem dump truck to be replaced is 12 years old
and has 90,000 miles. This vehicle is used for snowplowing, sanding, hauling fill,
hauling salt and sand for stockpiling, black topping, hauling material in and out
from water main breaks and black dirt. The dump box on this truck is rusted
beyond reasonable repair. The rear corner posts which are the main support for
the sides and tailgate have actual holes in them. The box on the new truck will be
constructed with stainless steel which will not corrode like steel and will not need
to be painted. A sandblast and paint repair lasts about five years and costs $1,500
each time. This will result in a substantial savings in upkeep repairs. If the
engine would fail in this unit in the near future with the age and higher miles, we
would be looking at a $12,000 to $15,000 overhaul and a $6,000 to $8,000
overhaul of the transmission. The estimated re-sale value of this truck is $10,000
to $15,000.
Paul Oehme
Purchase 2006 CIP Vehicles
February 13, 2006
Page 2
2. PARK DEPARTMENT – PICKUP WITH PLOW
The 1991 Ford Pickup #420 has 118,000 miles and has severe rust. This vehicle
with its high miles and 16 years of use would have a high potential of needing an
engine replacement at $3,000 or transmission overhaul at $1,500 in the near
future. Estimated resale of this pickup is $1,500. The new pickup will be used
for towing mowers and the bobcat, plowing trails, parking lots, and day to day
park maintenance.
3. UTILITY DEPARTMENT - PICKUP
The 1989 Ford Pickup #421 to be replaced has 60,000 miles with visible
corrosion. With 17 years of use, this vehicle is no longer reliable and could
possibly need engine or transmission replacement at any time which could total
$5,000. Estimated value of this pickup is $1,500. The new pickup will be used
by the Utility Department daily for utility calls, maintenance and checks on wells
and lift stations. This vehicle needs to be reliable to respond to emergency calls
24 hours per day.
4. STREET DEPARTMENT - VIBRATORY ROLL PACKER
Replace the 1987 Rosco Vibratory Compactor. The drive and vibratory systems
are in poor condition on this unit after 19 years. This packer is used for both
patching blacktop and overlays with the self-propelled paver. The packer needs
to be a reliable piece of equipment to assure being able to compact asphalt as it is
being spread at the right temperature before it hardens. The old packer has an
estimated value of $500 to $1,000.
BIDS AND QUOTES
The following chassis quotes have been received from State bids for the purchase
of one dump truck chassis with box and plow equipment, two pickups, and an
asphalt vibratory packer.
1. STREET DEPARTMENT – DUMP/PLOW TRUCK
Boyer Trucks: 2006 Sterling
LT 9500 Tandem Chassis $ 90,561.21
J-Craft Truck Equipment: dump
body with hydraulics, plow, wing, sander 71,534.99
$162,096.20
Paul Oehme
Purchase 2006 CIP Vehicles
February 13, 2006
Page 3
2. PARK DEPARTMENT – PICKUP TRUCK WITH PLOW
Thane Hawkins Polar Chev: 2006
Chevrolet 2500 HD, 4x4 pickup $ 21,071.56
Aspen Equipment: New Western
Model UTP 8.5’ Snowplow 4,717.95
$ 25,789.51
3. UTILITY DEPARTMENT – PICKUP TRUCK
Thane Hawkins Polar Chev: 2006
Chevrolet 2500 HD, 4x4 pickup $ 23,097.72
4. STREET DEPARTMENT - VIBRATORY ROLL PACKER
Ziegler Inc.: 2006 Model CB-225E
Asphalt Compactor $ 38,441.18
TOTAL $249,424.61
The budgeted amount in the 2006 CIP for these four vehicles is $276,000. The
actual cost of the four units is just under $250,000. Tool boxes and strobe lights
will need to be purchased for the two pickups at a cost of approximately $2,500.
SUMMARY
The City’s fleet continues to go past the normal replacement age of ten years for
most vehicles. It is important to replace these units at this time that are 12-19
years old.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the bids for the purchase of these
vehicles.
Attachment
g:\eng\cip\equipment\authorize vehicle doc 2006.doc
p:\pw_users\haroldb\correspondence\authorize vehicle doc 2006.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January 20, 2006
RE: Southwest Metro Joint Powers Amendment
BACKGROUND
Staff has been approached by Southwest Metro Transit to amend the joint powers
agreement in light of recent court actions regarding liability exposure of parties
included in joint powers agreements. Basically, the court ruled that non-negligent
members of a joint powers agreement can be held liable for the acts of the
negligent member. This “Agreement to Limit Indemnification” and “First
Amendment to Third Restated Joint Powers Agreement” has been drafted to limit
the exposure of non-negligent parties in the event that a partner city is liable to a
third party. The City Attorney has reviewed these agreements, and is satisfied
with their form and intent.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached
“Agreement to Limit Indemnification” and “First Amendment to Third Restated
Joint Powers Agreement”. Approval of this action requires a majority vote of the
city council.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January 25, 2006
RE: Call for Public Hearing – Sand Companies Affordable Housing
TIF District
BACKGROUND
The Sand Companies have begun the site plan review process for their 48-unit
apartment building to be located at the corner of new Highway 212 and the
relocated Highway 101. This is going to be an affordable housing project, and
they have received tax credits through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
As part of their tax credit application, the City provided a letter of support
indicating that the use of Tax Increment Financing may be available to help make
this project affordable.
In order to begin the process of creating a Tax Increment Financing district, the
City Council must call for a public hearing on the project.
A full schedule of events is attached to this report. The entire process should be
completed by April 30, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for a public hearing to be held on
April 10, 2006 on the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District
#9. Approval of this action requires a majority vote of the city council.
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 9
(a housing district)
Draft as of November 18, 2005
January 23, 2006 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing on the proposed
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen
Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 9.
February 3, 2006 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, fiscal impacts to public
works and police and fire services, and list of sources and uses of funds) for
drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers & Associates.
February 13, 2006 City Council calls for public hearing on the proposed Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area
and the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 9.
February 15, 2006 Ehlers & Associates confirms with the City whether building permits have been
issued on the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 9.
February 24, 2006* Project information submitted to the Carver County Board for review of county
road impacts if necessary* (at least 45 days prior to public hearing). *The
County Board, by law, has 45 days to review the TIF Plan to determine if any
county roads will be impacted by the development. If the City staff believes that
proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 will not require unplanned
county road improvements, the TIF Plan will not be forwarded to the Carver
County Board 45 days prior to the public hearing. Please be aware that the
Carver County Board could claim that tax increment should be used for county
roads, even after the public hearing. [Ehlers & Associates will fax and mail on
February 23 or 24, 2006.]
February 28, 2006 Letter received by Carver County Commissioner giving notice of potential
housing tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to publication of
public hearing notice.) [Ehlers & Associates will fax and mail on February 24 or
27, 2006.]
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 9
(a housing district)
March 10, 2006 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and Carver County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will fax
& mail on March 8 or 9, 2006.]
March 30, 2006 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than
30 days prior to hearing). [Chanhassen Villager publication deadline, March 23,
2006 – Ehlers & Associates or City of Chanhassen to submit notice and map to
newspaper. If City chooses to submit notice and map to newspaper, Ehlers &
Associates will provide language to the City by March 21, 2005.]
March 21, 2006 Planning Commission reviews the Plans.
March 22, 2006 Ehlers & Associates conducts internal review of Plans.
April 10, 2006 EDA considers the Plans and adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
April 10, 2006 City Council holds public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area
and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 and passes
resolution approving the Plans. [Ehlers & Associates will email Council packet
information to the City by March 31, 2006.]
By April 30, 2006 Ehlers & Associates files plans with the MN Department of Revenue and the
Office of the State Auditor, and requests certification of the TIF District with
Carver County.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January 20, 2006
RE: Legal Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson, P.A.
BACKGROUND
Attached to this report is a proposed agreement for legal services with Campbell
Knutson, P.A. The agreement calls for Campbell Knutson to handle all civil and
prosecution legal services for the City of Chanhassen. The hourly rate for civil
services is increasing 3% over 2005 rates, while the prosecution rates are
increasing 10%. Staff has reviewed these rates with the city attorney and is
comfortable with the agreement. These new rates will fit within the adopted 2006
legal services budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached
Agreement for Legal Services with Campbell Knutson, P.A. Approval of this
item requires a majority vote of the city council.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January 25, 2006
RE: Carver County Hazard Mitigation Plan
BACKGROUND
For the past few years, Carver County, through their Office of Risk/Emergency
Management, has been developing a hazard mitigation plan. Once adopted by all
Carver County cities, this plan will become the official hazard mitigation plan for
the entire county. This plan will benefit communities by reducing conflicts
between individual community plans as well as providing for eligibility to receive
mitigation funding as a result of presidential disaster declarations.
