Loading...
11.24.2025 CC MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 2025 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilmember McDonald, Councilmember Schubert, Councilmember von Oven, and Councilmember Kimber. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Rachel Jeske, Planner; Patrick Gavin, Communications Manager; Andrew Heger, Fire Chief; and Jenny Potter, City Clerk. PUBLIC PRESENT: Joe Stepan, 740 Crossroads Court Jeff Hall, 41 Fox Hollow Drive Mike Narog, 6410 Pleasant Park Drive Scott Steinkamp, 6551 Gray Fox Curve Mara Fitzloff, 240 Fox Hollow Drive Kelly Solko, 6503 Fox Hollow Court Andrew Rothman, 220 Fox Hollow Drive Emilie Peterson, 60 Hunters Court Megan Reilly, 6421 Pleasant Park Drive Wendy Lanigan, 6430 Pleasant Park Drive Davis Ogilvie, 6431 Pleasant Park Stephen Theissen, 130 Gray Fox Lane Andrew Schiefelbein, 6541 Quail Crossing Matt Solko, 6503 Fox Hollow Court Daniel Bujold, 80 Hunters Court PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: 1. Fire Department Badge Pinning & Retirement Presentation Andrew Heger, Fire Chief, recognized Fire Fighter Matt Warden on his recent retirement. Matt Warden, Fire Fighter, thanked the City of Chanhassen for the opportunity to serve as a firefighter. City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 2 Mr. Heger thanked his family for their contribution. He recognized Joe Young for his service to the fire department. He recognized Spencer for his service to the fire department. He recognized Taylor for her service to the fire department. He recognized David Brandt for his service to the fire department. He recognized Captain Thomas Urban for his service to the fire department. Mayor Ryan thanked the firefighters for their service to the department. She expressed appreciation for their commitment to the community. 2. Chanhassen Athletic Association Recognition Mayor Ryan recognized the Chanhassen Athletic Association for their donation to fund the infield reconstruction project at the Lake Ann ballfields and their continued generosity for many field improvements throughout the years. 3. Invitation to the Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony Mayor Ryan invited all Chanhassen residents to the annual tree lighting ceremony on December 6. She thanked the sponsors for their contributions. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember McDonald moved, Councilmember Kimber seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items 1 through 14 pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated November 10, 2025 2. Approve City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 10, 2025 3. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 23, 2025 4. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated October 8, 2025 5. Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated October 8, 2025 6. Approve Claims Paid dated November 24, 2025 7. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License to Rotary Club of Chanhassen for February Festival on February 7, 2026, at Lake Ann Park 8. Adopt 2026 Meeting Schedule 9. Approve the Replacement Purchase of Vehicle #604 10. Approve an Encroachment Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the property owner at 8480 Bittern Court City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 3 11. Release of Development Contract between City of Chanhassen and Dayton Hudson Corporation 12. Resolution 2025-79: Approval of $19,669.83 Donation and Award Bid for Lake Ann Park Ballfield 4, 5, 6 Improvements 13. Resolution 2025-80 Accepting Public Streets, Utilities, and Stormwater Infrastructure associated with the Audubon Business Park Development 14. Resolution 2025-81: Authorizing submittal of a MnDOT LRIP Grant for a roundabout project at Trunk Highway 41 and Lake Lucy Road All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 1. Resolution 2025-82: Accept Feasibility Study, Conduct Public Improvement Hearing, and Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2026 City Pavement Rehabilitation Charlie Howley, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, reviewed the project area and scope at Vasserman. He reviewed the project area and scope for Fox Hollow. He summarized the North Lotus Lake Park Stormwater Project, implemented and funded by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Water District. He provided an overview of the public engagement effort for the project. He reviewed the public feedback summary and explained the top five feedback comments received. He discussed the street connection of Fox Hollow Drive at North Lotus Lake Park and discussed the goal to have more efficient street connections for current and future park programming; improved parking; ease maintenance operations; create connectivity; asset management; and emergency response. He summarized the traffic and safety context for Fox Hollow Drive at North Lotus Lake Park. He provided an overview of the estimated budget and cost summary. He reviewed the preliminary assessment summary based on the proposed rehabilitation technique. He summarized the project schedule and noted that the final completion was estimated to be June 2027. Mayor Ryan reviewed the process for the public hearing. Mayor Ryan opened the public hearing. Jeff Hall, 41 Fox Hollow Drive, reviewed the inaccessibility of his house to the fire department historically. He expressed concerns about people using Fox Hollow when Pleasant View was City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 4 backed up. He stated that kids were playing near the street, but people were driving too fast on Fox Hollow Drive. He expressed concerns about increased traffic. Mike Narog, 6410 Pleasant Park Drive, discussed the drainage ditch and said that there was a lot of dirt to be moved. He stated it was difficult to make a left-hand turn on Fox Hollow Drive. He said that people drive less courteously today. He commented that there was half