In order for this plan to receive approval from FEMA, they are requesting that
each participating community indicate that they are planning to adopt the final
plan as their community plan. The attached resolution indicates our support for
this project, which will assist Carver County in gaining FEMA approval.
Once the plan has been approved by FEMA, Carver County will be requesting
that the city pass another resolution indicating our final adoption of the approved
plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached
“resolution to participate in a hazard mitigation planning process”. Approval of
this item requires a majority vote of the city council.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: RESOLUTION NO: 2005-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A HAZARD MITIGATION
PLANNING PROCESS
WHEREAS, the County of Carver is participating in a hazard mitigation planning process as
established under the Hazard Mitigation Act of 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Act establishes a framework for the development of a county hazard mitigation
plan; and
WHEREAS, the Act as part of the planning process requires public involvement and local
coordination among neighboring local units of government and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the plan must include a risk assessment including past hazards, hazards that
threaten the county, maps of hazards, an estimate of structures at risk, estimate of potential dollar losses
for each hazard, a general description of land uses and development trends; and
WHEREAS, the plan must include a mitigation strategy including goals and objectives and an
action plan identifying specific mitigation projects and costs; and
WHEREAS, the plan must include a maintenance or implementation process including plan
updates, integration of plan into other planning documents and how the county will maintain public
participation and coordination; and
WHEREAS, the draft plan will be shared with Minnesota Planning for coordination of state
agency review and comment on the draft; and
WHEREAS, this resolution does not preclude the city or township from preparing its own plan
sometime in the future should it desire to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that City of Chanhassen supports the Carver
County hazard mitigation planning effort, wishes to join with the County in preparing the plan and
recognizes that the plan will apply within the city and township.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this ____ day of February, 2005.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Stonebridge Wireless Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January 31, 2006
RE: Water Tower Lease Agreement - Stonebridge Wireless Internet
BACKGROUND
Staff has been approached by Stonebridge Wireless, Inc. regarding a proposal to
provide wireless internet services to commercial and industrial locations within
Chanhassen. They provide this service in other metro cities (Burnsville, Blaine,
etc.) and would like to duplicate their efforts in Chanhassen. While their current
business model is to provide wireless internet services to business/industrial users,
they are currently in the process of testing a residential model, and could be
providing this service to Chanhassen in the near future.
Highlights of the agreement include:
· The first term of the lease runs from April 1, 2006 – December 31, 2009.
· After the initial term, the lease may be extended by five year terms, not to
exceed a total of 20 years.
· Rent shall be in the form of 5% gross revenues derived from subscriptions
originating from this site.
· The City shall receive two free subscriptions for use at our discretion.
One of the subscriptions is planned to be used at the Chanhassen Library
so that their users can enjoy wireless internet throughout the building.
· Utilities and taxes associated with the improvements on the site will be
paid for by the tenant.
· Supporting equipment will be housed inside the tower, so no external
noises are expected.
This agreement has been reviewed by the city attorney and he finds it to be
acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached Water
Tower Lease Agreement with Stonebridge Wireless, Inc. for the purposes of
providing wireless internet services within the city. Approval of this item
requires a majority vote of the city council.
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN
WATER TOWER LEASE AGREEMENT
This Tower Lease Agreement ("Lease") is entered into this day of , _____, by and
between the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, ("Landlord")
and Stonebridge Wireless, Inc., ("Tenant"), whose address is 9719 Valley View Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344.
In consideration of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Premises
Landlord is the owner of a parcel of land (the "Land") and a water tower (the "Tower") located in the
City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota more commonly known as the 76th Street
Water Tower (the Tower and Land are collectively, the "Property"). The Land is more particularly
described in Exhibit A annexed hereto. Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from
Landlord, approximately < 1% of the Land and space on the Tower and all access and utility
easements, if any (collectively, the "Premises") as described in Exhibit B annexed hereto.
2. Term/Renewals
The term shall commence on April 1, 2006 (with said date hereinafter referred to as "Commencement
Date") and end December 31, 2009. This Lease will automatically renew according to the terms and
conditions herein for four (4) successive five (5) year renewal terms unless Tenant notifies Landlord at
least sixty (60) days prior to expiration of its intention not to renew the Lease. Landlord may deny
renewal of this Lease at its sole discretion by written notification of its intention not to renew the Lease
at any time at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the second renewal term or any
subsequent renewal term.
3. Rent
a. Tenant shall pay Landlord for use of Landlord's property a fee equal to five percent (5%) of
gross revenues derived from the operation of subscriber equipment associated with Landlord's
property used by Tenant. Services originating from the Landlord’s property as a transmit or as
a receive signal to a subscriber, regardless of the Tenant's subscriber's actual location, are
subject to the fee. Tenant shall pay Fee no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar
quarter. In the event payment is not paid within the required time, Tenant shall also pay
interest in the amount of ten percent (10%) compounded annually until paid in full for the
previous quarter. If at any time, Tenant ceases operations, either temporarily or permanently,
tenant shall be responsible to pay all unpaid Fees within 30 days after the end of the quarter in
which Tenant's operation was halted or ended.
b. Tenant shall keep accurate books and records of its accounts, relative to the Landlord's Lease
arrangement, which are accessible by the Landlord at any time during regular business hours
on ten (10) days prior written notice. Landlord may audit the books from time to time at
Landlord's sole expense, but in each case only to the extent necessary to confirm the accuracy
of payments. In the event that the location of the Tenant's books and records are not easily
accessible to the Landlord, then Tenant shall provide the relative portions of its books and
records as reasonably necessary for Landlord to confirm the accuracy of any payments due.
Should an audit performed pursuant to this paragraph disclose an underpayment of amounts
due under this Agreement, then Tenant shall reimburse the Landlord for the costs of the audit,
in addition, to paying the Landlord the amount of the underpayment, plus interest of ten per-
cent (10%) compounded annually forward from period of underpayment to when
underpayment is completely reconciled with Landlord.
2
c. In addition to Tenant's payment of Fee, Landlord shall have the right throughout the term of
this Agreement to have free use of all and any equipment necessary to receive up to two (2)
subscription services or aggregate bandwidth of 3Mbps per tower location. Location of the
free subscription services shall be solely determined at the discretion of the Landlord, and
location may be changed at the discretion of the Landlord upon thirty (30) days notice to
Tenant. Any expense associated with installation of Tenant's equipment to receive such free
services shall be borne by the Tenant. The services shall be provided through the life of this
agreement. The number of services can be negotiated when the lease is renewed every five
(5) years.
d. If this Lease is terminated at any time, service will end with the termination with thirty (30) days
notice. Tenant may not add additional equipment and/or antennas from that shown on the
Site Plan attached as Exhibit B without the approval of the Landlord.
4. Use
Tenant may use the Premises for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating a wireless
communications facility between 710-746 MHz and 5.250 – 5.825, 18 GHz frequencies, and for the
storage of related equipment in accordance with the terms of this Lease. Tenant's use shall consist of
antennae on the side and/or top of the Tower, along with cables and building as may be provided in the
Site Plan attached as Exhibit B. Tenant may erect and operate 12 panel antennae on the side of the
Tower. Tenant shall use the property in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and
regulations. Landlord agrees to reasonably cooperate with Tenant in obtaining, at Tenant's expense,
including Landlord's reasonable attorney and administrative fees, any licenses and permits required for
Tenant's use of the property.
5. Building Construction Standards
Landlord may request Tenant’s antennae and identified facilities specified in Exhibit B, be painted, at
Tenant's expense, the same color as the Tower.
6. Installation of Equipment and Leasehold Improvements
a. Tenant has the right to erect, maintain and operate on the Premises radio communications
facilities, including without limitation utility lines, transmission lines, air conditioned equipment
shelter(s), electronic equipment, radio transmitting and receiving antennas and supporting
equipment and structures thereto ("Tenant Facilities"). In connection therewith, Tenant has
the right to do all work necessary to prepare, maintain and alter the Premises for Tenant's
business operations and to install transmission lines connecting the antennas to the
transmitters and receivers. All of Tenant's construction and installation work shall be
performed at Tenant's sole costs and expense and in a good and workmanlike manner. Title
to the Tenant Facilities shall be held by Tenant. All of Tenant Facilities shall remain Tenant's
personal property and are not fixtures. Tenant has the right to remove all Tenant Facilities at
its sole expense on or before the expiration or earlier termination of the Agreement; provided,
Tenant repairs any damage to the Premises caused by such removal.
b. Tenant's installation of the Tenant Facilities shall be done according to plans approved by
Landlord. Any damage done to the property and/or Tower itself during installation and/or
during operations shall be repaired or replaced within thirty (30) days at Tenant's expense and
to Landlord's reasonable satisfaction.
c. Subsequent to construction, Tenant shall provide Landlord with as-built drawings of the Tenant
Facilities which show the actual location of all equipment and improvements. Said drawings
shall be accompanied by a complete and detailed inventory of all Tenant Facilities.
3
7. Equipment Upgrade
Tenant may update or replace the Tenant Facilities from time to time provided that the replacement
facilities are not greater in number, size or volume than that specified in this Agreement. Any change in
their location, other than that indicated in this Agreement, shall be subject to Landlord's written
approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
8. Maintenance
a. Tenant shall, at its own expense, maintain the Tenant Facility safely, in good repair and in a
manner suitable to Landlord.
b. Tenant shall have sole responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and security of its Tenant
Facilities, and shall keep the same in good repair and condition during the Lease term.
c. Tenant must keep the premises free of debris and anything of a dangerous, noxious or
offensive nature or which would create a hazard, undue vibration, heat, noise, interference,
etc.
d. In the event the Landlord repaints its Tower, it shall be the responsibility of the Tenant to
provide adequate measures to cover Tenant Facilities and protect such from paint and debris
fallout which may occur during the paint restoration process, provided Landlord give a
minimum of 30 days notice of any work on the Tower.
e. In the event the Landlord repaints the Tower and such activity requires the removal of the
Tenant Facilities from the Tower, Tenant shall be allowed to place a temporary antenna
mounting facility, at a mutually agreeable location on the Property, in order to maintain
uninterrupted use of the Tenant Facilities.
f. The Tenant shall reimburse the Landlord for Any additional expense of repainting, repairing, or
maintaining the Property reasonably incurred by the Landlord as a result of the Tenant’s use of
the property. Reimbursement shall be made by Tenant within thirty days of receipt of an
invoice from Landlord.
g. Tenant shall remove its property upon reasonable notice to allow maintenance, repair, and
repainting the Property.
9. Property Access
a. Tenant, at all times during this Lease, shall have vehicle ingress and egress over the Property
by means of the existing access, subject to notice requirements to Landlord in 9b, below.
b. Tenant shall have reasonable access to the Property in order to install, operate, and maintain
the Tenant Facilities. Tenant shall have access to such facilities only with the approval of
Landlord. Tenant shall request access to the premises twenty-four (24) hours in advance,
except in an emergency.
c. Landlord shall be allowed and granted access to the Premises at reasonable times to examine
and inspect the Tenant Facilities and/or the Premises for safety reasons or to ensure that the
Tenant's covenants are being met.
10. Utilities
Tenant shall separately meter charges for the consumption of electricity and other utilities associated
with its use of the Property and shall pay all costs associated therewith. Landlord agrees to sign such
documents or easements as may be required by said utility companies to provide such service to the
Premises, including the grant to Tenant or to the servicing utility company at no cost to the Tenant, of
an easement in, over, across or through the Land as required by such servicing utility company to
provide utility services as provided herein.
4
11. Compliance with Statutes, Regulations, and Approvals
It is understood and agreed that Tenant's use of the Property herein is contingent upon its obtaining all
certificates, permits, zoning, and other approvals that may be required by any federal, state or local
authority. Tenant's Facilities shall be erected, maintained and operated in accordance with all Federal,
State and local rules and regulations now or hereafter in effect.
12. Interference
Tenant's installation, operation, and maintenance of Tenant's Facilities shall not damage or interfere in
any way Landlord's Tower operations or related repair and maintenance activities and Tenant agrees
to cease all such actions which materially interfere with Landlord's use of the Tower immediately upon
actual notice of such interference, provided however, in such case, Tenant shall have the right to
terminate the Lease. Landlord, at all times during this Lease, reserves the right to take any action it
deems necessary, in its sole discretion, to repair, maintain, alter or improve the Property in connection
with Tower operations as may be necessary. The Landlord agrees to give reasonable advance written
notice of any such activities to the Tenant and to reasonably cooperate with Tenant to carry out such
activities with a minimum amount of interference with Tenant's use of the Property.
Before placement of Tenant's Facilities, Landlord may request, at Tenant's expense, an interference
study indicating that Tenant's intended use will not interfere with any existing communications facilities
on the Tower and an engineering study indicating that the Tower is able to structurally support the
Tenant's Antenna Facilities without prejudice to the Landlord's primary use of the Tower. Tenant shall
pay to the Landlord a one-time charge for the portion of such studies directly attributable to the Tenant.
That charge shall not exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for the frequency study and Three
Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) for the structural study.
Landlord in no way guarantees to Tenant subsequent noninterference with Tenant's transmission
operations, provided, however, that in the event any other party except a governmental unit, office or
agency requests permission to place any type of additional antenna or transmission facility on the
Property the procedures of this Paragraph shall govern to determine whether such antenna or
transmission facility will interfere with Tenant's transmission operations.
If Landlord receives any such request, Landlord shall submit the proposal complete with all technical
specifications reasonably requested by Tenant to Tenant for review for noninterference. Tenant shall
have thirty (30) days following receipt of said proposal to make any objections thereto, and failure to
make any objection within said thirty (30) day period shall be deemed consent by Tenant to the
installation of antennas or transmission facilities pursuant to said proposal. If Tenant gives notice of
objection due to interference during such 30-day period and Tenant's objections are verified by
Landlord to be valid, then Landlord shall not proceed with such proposal. The entities requesting an
additional lease shall be responsible for the expenses incurred in any independent validation of
Tenant's interference objections, provided, however, should the independent analysis conclude that
Tenant's interference objections were invalid, Tenant shall be responsible for any independent
validation fees. A governmental unit may be allowed to place antennae or other communications
facilities on Tower regardless of potential or actual interference with Tenant's use, provided however, if
Tenant's use of the Property is materially affected, Tenant may terminate the Lease.
Tenant's use and operation of the Tenant Facilities shall not interfere with the use and operation of
other communication facilities on the Tower which pre-existed Tenant's facilities. If Tenant's facilities
cause impermissible interference, Tenant shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and
eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated in a reasonable time, Tenant shall
immediately cease operating its facility until the interference has been eliminated. If the interference
cannot be eliminated within 30 days, Landlord may terminate this Agreement.
13. Termination
5
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease may be terminated by either party upon written notice
of default to the other party as follows: (a) by either party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof
by the other party, which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default
to the other party (without, however, limiting any other rights of the parties at law, in equity, or pursuant
to any other provisions hereof); or (b) by Tenant if it is unable to obtain or maintain any license, permit,
or other governmental approval necessary for the construction and/or operation of the Tenant Facilities
or Tenant's business; or (c) by Tenant if Tenant is unable to occupy and utilize the Premises due to an
action of the FCC, including without limitation, a take back of channels or change in frequencies; or (d)
by Tenant if Tenant determines that the Premises are not appropriate for its operations for economic or
technological reasons, including, without limitation, signal interferences; (e) by Landlord upon ninety
(90) days written notice return receipt requested if the City Council decides, in its sole discretion and for
any reason, to redevelop the Property and/or discontinue use of the Property for all purposes; (f) by
Landlord upon one hundred eighty (180) days written notice if it determines, in its reasonable discretion
and for any reason, that the Property is structurally unsound for Tenant's use, including but not limited
to consideration of age of the structure, damage or destruction of all or part of the Property from any
source, or factors relating to condition of the Property; or (g) by Landlord if it determines that continued
occupancy of Property by Tenant is in fact a threat to health, safety or welfare.
Upon termination of this Lease for any reason, Tenant shall remove the Tenant Facilities from the
Property within. The Tenant shall continue to pay Rent pursuant to this Lease Agreement during any
period of time when any portion of the Facilities remains on the Property. Tenant shall also repair any
damage to the Property caused by such removal, other than normal wear and tear, at Tenant's sole
cost and expense. Any portion of the Tenant's facilities which are not removed within ninety (90) days
after termination shall become the property of Landlord.
14. Liquidated Damages: Early Termination
Notice of Tenant's early termination shall be given to Landlord in writing by certified mail, return receipt
requested, and shall be effective upon receipt of such notice. All rentals paid for the lease of the
Property prior to said termination date shall be retained by the Landlord. Upon such termination, this
Lease shall become null and void and the parties shall have no further obligation to each other.