of a roundabout on Fox Hollow Drive, and two homeowners were impacted by people going on the grass. He stated that they were generous with the OCI numbers. He noted that the park had lost a lot of trees because other trees had died. He suggested moving the tennis courts to get additional parking. He expressed concerns about drainage. He suggested completing a full roundabout to encourage drivers to slow down. Mara Fitzloff, 240 Fox Hollow Drive, said she was glad that her son could walk or ride his bike to his friend’s house. She expressed concerns with removing the cul-de-sac and creating a straight road, and how it would impact the safety of their neighborhood. She reviewed all the maintenance her husband took to take care of drainage issues and the cul-de-sac. She said that the assessment amount was very high, so she wanted to know if there were additional options that were considered to lower the cost. She noted concerns with financial strains, with increased property taxes and the high assessment amounts. She asked how the city would consider residents’ input and think about different ways to improve the road without straightening the street or decreasing the assessment amount. Kelly Solko, 6503 Fox Hollow Court, expressed concerns with the proposal to straighten the roadway because of the safety of her children. She stated that the proposed solution would have daily consequences for residents along the street. She noted that the curb functioned as natural speed control to protect residents. She said that they opposed this project because it imposes lasting impacts on the residents who live there without providing large benefits. She requested that the City Council consider the request to straighten Fox Hollow Drive. Andrew Rothman, 220 Fox Hollow Drive, provided an overview of his concerns with the request to straighten Fox Hollow Drive. He thought the project did not provide benefits or specific improvements. He stated that the residents in the neighborhood purchased a house in a quiet neighborhood that ended in a cul-de-sac. He expressed concerns about the impact on the resale value. He stated that they put a cut-through as a compromise, but residents were not happy with that originally. He noted that it was not right to make additional changes. He stated that it was important not to break faith with residents of the neighborhood. Emilie Peterson, 60 Hunters Court, expressed concerns with the construction in their neighborhood and the additional traffic. She noted that removing the dog leg in the neighborhood would make the neighborhood more dangerous. She asked them to consider an additional solution. City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 5 Megan Reilly, 6421 Pleasant Park Drive, said that the safety of the neighborhood was appealing to her and her kids. She expressed concerns with the speed of traffic, especially for children at the bus stop. She stated she did have drainage issues, so it was important to address these concerns. She said it did not make sense to put extra traffic measures in for emergency vehicles. She commented that the GPS would route people through Fox Hollow and expressed concerns about increased traffic. Wendy Lanigan, 6430 Pleasant Park Drive, discussed concerns with parking during soccer games. She said that she tried to get a no-parking sign for their yard, but the city would not allow it because they live on a curb. She commented that people park in their yard, so adding parking spots near the park would not help alleviate the concerns. She said that the speed would increase on the road. She also stated that she is seeing increased e-bike traffic with young teenagers. Scott Steinkamp, 6551 Gray Fox Curve, expressed concerns with the cost of the assessment. She stated that a majority of assessments are $2000 to $5000, but their assessment was approximately $10,000. He asked why the assessment was so high. Davis Ogilvie, 6431 Pleasant Park, expressed concerns about the costs. He thought that if the road was straightened, there would be increased traffic. He stated the road had been neglected for fifty years, so the project cost more. He said that he thought there was no transparency with the project, and he could not get concrete answers. Stephen Theissen, 130 Gray Fox Lane, said that they had a small amount of area, so he did not think it was just to have the same assessment as those in the straight-aways on Fox Hollow. Andrew Schiefelbein, 6541 Quail Crossing, stated he worked in EMS for many years and said that there would be an increase in traffic and speed on a straightened road. He described his experience with the traffic when his daughter was in a wheelchair. He said the cost was concerning and did not seem fair. He commented that his family enjoys the quiet and safe neighborhood and that his children can walk to the park. Matt Solko, 6503 Fox Hollow Court, said that when the flyer went out in the mail, it highlighted the path of construction in the neighborhood. He stated that the flyer did not seem consistent with the project, and the information was not on the website, so it did not seem professional. Daniel Bujold, 80 Hunters Court, said that traffic had picked up considerably on the road, and he was concerned with the e-bike traffic. He asked if they could lower the speed limit on the road. He said that a sign would help solve the problems. Mayor Ryan closed the public hearing. Mayor Ryan asked Mr. Howley to review the communication timeline and what was typical. She asked about the opportunity for further engagement and communication with the project. City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 6 Mr. Howley said that he wanted to read a public comment from Lindsey Lief, 170 Gray Fox Lane. She expressed concerns about increased speed and traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Howley reviewed the standard process for communication, such as the one-year mailer. He stated that