15. Limitation of Landlord's Liability: Early Termination
In the event Landlord terminates or otherwise revokes the Lease, other than as provided in paragraph
14 above, or Landlord causes interruption of the business of Tenant, Landlord's liability for damages to
Tenant shall be limited to the actual and direct costs of equipment removal, and shall specifically
exclude any recovery for value of the business of Tenant as a going concern, future expectation of
profits, loss of business or profit or related damages to Tenant.
16. Insurance
a. Tenant shall carry adequate insurance to protect the parties against any and all claims,
demands, actions, judgments, expenses, and liabilities which may arise out of or result directly
or indirectly from Tenant's use of the Property. Any applicable policy shall list the Landlord as
an additional insured and shall provide that it will be the primary coverage. The insurance
coverage must include, at least, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Coverage,
including premises/operation coverage, bodily injury, property damage, independent
contractors liability, and contractual liability coverage, in a combined single limit of not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, subject to One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) aggregate. Tenant may satisfy this requirement by underlying insurance plus an
umbrella policy. Tenant shall also maintain the worker's compensation insurance required by
law.
b. Neither party shall be liable to the other (or to the other's successors or assigns) for any loss
or damages caused by fire or any of the risks enumerated in a standard "All Risk" insurance
policy, and in the event of such insured loss, neither party's insurance company shall have a
subrogated claim against the other.
6
c. Tenant shall provided Landlord, prior to the Commencement Date and before each renewal of
the Lease term, evidence of the required insurance in the form of a certificate of insurance
issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, which
includes all coverage required in Paragraph above. Said certificate shall also provide that the
coverage may not be canceled, non-renewed, or materially changed without thirty (30) days'
written notice to Landlord. In such event, all rights and obligations of the parties shall cease as
of the date of the damage or destruction and Tenant shall be entitled to the reimbursement of
any rent prepaid by Tenant. If Tenant elects to self-insure, Tenant shall provide Landlord with
a Certificate from the Minnesota Department of Commerce that authorizes self-insurance,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
d. Landlord agrees that it currently has insurance coverage with respect to the Property.
Landlord reserves the right to change said insurance coverage or to self insure.
17. Damage or Destruction
If the Property or any portion thereof is destroyed or damaged so as to materially hinder effective use of
the Tenant Facilities through no fault or negligence of Tenant, Tenant may elect to terminate this
Lease upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Landlord. In such event, all rights and obligations of the
parties shall cease as of the date of the damage or destruction and Tenant shall be entitled to the
reimbursement of any rent prepaid by Tenant.
18. Condemnation
In the event the whole of the Property is taken by eminent domain, this Lease shall terminate as of the
date title to the Property vests in the condemning authority. In event a portion of the Property is taken
by eminent domain, either party shall have the right to terminate this Lease as of said date of title
transfer, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. In the event of any taking under the
power of eminent domain, Tenant shall not be entitled to any portion of the reward paid for the taking
and the Landlord shall receive full amount of such award. Tenant shall hereby expressly waive any
right or claim to any portion thereof although all damages, whether awarded as compensation for
diminution in value of the leasehold or to the fee of the Property, shall belong to Landlord, Tenant shall
have the right to claim and recover from the condemning authority, but not from Landlord, such
compensation as may be separately awarded or recoverable by Tenant on account of any and all
damage to Tenant's business and any costs or expenses incurred by Tenant in moving/removing the
Tenant Facilities.
19. Indemnification
Tenant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Landlord and its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses,
demands, actions, or causes of action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and
expenses of litigation, which may be asserted against or incurred by the Landlord or for which the
Landlord may be liable, which arise from the negligence, willful misconduct, or other fault of Tenant or
its employees, agents, or subcontractors in the performance of this Lease or from the installation,
operation, use, maintenance, repair, removal, or presence of the Tenant Facilities on the Property,
provided same is not due to the negligence or willful default of Landlord.
If Tenant fails or neglects to defend such actions, Landlord may defend the same and any expenses
(including reasonable attorneys' fees) which it may pay or incur in defending said actions, as well as the
amount of any judgment or settlement which it may be required to pay, shall promptly be reimbursed
by Tenant.
20. Hazardous Substance Indemnification
7
Tenant represents and warrants that its use of the Premises, herein, will not generate and it will not
store or dispose on the Property nor transport to or over the Property any hazardous substance except
for substances used in backup power units such as batteries and diesel generators. Tenant further
agrees to hold Landlord harmless from and indemnify Landlord against any release of any such
hazardous substance by Tenant and any damage, loss, or expense or liability resulting from such
release including all attorneys' fees, costs and penalties incurred as a result thereof except any release
caused by the negligence of Landlord, its employees or agents. "Hazardous substance" shall be
interpreted broadly to mean any substance or material defined or designated as hazardous or toxic
waste, hazardous or toxic material, hazardous or toxic or radioactive substance, or other similar term by
any federal, state or local environmental law, regulation or rule presently in effect or promulgated in the
future, as such laws, regulations or rules may be amended from time to time; and it shall be interpreted
to include, but not be limited to, any substance which after release into the environment will or may
reasonable be anticipated to cause sickness, death or disease.
21. Notices
All notices, requests, demands, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be
deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following
addresses:
If to Landlord, to: If to Tenant, to:
StoneBridge Wireless, Inc.
Attn: Stephen C. Gowdy
9719 Valley View Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
22. Assignment and Subletting
a. Tenant may not assign, or otherwise transfer all or any part of its interest in this Agreement or
in the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord; provided, however, that Tenant
may assign its interest to its parent company, any subsidiary or affiliate of it or its parent
company or to any successor-in-interest or entity acquiring fifty-one percent (51%) or more of
its stock or assets, subject to any financing entity's interest, if any, in this Agreement as set
forth in Paragraph 25 below. Tenant may assign this Agreement upon written notice to
Landlord, subject to the assignee assuming all of Tenant's obligations herein, including but not
limited to, those set forth in Paragraph 25 below. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Agreement, Tenant may assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise
transfer without consent its interest in this Agreement to any financing, or agent on behalf of
any financing entity to whom Tenant (i) has obligations for borrowed money or in respect of
guaranties thereof, (ii) has obligations evidenced by bonds, debentures, notes or similar
instruments, or (iii) has obligations under or with respect to letters of credit, bankers
acceptances wand similar facilities or in respect of guaranties thereof.
23. Successors and Assigns
This Lease shall run with the Property. This Lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
parties, their respective successors, personal representatives and assigns.
24. Litigation and Arbitration
Any claim, controversy, or dispute arising out of this Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of
8
Minnesota and shall be under the jurisdiction of the District Courts of the State of Minnesota. The
parties agree that prior to file of any such action, the matter shall be submitted to non-binding mediation
which shall be entered into by both parties in good faith.
25. Waiver of Landlord's Lien
a. Landlord waives any lien rights it may have concerning the Tenant Facilities which are deemed
Tenant's personal property and not fixtures, and Tenant has the right to remove the same at
any time without Landlord's consent.
26. Miscellaneous
a. Landlord and Tenant represent that each, respectively, has full right, power, and authority to
execute this Lease.
b. Landlord and Tenant each waive any and all rights to recover against the other for any loss or
damage to such party arising from any cause to the extent covered by any property insurance
required to be carried pursuant to this Lease. The parties will, from time to time, cause their
respective insurers to issue appropriate waiver of subrogation rights endorsements to all
property insurance policies carried in connection with the Tower or the Property or the contents
of either.
c. In the event either party hereto shall institute suit to enforce any rights hereunder, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover court costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result
thereof.
d. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties and supersedes
all offers, negotiations, and other agreements of any kind. There are not representations or
understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any modification of or amendment to this
Lease must be in writing and executed by both parties.
e. This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
f. In any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not effect the
remaining terms of this Lease, which shall continue in full force and effect.
g. The parties acknowledge that this is a nonexclusive lease. Nothing in this Lease shall
preclude Landlord from leasing other space for communications equipment to any person or
entity which may be in competition with tenant, or any other party, subject to the conditions set
forth in paragraph 12 of this Lease.
h. Lessor acknowledges that a Memorandum Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit
C will be recorded by Lessee in the official records of the County where the Property is
located. In the event the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust, Lessor
agrees to obtain and furnish to Lessee a non-disturbance and attornment instrument for each
such mortgage or deed of trust.
i. Tenant shall pay all personal and real property taxes imposed against the Tenant’s equipment
or leased Premises. If any improvements constructed or maintained by Tenant on the Property
should cause part of the Property to be taxed for real estate purposes, Tenant agrees to timely
pay its pro rata share of such taxes.