someone could have moved in that time frame or did not see the information, but they did a one-year advanced postcard that stated there was a project planned for next year, and assessments would be involved. He said that the next step was to hire the engineer and do a survey, but that would be before they start the public engagement effort because they need to do a feasibility study. He said that the open house was the first step of information. He stated that they had a project page for multiple months, but they did not have documents on the website because they did not know additional information. They want people to show up at the open house. He noted that straightening the road was unique for the project, and he said it was an idea and a concept, and they wanted to see the reaction. He said that the next round of engagement would be about how it would impact each individual’s lot, and the City Engineer would be happy to talk about the information individually with each resident. He stated that the engagement moving forward would be on specific issues and who they impacted. He said that they receive feedback all the time. Mayor Ryan asked if they preferred individual conversations or if there would be another public open house. Mr. Howley answered that the next open house would happen when the project was fully bid and designed. The open house will discuss the remaining questions about the assessment. He stated that this information was located on their website. He said the second public open house would be in late February. Mayor Ryan asked about the assessment process compared with other projects. Mr. Howley answered that if a project was rehabilitated as a mill-and-overlay, it could not be compared with the full construction, and the number would be different because the scope was different. Mayor Ryan said that there was a range between the different types of projects. Mr. Howley said that they did not know what the assessment was until the assessment meeting. He said that the construction process could change. He stated the full reconstruction project could be between $6000 and $18000, and the City pays 60 percent of the project costs. He stated that a full reconstruction cost would be the same for all residents, because a single-family residential home would typically generate the same traffic. He stated that past projects were based on a calculation of an exact scope, so the process was different. Mayor Ryan asked about why the utilities should be under the streets. Mr. Howley answered that they control the street, so they like to put utilities under the street. They do not own driveways, and the green spaces could have irrigation. He noted that if it was on the right-of-way, they could know what they would encounter. Mayor Ryan asked about the approach. Mr. Howley responded that there were contributing factors to select full reconstruction. He said they wanted to have consistent pavement, and when City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 7 they were replacing utilities, they would have to rebuild the whole thing. He stated that if they did not consider the utilities, they still had drainage issues, so they needed more storm sewer. He said that the road did not have sand under the pavement, so the road would not last as long. They needed to install sand. He commented that the condition of the road would be different if the drainage were controlled. He stated that there were sump pumps dumping into the curb, and the curb was flat. With the reconstruction, they could add infrastructure to help with the drainage. He said they considered the long-term options, so it seemed like the most appropriate time to do the full reconstruction. He stated that the flat rate would save residents money on full reconstruction. Mayor Ryan asked about the intent of the road project. Mr. Howley answered that the goal of the road project was to maintain the asset, but there were concepts to mitigate the risks of straightening out the road. Mr. Howley answered that they could design the road with a dog leg, so it would not go straight through. He said the assessment would be the same whether the road was straightened or not. He stated that the watershed project would help them dump their water. Mayor Ryan said that the straightening of the road was not the only option. She said it was feasible to keep some form of dog leg to maintain character and lessen traffic. Mr. Howley responded that if they were trying to address the issues and solve some problems, they could consider alternative alignments. Mayor Ryan asked about the speed limit and the driver feedback sign location. Mr. Howley responded that the driver’s feedback sign was not drawn anywhere, but they are often put up in the areas that have the highest potential to have speeders. He discussed the speed limit signs and that drivers will drive as fast as they want to drive. He noted that signing alone was not a good strategy to address speeding problems, but that it was an enforcement issue. Mayor Ryan asked about the final design and if it was reviewed from a public safety perspective. Mr. Howley responded that they share input with each other on road projects. Mr. Howley answered why the city had not done more later. He stated that if they had had a better pavement management plan twenty years ago, they would have done more. He said that forty years was not unheard of for a reconstruction project. He stated that he was surprised they had not done a mill-and-overlay in the neighborhood because of the drainage issues. Mayor Ryan welcomed additional comments from the City Council. Councilmember Kimber asked if they were all on the same page in the project. He asked if they should order the project without having made final decisions about whether there should be a dog leg or not. He clarified when the design approval would take place. Mr. Howley answered that some designs would have alternates, but they wanted to likely approve the design in January. He said that they were happy to keep both options open and explore ideas, but he felt like it was weird to fully design both plans. City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 8 Councilmember von Oven said that there would likely be more speed if they straightened out the dogleg. He said he lived within walking distance of the cul-de-sac. He stated it made no sense to currently cut through the neighborhood until Pleasant View was under construction. He said it backed up to go left on 101 from Pleasant View. He wanted to make sure that the City Council was operating on all the opinions heard. He said he had no desire to get rid of the dogleg because the logic did not fit. He stated it made sense to do a full reconstruction of the road. He commented that he would not fight straightening the road if everyone was okay with it, but he said the dogleg was characteristic of the neighborhood. Councilmember McDonald talked about the pavement management plan, which they did not previously have in place. He said this was a newer neighborhood twenty years ago, so the City Council would discuss road maintenance. He summarized the previous discussion with Mr. Howley about a plan for road maintenance and the franchise fee. He commented that the road reconstruction was not as simple as putting asphalt on the ground. He agreed that the cost was high, and he wanted it to change. He stated that other cities did not have the assessment fees, but they have other sources of revenue, such as taxes on the liquor stores. He said other cities had a one-hundred percent assessment. He said a new road would increase the home value, and residents could confirm this information with the county. He stated it would be beneficial to connect neighborhoods. He said that residents do not use the Springfield Neighborhood as a cut- through to 101, so he did not think a similar thing would happen when they installed a connection at this location. He discussed the perception of car speed among residents and how it often seems faster than reality. He said it would be better for the roads to be connected. He apologized for how long it took for their road maintenance, and he did not know why they did not get a mill-and-overlay. He suggested straightening out the dogleg. He said that the park was important and that the area floods every spring. Councilmember Schubert stated that the project needed to move forward. She noted that she grew up near a similar neighborhood, and it lost its character when the road was straightened, and the street was through. She wanted to keep some of the characteristics and the dogleg. Councilmember Kimber said the project needed to happen because of the water main breaks. He stated that he did not live in the neighborhood, but he did see options about what the design could look like. He commented that there were a lot of detailed questions that could be addressed in the design phase. Mayor Ryan said that the city made it paramount to be transparent in their communication. She provided multiple opportunities to provide feedback. She stated that they changed to the year postcard, so residents were aware of what was happening. She encouraged residents to reach out to the City staff with any concerns, and they will do what they can to work with them. Councilmember von Oven moved, Councilmember McDonald seconded, that the Chanhassen City Council adopt a resolution accepting the feasibility study, ordering the improvements, and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2026 City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 9 City Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 26-01. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. Resolution 25-83: Consider a Request for Approval of a Metes and Bounds Subdivision with a Variance from the City Code Section 18-4 to Subdivide Excess Right-of-Way on the Northwest Corner of Lyman Blvd and Great Plains Blvd Rachel Jeske, Planner, reviewed the location of the development, which did not currently have an established zoning district. She summarized the history of the right-of-way project. She provided an overview of communication for the project. She reviewed the subdivision requirements for approval. She said that the land met all seven of the subdivision requirements if the City Council approved the variance. The variance request was from section 18-4 of the City Code. She explained the staff assessment of the variance request and recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution. Mayor Ryan opened the public hearing. Joe Stepan, 740 Crossroads Court, asked for additional information. He asked if they were expanding an easement or setting up a new easement, and if shopping centers were being installed. Mayor Ryan closed the public hearing. Ms. Jeske answered that the City would acquire the land and could sell it in the future to a developer if it needed additional area. Councilmember Kimber moved, Councilmember Schubert seconded that the Chanhassen City Council adopt a resolution approving a Metes and Bounds subdivision with variance to city code section 18-4 to create a new parcel from excess right-of-way, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. GENERAL BUSINESS. None. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilmember Kimber expressed gratitude for his opportunity to talk with students about government. He stated that the City Council might receive an invitation to help the students learn about the Amazing Shake. Councilmember McDonald suggested that individuals go to the Chanhassen Dinner Theater to see White Christmas. City Council Minutes – November 24, 2025 10 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. 1. Comcast Rate Increase 2. Third Quarter Financial Report 2025 Councilmember Schubert moved, Councilmember von Oven seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen City Manager Prepared by Jenny Potter City Clerk