27. Warranty of Title and Quiet Enjoyment
Landlord warrants that: (i) Landlord owns the Property in fee simple and has the rights of access
thereto and the Property is free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and restrictions; (ii) Landlord has
full right to make and perform this Agreement; and (iii) Landlord covenants and agrees with Tenant that
upon Tenant paying the Rent and observing and performing all the terms, covenants and conditions on
Tenant's part to be observed and performed, Tenant may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises.
This Lease was executed as of the date first set above.
9
LANDLORD: City of Chanhassen
By:
By:
TENANT:
By:
Stephen C. Gowdy, President
StoneBridge Wireless, Inc., Confidential, 12/30/05
Exhibit C
Equipment on Tower (Outdoor):
Site Name: Chanhassen Water Tower #____
Site Number:
Lat: N 44º 51.925’
Long: W 93º 32.005’
76th Street, Chanhassen, MN
Configuration: 5.8GHz – Line of Sight
Azimuth Backhual Link to Hennipen County Braemar Tower, Mfg/Model: Alvarion LB 5820,
12”x4.6”x4”; Radio Waves SP2-5.8, 2’ Parabolic with Radome, 5.725-5.850, 28.5 dBi, RG-11,
3/8” cable. Azimuth E at ~ 89º.
Tower Height: ~160’
Azimuth 120°sectorized access panel, 15dBi, Sector 90° horizontal, 6° vertical; Alvarion AU-Ant-5.7G-15-
120, 21.4”x10.3”x3.0”, 2.65 lbs. Alvarion AU-D-SA-ODU, 11.9”x4.7”x1.8”, 4.08 lbs, pole
mount Access Unit. Outdoor CAT5. Azimuth E-SE at ~ 120°.
Tower Height: ~160’
Azimuth 120°sectorized access panel, 15dBi, Sector 90° horizontal, 6° vertical; Alvarion AU-Ant-5.7G-15-120,
21.4”x10.3”x3.0”, 2.65 lbs. Alvarion AU-D-SA-ODU, 11.9”x4.7”x1.8”, 4.08 lbs, pole mount Access
Unit. Outdoor CAT5. Azimuth W-SW at ~ 240°.
Tower Height: ~160’
Configuration: 700MHz – Non Line of Sight
Azimuth Future 700Mhz., Mfg/Model: WaveIP GA-OFDM 700, 45°sectorized flat access panel,
17”x17”x2”, 710-716MHz and 740-746Mhz, 26dBm, 3/8” RG-6 Coaxial x 2. Two per Azimuth
location. Azimuth of panels arranged for full 360° coverage.
Exhibit C
Equipment on Property (Indoor):
Configuration:
2-Indoor unit, Mfg/Model: Alvarion, SU-A(IDU), 6.3” x 3.5” x 2.4”, 1.21 lbs, AC 100/240VAC, 25W.
1-Indoor unit, Mfg/Model: Alvarion, LB 5820, 17”x12”x1.75”, 110/220 VAC, 39W.
1-Switch, Mfg/Model: Cisco, Catalyst 2950-12, 1U – 17.5” x 9.52” x 1.72”, 110/220 VAC 30 W or Cisco
Catalyst 3550-24, 1U – 17.5” x 9.52” x 1.72”, 110/220 VAC 30 W
1-UPS
Standards Compliance:
Type Standard
EMC FCC Part 15 class B, CE EN55022 class B
Safety UL 1950, EN 60950
Environmental Operation ETS 300 019 part 2-3 class 3.2E for indoor units
ETS 300 019 part 2-4 class 4.1E for outdoor units
Storage ETS 300 019-2-1 class 1.2E
Transportation ETS 300 019-2-2 class 2.3
Lightning Protection EN 61000-4-5, class 3 (2kV)
Radio FCC Part 15 EN 301 753
EN 301 021
EN 301 893
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager
DATE: January 30, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Joint Powers Agreement for County Auditor
Ballot Board
Attached please find a Joint Powers Agreement from the Carver County
Auditor’s Office concerning absentee voting procedures. As detailed in the
agreement, the Auditor’s Office serves as the absentee voting polling place for
the entire county. They process all of the applications, validate the voted
ballots, and then deliver them to the appropriate precincts on Election Day for
counting. This is the same procedure that has been used for years, and there is
no charge for this service. This agreement is identical to the one the city signed
in 2004. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and finds it in order.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached Joint Powers Agreement for County
Auditor Counting Center. Approval requires a simple majority vote of those
City Council members present.
ATTACHMENT
1. Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
DATE: February 13, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Amendment to Chanhassen Fire Department Relief
Association Bylaws and Increase in Pension Benefits
BACKGROUND
The City of Chanhassen has a 42-member on-call volunteer/paid Fire
Department (established in 1966). Volunteer firefighters often receive payments
due to the time commitment needed to perform the duties of a firefighter, such
as training, 24-hour on-call for service, and weekly meetings. In Chanhassen,
volunteers are compensated in two forms—an hourly rate of $8 for call-outs,
training, meetings, etc., and the Fire Relief Association Pension.
Currently a firefighter would be fully vested after 5 years of service. As an
example, a firefighter with 7 years of service would receive the following
pension:
7 years of service x $4,000 = $28,000 x 48% (40% + 4% per year early vesting)
= $13,440
All current members are on a lump sum pay-out based upon their years of
service; however, we do still have 12 retired members receiving a monthly
annuity of $410 per month. The last time we increased the pension fund was in
2001 with a rate increase of 48.15% (see Attachment #1).
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff has met with representatives of the Fire Relief Board and has negotiated a
three year increase of 8.75% per year beginning in 2006, with the condition that
the funding ratio remains above 75% (see Attachment #2). These increases will
help the Fire Department in recruiting new firefighters and also help to retain
our more experienced firefighters.
One of the areas you need to pay attention to when considering a rate increase is
the funded ratio. Attachment #3 shows two forecasts of the pension fund’s
assets and liabilities. In both cases, the funding level never dips below 75%
over the next three years. You will also notice that the City of Chanhassen does
Mayor & City Council
February 13, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Fire Dept Pension Report.doc
not have to make a contribution, based on these assumptions, over the next three
year period. The funding source for the benefit increase would come from state
fire aid and investment earnings derived from the pension fund assets (see
Attachment #4 for the history of city contributions, state aid, and investment
income).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend that the Mayor and City Council approve the attached
resolution amending the bylaws and authorizing a $4,350 increase in 2006, a
$4,700 increase in 2007, and a $5,050 increase in 2008 to the Chanhassen Fire
Department Fire Relief Association with the condition that the funding ratio
remains above 75%. Approval of this resolution requires a simple majority vote
of those City Council members present.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Amending the Bylaws.
2. History of Chanhassen Pension Fund Increases.
3. Key Financial Cities Comparison and Proposed Rate Increases.
4. Forecasts of the Pension Funds with a 5% and 7% Return.
5. Revenues and Expenses by Source 1995-2004.
6. Chanhassen Fire Relief Association Investment Review.
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\LHIA Grant.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
DATE: February 3, 2006
RE: Presentation of Local Housing Incentive Grant from Julius Smith,
Metropolitan Council
BACKGROUND
Julius Smith, Chanhassen’s representative on the Metropolitan Council, will be
present at Monday’s meeting to present the City with a $300,000 grant award for
the proposed Gateway Place affordable housing apartment project. The Sand
Companies, the developer of this project, applied for these tax credits through the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The money is awarded to the city, but we
are simply a pass-through as the money will be granted to the developer at the
time of project completion.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the acceptance of the Local
Housing Incentive Grant in the amount of $300,000 from the Metropolitan
Council for the Gateway Place apartment project.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: February 13, 2006
SUBJ: Continuation of the Public Hearing for 2006 Street Improvement
and Order Improvements and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications - Project No. 06-01
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2005, Council authorized the preparation of the 2006 Street
Improvement feasibility report.
On December 8, 2005, staff held an open house meeting with residents in the
Koehnen neighborhood to discuss the proposed street and utility reconstruction
project.
On December 15, 2005, staff held an open house meeting with residents in the
Chanhassen Hills neighborhood to discuss the proposed street rehabilitation
project.
On January 9, 2006, Council accepted the feasibility report and called for the
public hearing for the project.
On January 23, 2006, Council opened the public hearing, heard testimony and
discussed the improvements proposed for the Koehnen area.
DISCUSSION
The street improvements proposed for 2006 were identified using the City’s
Pavement Management Program and because of the utility problems in these
areas. The City’s consultant for the project will be at the meeting to present
information to City Council and to answer questions.
Koehnen Area
The streets in this area are recommended for reconstruction. These streets are 35
years old and are in need of replacement. The streets currently do not have
concrete curb and gutter. The reconstruction area includes approximately 1.05
miles of street, including West 63rd Street, Koehnen Circle East, Koehnen Circle
Paul Oehme
February 13, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
West, Cardinal Avenue, Blue Jay Circle, Audubon Circle and Yosemite Avenue
(from 6440 Yosemite Avenue to the City limits). Concrete curb and gutter is
proposed to be included in the street design. Also, the street improvement project
will include replacement of all watermain, replacement of some sanitary sewer,
installation of storm sewer and construction of stormwater treatment ponds.
The watermain in this area is cast iron which has resulted in 23 documented
watermain breaks. It is recommended to replace the watermain in this area along
with the water services in the right-of-way.
Televising of the sanitary sewer indicates that portions of this utility are “egged”,
sagging and/or cracked. Bolton & Menk, the consultant engineer the City has
contracted for this project, recommends that portions of the sanitary sewer
exhibiting “extreme” sagging or segments that are cracked be replaced.
Storm sewer will be installed and will outlet to one of three ponds that will be
constructed in conjunction with the project. The ponds will treat the runoff before
discharging to other water bodies.
Forty percent (40%) of the street rehabilitation costs are proposed to be assessed
to the benefiting property owners within the project area. The preliminary
assessment amount for the Koehnen area is $7,100/lot and is proposed to be
assessed over a 10-year period at 6% interest.
The public hearing for this project began at the January 23, 2006 City Council
meeting.
The following summarizes the most of the residents’ questions and responses by
staff:
· Retaining wall on Yosemite and 63rd Street are too high and will be a
safety concern.
Modular block retaining walls are proposed at various locations along
Yosemite and 63rd Street. The walls are necessary to decrease the side
slopes off the roadway so the boulevard can be maintained and erosion
does not occur. The tallest wall proposed is approximately 9’ tall at one
point on Yosemite. Most of the walls average 3’ tall. The walls are
shown on the attached drawing. A fence will be installed on walls that are
over 4’ tall. The walls are currently designed in back of the roadway
approximately 10’ to provide a clear zone for the traveling public and
pedestrians. The walls are necessary to keep the project limits within the
Paul Oehme
February 13, 2006
Page 3
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
existing right-of-way and to decrease impacts to boulevard trees. Staff
intends to work with the property owners prior to retaining wall design
and construction to try to minimize the amount of walls constructed. As
staff has done with the Lake Lucy Road improvement project last year,
staff worked with the residents to obtained temporary construction
easements to grade on private property to minimize the amount of walls
and construction costs. These discussions typically are imitated after the
award of a contract and meetings with the wall contractor become
available. The retaining walls are one of the last items to be constructed
on a roadway project, therefore, will have sufficient time to work through
the final field design issues.
· Perceived speeding problem and additional cut through traffic on
Yosemite due to the proposed wider roadway section.
Staff is proposing to use State Aid funds that the City receives annually
from the gas tax proceeds to help pay for the City's share of the Yosemite
improvements. State Aid rules require a 32’ wide road to support the
proposed design. Yosemite is currently 27’ wide. The City standard
roadway width is 31’. Yosemite connects into Apple Road to the north in
the city of Shorewood. A section of roadway north of Lake Lucy Road is
not proposed to be improved in conjunction with this project.
Staff does not believe that the 1,650’ stretch of Yosemite proposed to be
improved and widened will increase the speed or encourage cut through
traffic in this area.
· Property owner concerned about proposed pond at the end of Koehnen
Circle East. Perceived concern about flooding a house, increased
groundwater table, children falling into the pond, mosquitoes and pond
clean out.
The storm sewer design includes a small stormwater pond on a vacant
parcel in a low lying area at the end of Koehnen Circle East. The City has
purchased a drainage and utility easement from the property owner to
construct this pond. The pond is required to meet local and state
requirements for water quality and rate control. Ponds are standard
improvements for all new developments to fulfill water quality and rate
control requirements. The City has hundreds of small stormwater ponds
that are currently being maintained and many are as close to properties as
the one being considered. The pond design includes a very shallow 10’
wide shelf around the pond to provide a safety area for anyone on the edge
Paul Oehme
February 13, 2006
Page 4
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
of pond that could accidentally fall in. All storm water ponds are
constructed with emergency overflows so during large rain events, the
water is directed to designated areas. The pond will be designed so that
with the emergency overflow, the water should not back up on to the
adjacent private property. The drainage area for the pond is not proposed
to change so no additional runoff will be entering the pond. The pond will
be dug out to hold the water and typically does not increase the
groundwater tables. Staff will continue to work with the property owner
on the pond design to address their concerns. Staff has committed to
staking the pond area in the field to help them understand were the pond
will be constructed and how the drainage in this area will be improved
because of the installation of the pond.
· Property owner requested more street lights on 63rd Street.
Currently, there are six overhead street lights in the Koehnen
neighborhood. Four of the street lights are on 63rd Street at all
intersections. It has been the City’s practice to assess 100% of the street
lighting costs back to the benefiting property owners. In this situation, the
street lights are sufficient to light most of the major traffic conflict points
and most of 63rd Street. Staff does not feel the majority of the property
owners will want to pay for additional street lights. Staff will work with
the individual property on 63rd Street and discuss the cost with her to see if
she or her neighbors would like an additional street light on their property.
· Property owner requested properties that could be subdivided in the
project area be assessed for any potential lots splits.
Staff has reviewed this request and has found three parcels could be
subdivided with an additional five lots created. By adding the additional
five lots to the project would reduce the estimated assessment amount per
lot to $6,607. With the additional lots splits, one property owner could be
assessed for three lots or $19,821.
Staff has finalized a special benefit consultation report for the Koehnen area
project. The report investigated and analyzed probable special benefit to be
derived from the street project. The purpose of the report was to provide a typical
range of special benefits anticipated for single-family residential property in the
project area. The analysis looked at sales of homes in the metropolitan area
where street reconstruction projects had been completed. The report investigated
sales that took place before and after reconstruction projects in order to isolate
benefit. The report looked at similar home values that are in the Koehnen area.
Paul Oehme
February 13, 2006
Page 5
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
Based on this report, the preliminary assessment can be supported by the
increased benefit to the property and thus fulfill the MS 429 requirements.
Chanhassen Hills
At the February 13, 2006 Council meeting, staff would like to discuss the
Chanhassen Hills area proposed improvement and continue the public hearing on
for the project. The Chanhassen Hills area project includes resurfacing or
rehabilitation of the streets. These streets are 15 years old and are recommended
for milling and overlaying. The streets have been sealcoated twice and can no
longer be maintained adequately with preventative pavement management
techniques. Improvements consist of milling the pavement and paving a
minimum of 2” bituminous. Damaged, “alligatored” pavement areas will be
removed and repaved prior to the overlay. Severely damaged curb will be
replaced. Draintile in back of the curb is also proposed to be included at various
locations. The water table in this neighborhood is very high and most properties
with sump pumps run all year long. In 2000, the City had a sump pump
inspection program that identified several properties in this area with illicit sump
pump discharges connected directly into the sanitary sewer. At that time, all of
the illicit discharges were removed. In working on the Inflow/Infiltration
program, this area again has become a concern for illicit discharges. By including
the draintile in with the street improvement project, the City will give the
residents another alternative to discharge the sump pump water into a city-
maintained system.
Forty percent (40%) of the street rehabilitation costs are proposed to be assessed
to the benefiting property owners within the project area. The preliminary
assessment amount for the Chanhassen Hills area is $1,698.15/lot and is proposed
to be assessed over an 8-year period at 6% interest.
Four residents attended the Chanhassen Hills area open house on December 15,
2005. The following generalizes the questions and comments received at the
open house:
· Why doesn’t the City pay for the entire project cost?
· Who decided these streets need to be worked on?
· What is the project schedule?
· Will Draintile be included in the project?
All property owners’ questions were answered at the meeting or with a follow-up
letter or phone call.
Paul Oehme
February 13, 2006
Page 6
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
Final assessment amounts will be based on actual construction bid amounts
including the indirect costs to prepare and administer the project.
Lake Ann Park
Also included in this year’s street project are proposed improvements to the
parking lots at Lake Ann Park. Most of the drives and parking areas are in very
poor condition and are in need of reconstruction. The improvements include
reconstruction of the roadways, realignment of roadways, reconstruction of
parking areas and overlay of parking areas. Also included will be placement of
concrete curb and gutter in parking areas.
These components of the project will be presented to City Council at the public
hearing.
Funding for this project is proposed as follows:
ITEM ESTIMATED
COST
2006 CIP
Budget
Amount
2006 CIP
Project Number
$ 500,000 ST-012 (MSA) Street Reconstruction $ 1,561,073 1,600,000 ST-012
Rehabilitation Area
(Chanhassen Hills)
661,300
125,000
ST-018 (Pvmt.
Mgmt.)
Subtotal, Streets $ 2,222,373 $ 2,225,000
Lake Ann Park $ 321,235 $ 395,000 PK&T-051
Storm Sewer 586,011 400,000 SWMP-019
Sanitary Sewer
Reconstruction
185,679
310,000 SS-014
Watermain
Reconstruction
544,585
440,000 W-024
TOTAL $ $3,859,833 $ 3,770,000
The estimated costs for storm sewer improvements are higher than the budgeted
amount since the detailed storm sewer design was not complete when the budget
amount was determined. Staff is looking at using different materials for pipe to
help offset these costs.
Paul Oehme
February 13, 2006
Page 7
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
The estimated watermain costs are high due to the unforeseen increase in the cost
of watermain pipe. Potential new revenue that was not budgeted for in 2006 may
be able to be used to help offset these costs.
The tentative schedule for this project is as follows:
Open Public Hearing (Koehnen Area) January 23, 2005
Continuation of Public Hearing (Chanhassen Hills Area); February 13, 2005
Order Plans and Specifications
Approve Plans and Specifications; Order Ad for Bid April 10, 2006
Bid Opening May 2, 2006
Accept Bids; Order Assessment Hearing May 8, 2006
Neighborhood Meeting (Koehnen area) May 17, 2006
Neighborhood Meeting (Chanhassen Hills area) May 24, 2006
Assessment Hearing/Adopt Assessment Roll/Award
Contract June 12, 2006
Start Construction June, 2006
Construction Complete October, 2006
The project start and completion dates are later than originally anticipated due to
changes in MnDOT’s State Aid review process, and because the State is still
waiting to receive Shorewood’s request to designate Apple Road as an MSA
route. The route designation is required prior to MnDOT reviewing and
approving construction drawings. The City’s consultant is prioritizing the
preparation of Yosemite Avenue plans in an attempt to get the project back to the
original anticipated schedule. However, if the route designation is not completed
soon and MnDOT's plan review is longer then anticipated, the Koehnen project
area may need to be delayed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council order the improvements and preparation of
plans and specifications for City Project No. 06-01.
c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk
Attachments
O
O
OOO
O
6
5
1
0
6 4 7 0
6
4
8
1
6 4 6 0
6 4 5 1
6480
6440
6471
6431
64301611 6411 6
4
0
1
6420
161116211631
16611681
1641
6371
1 6 1 01620 6351163016601690
6340
1702
6
3
2
1
1730
6300
629
56290
6291
632062906291
62806280
6271
6270
6271
177
9
6275
1789179918011831
6251 1 6 4 1
1691
1711
6225 1601178018001830
1
6
0
0
16201660
1690
1730
1750
6211
62106204
6200
1690
6301
W 63RD ST
C
R
E
E
K
R
U
N
T
R
AIL
K N O B HILL LANE
BLUE JAY CIR
AUDUBON CIR
R
I
N
G
N
E
C
K
D
R
PARTRIDGE CIR
W O O D D U C K LN
Wood D u c k C i r
P H E A SANT CIR
TEALCIR
PINTAIL CIR
WHITE DOVE CIR
R
I
NGNECK D R
Y
O
S
E
M
I
T
E
AVE
YOSEMITE AVE
YOSEMITE AVE
KOEHNEN CIR
W 63RD ST
W O O D D U C K L N
KNOB HILL LANE
W OOD DUCK LN
YOSEMITE AVE
CARDINAL AVE
PH E A S A N T D R
WO
O
D
DUCK LN
KOEHNEN CIR
WHITE DOVE DR
Ê
G:\ENG\Public\06-01\Maps\Kate\Kate.mxd
06-01 Streets
100 0 100 20050Feet February 3, 2006
O Street Lights
Proposed Retaining Wall
Existing Right of Way
Proposed Ponds
Wetlands
Proposed Streets to be Reconstructed
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: February 13, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and
Specifications for Orchard Green
Project No. 06-04 (Simple Majority Vote Required)
The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval from
the final platting and construction plans and specifications review process. Staff
has calculated the required financial security to guarantee compliance with the
terms of the development contract at $66,589.00 and the cash fees total of
$44,937.50. A breakdown of the cash fee is shown on page SP-3 of the
development contract. No City funds are needed as part of this private
development project.
The applicant has also submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for
staff review and City Council approval. Staff has reviewed the plans and
specifications and finds the plans still need some minor modifications. Staff
requests that the City Council grant staff the flexibility to administratively approve
the plans after working with the applicant's engineer to modify the plans
accordingly. It is therefore recommended that the construction plans and
specifications for Orchard Green dated January 20, 2006, prepared by Terra
Engineering, Inc. and the development contract dated February 1, 2006 be
approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City
with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $66,589.00 and pay a
cash fee of $44,937.50.
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction
plans to meet City standards.
Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated February 13, 2006.
2. Construction plans and specifications are available for
review in the Engineering Department.
c: Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering
g:\eng\projects\orchard green\approve dc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORCHARD GREEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE
1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1
3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1
4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-1
5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2
6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2
7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3
8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3
9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................SP-6
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1
2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1
4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1
5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1
6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2
7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2
8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2
8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING
OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2
9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3
10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3
11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3
12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3
13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3
14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4
15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4
16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4
17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4
18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4
19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5
20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5
21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5
22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6
22. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6
B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7
C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7
D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7
ii
E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7
F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7
G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7
H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7
I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7
J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8
K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8
L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8
M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8
N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8
O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9
Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9
R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9
T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9
U. Soil Conditions..............................................................................................GC-9
V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10
W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10
X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10
Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-10
SP-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
ORCHARD GREEN
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated February 13, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, Peter J. Knaeble, an Individual (the "Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
Orchard Green (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the attached
Exhibit "A".
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that
the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be
prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work
in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control.
The plans are:
Plan A: Final plat approved February 13, 2006, prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc.
Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated February 13, 2006, prepared by
Terra Engineering, Inc.
Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated February 13, 2006, prepared by Terra
Engineering, Inc.
Plan D: Landscape Plan dated February 13, 2006, prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc.
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
A. Sanitary Sewer System
B. Water System
C. Storm Water Drainage System
D. Streets
E. Concrete Curb and Gutter
SP-2
F. Street Lights
G. Site Grading/Restoration
H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV)
I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
J. Surveying and Staking
K. Landscaping
L. Erosion Control
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by
November 15, 2006. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City
Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the
Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special
assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto,
from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $66,589.05. The amount of the
security was calculated as 110% of the following:
Sanitary Sewer $23,055.00
Streets $27,895.00
Subtotal: Cost of Public Improvements $50,950.00
Site Grading/Restoration $ 2,000.00
Erosion control $ 3,000.00
Engineering, surveying, and inspection (7% of construction cost) $ 3,566.50
Landscaping (2% of construction cost) $ 1,019.00
Subtotal: Other Costs $ 9,585.50
TOTAL COSTS $60,535.50
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security
shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for
any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at
least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the
security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security
may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be
reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been
completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the
City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is
provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City.
SP-3
7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at
the following address:
Peter J. Knaeble
6001 Glenwood Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Phone: 763-593-9325
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed
to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall,
7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100.
8. Other Special Conditions.
A. SECURITIES AND FEES
A. A $66,589.00 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed improvements, the
$44,937.50 cash fee and the fully-executed development contract must be submitted prior to
scheduling a pre-construction meeting. The cash fee due with the final plat was calculated as follows:
· Administration fee: 3% of $50,950.00 (public improvement costs) = $1,528.50
· Attorney fee: $450.00
· Recording fee: $30.00 (development contract) + $30.00 (plat) = $60.00
· GIS fee: $25 (plat) + [$10/parcel x 4 parcels] = $65.00
· SWMP fee: 2.02 acres x [$1,600.00/acre (quantity) + $2,900.00/acre (quality)] = $9,090.00
· Park Dedication Fee: 4 units x $5,800.00/unit = $23,200.00
· Water Lateral Connection Charge: 2 units (previously unassessed) x $5,272.00/unit =
$10,544.00
The sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges must be paid with the building permit. The 2006
trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and
water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit
issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council
and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
B. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including, but not
limited to the MPCA (sanitary sewer and NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), MnDOT,
Watershed District, MDH, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering). The
developer must comply with the conditions of approval from any and all agencies.
C. The developer must acquire a Work in Right of Way Permit from the Engineering
Department before commencing work in the right of way and shall submit a financial security to
SP-4
ensure that Orchard Lane and Forest Avenue are properly restored after the services have been
installed.
D. The developer shall install lateral sanitary sewer to the east property line. The cost to
complete this work is the developer’s responsibility.
E. The first two building permits issued for this development will be charged the trunk
sanitary sewer and water hook up charges and the $1,625.00 SAC fee.
F. A preconstruction meeting must be held before grading, tree removal and/or utility
installation can commence. The executed development contract, and all securities and fees must
be submitted before a preconstruction meeting is scheduled.
G. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant’s engineer shall work with
City staff in revising the construction plans to meet City standards.
H. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
I. Any grading on privately-owned property will require a temporary easement.
J. The grading plan must be revised as follows:
a. All proposed contours must tie in to existing contours, particularly the 992’, 990’ and
988’ contours on the west side of Lot 1; and the 996’, 994’ and 992’ contours on the
east side of Lot 3.
b. Staff recommends that the low floor elevations for Lots 1 and 2 be lowered one foot
to achieve an 8 foot walkout. Staff recommends that steps be installed in the garage
on Lots 3 and 4 to achieve an 8 foot walkout.
c. A drainage breakpoint elevation must be shown northeast of the building pad corner
on Lot 3.
K. The site must be mass-graded. The developer must post a security for this work with the
final plat.
L. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be
designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
M. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
SP-5
N. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with
the building permit for each lot.
O. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
P. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
1. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system,
storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
2. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
3. The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s).
Q. Environmental Resources Conditions:
1. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement
plantings. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations.
2. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing.
Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown
as preserved that are removed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
3. The water and sanitary hook-ups for lot 2 must be moved to the driveway in order
to preserve the 12” maple.
R. Sanitary sewer and water service as-built information
The developer shall supply the City with tie cards for all sanitary sewer and water services
installed or exposed with utility installation. Ties shall be provided at the connection at the lateral
utility, all vertical and horizontal bends, and at the right of way. The developer is not required to
submit tie information for the portion of the services that extend outside of the right of way.
SP-6
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit
"B" and incorporated herein.
SP-7
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Peter J. Knaeble:
BY:
Peter J. Knaeble
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2006, by Peter J. Knaeble.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
That part of Lots 34 and 35, Minnewashta Park, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof, described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Huntington Park, according to the recorded
plat thereof; thence on an assumed bearing of North 11 degrees 21 minutes 34 seconds West,
along the westerly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 336.90 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 35;
thence southwesterly a distance of 137.27 feet, along said northerly line, on a curve, not tangent
with the last described line, concave to the southeast having a radius of 1152.62 feet, a central
angle of 6 degrees 49 minutes 24 seconds and a chord of 137.18 feet which bears South 70
degrees 50 minutes 01 seconds West : thence 67 degrees 25 minutes 19 seconds West along said
northerly line, a distance of 53.60 feet; thence South 15 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds East a
distance of 319.67 feet, to the intersection with a line bearing South 74 degrees 50 minutes 06
seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 74 degrees 50 minutes 06 seconds East a
distance of 167.70 feet, the point of beginning.
ALSO
That part of Lots 34 and 35, Minnewashta Park, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof, described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Huntington Park, according to the
recorded plat thereof; thence on an assumed bearing of North 11 degrees 21 minutes 34 seconds
West, along the westerly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 336.90 feet to the northerly line of said
Lot 35; thence southwesterly a distance of 137.27 feet, along said northerly line, on a curve, not
tangent with last described line, concave to the southeast having a radius of 1152.62 feet, a
central angle of 6 degrees 49 minutes 24 seconds and a chord of 137.18 feet which bears South
70 degrees 50 minutes 01 seconds West along said northerly line a distance of 141.61 to the point
of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 67 degrees 25 minutes 19 seconds East,
along said northerly line, a distance of 88.01 feet; thence South 15 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds
East a distance of 319.67 feet, to the intersection with a line bearing South 74 degrees 50 minutes
06 seconds West from the point of commencement; thence South 74 degrees 50 minutes 06
seconds West a distance of 51.55 feet to the westerly line of said Lot 34; thence Northwesterly
along said Westerly line, a distance of 99.98 feet, to the intersection with a line bearing South 9
degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 9 degrees 05
minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 231.98 feet, to the point of beginning.
MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and
effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. ___________________
Date: _________________
TO: City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on
sight on the undersigned bank.
The draft must:
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________,
2______, of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen.
c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November
30, 2______.
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-
five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank
delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel,
this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in
the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows:
Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen,
MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified,
amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not
referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw
may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and
Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly
honored upon presentation.
BY: ____________________________________
Its ______________________________
GC-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade
or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public
or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this
agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary
security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County
Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City
Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer
may proceed.
2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City
may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and
the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until
Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for
sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are
designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges
will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks.
3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the
preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into
lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval.
4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current
urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing
by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary,
to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date
of this Contract.
5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract
shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which
have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City
and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the
GC-2
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with
construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and
a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a
qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be
submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to
respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the
construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's
design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable
time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the
program for the construction work.
6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all
monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1.
The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have
been installed.
7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with plat development.
8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any
utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan,
Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional
erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the
excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in
that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified
seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized,
mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the
essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the
erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City,
the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the
Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations
hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in
full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control
needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been
completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is
no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion
and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the
erosion and sediment control measures.
8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a
building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash
GC-3
escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City
Code § 7-22.
9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily
clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that
has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by
the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public
easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work
with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the
project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate
contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City
Council resolution.
11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or
others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid,
and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted
with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by
this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the
Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any
further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees.
12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction
with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in
force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless
otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The
minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled
and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line).
In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the
Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas
of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a
financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These
conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued,
except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions
GC-4
must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will
be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct
inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each
inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements
are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the
escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy
any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do
not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project
approval.
14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit
either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit
for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements.
A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor
installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City
acceptance of the work.
B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years
from the date of final written acceptance.
C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season
following acceptance by the City.
15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage,
Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from
buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance.
16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread
against the plat in accordance with City standards.
17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and
water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable
compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook-
up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs
over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application.
18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street
lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership
and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A
plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs
GC-5
the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat.
The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for
twenty (20) months.
19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the
City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating
the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location.
21. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of
the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as
review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction
progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of
improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be
calculated as follows:
i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than
$500,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs;
ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between
$500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for
the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over
$500,000;
iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over
$1,000,000, two and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for
the first $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1½%) of
construction costs over $1,000,000.
Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon
construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon
actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special
Provisions.
B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all
costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections.
This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the
construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement.
GC-6
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorneys' fees.
D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for
costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the
City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full.
Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges
and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges
("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees.
G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of
electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall
development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the
respective franchise agreements held with the City.
H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to
reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting
the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four
months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in
the Carver County Coordinate system.
22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given
notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the
City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the
land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost
in whole or in part.
23. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job
site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for
installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
GC-7
(30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service
in accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City
shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this
Contract or for allowing deviations from it.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall
be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a
stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received
satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer,
watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets
needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in
accordance with Plan B of the development plans.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall
be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the
title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at
the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance
of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an
individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing.
I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City
has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's
work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for
each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a
combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional
insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior
GC-8
to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days
advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is
cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or
hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and
every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to
time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the
right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written
permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and
effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it.
L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this
contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency
conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work
performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted
construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties:
First violation $ 500.00
Second violation $ 1,000.00
Third & subsequent violations All site development and
construction must cease
for seven (7) calendar days
M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and
similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the
improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction
hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway
improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building
permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance
until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to
detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and
closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage.
The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance
of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall
not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing
GC-9
operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the
streets by the City.
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales)
within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat.
The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end
two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by
the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special
provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period.
Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall
clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided,
the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior
to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as
unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a
building permit.
R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat
are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances.
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the
plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities:
1. City of Chanhassen;
2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
3. United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s);
5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions.
T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Development Contract.
U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such
property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the
presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
GC-10
V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the
property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of
soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no
fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building
inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill
material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report
from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On
lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils
engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot.
W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors
must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material,
construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be
approved by the City Engineer
X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot
development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project.
The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall
be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on
streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer,
developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours.
Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the
City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced
construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of
the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer
shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two
complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4)
location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility
stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf
& .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility
tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed,
including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic
format.
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by
a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built
survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving
the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built
escrow withheld until all work is complete.
GC-11
Rev. 12/27/05