CC Minutes 2001 05 29CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson and
Councilman Ayotte
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Andrea Poehler, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Matt Saam, Todd
Hoffman, Mahmoud Sweidan, and Bruce DeJong
Public Present for all items:
Name Address
LuAnn Sidney
Rich Slagle
John Siegfried
Janet Lash
Fred Berg
Deb Kind
Linda Landsman
Debbie Lloyd
2431 Bridle Creek Trail
7411 Fawn Hill Road
Carver County
7001 Tecumseh Lane
6910 Chaparral Lane
2351 Lukewood
7329 Frontier Trail
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen presented the Maple Leaf Awards to the following
people and thanked each one individually for their years of public service.
Jim Sloss, Public Safety Commission
Greg Weber, Public Safety Commission
Fred Berg, Park & Recreation Commission
Jim Manders, Park & Recreation Commission
Instant Web Companies Representative
REVIEW CURRENT STATUS OF COUNCILMAN KROSKIN.
Mayor Jansen read the following letter of resignation submitted by Councilman Kroskin and asked that the
Council discuss the process to appoint a new council member under Council Presentations.
To the Mayor and City Council. From Councilman Mark Kroskin. Date, May 28, 2001. Subject
Resignation. As I will be closing on property outside of Chanhassen, I will at that time be disqualified
from serving on the Council. I feel it is in the best interest of our city if I resign now instead of waiting
until the closing date on my purchase. This will allow the Council to fill my seat now and thus have the
full compliments of five members on the council as soon as possible. I have enjoyed working with all of
you as well as staff on some tough issues and I'm proud of the results and what we were able to
accomplish. I thank you for the opportunity to serve our community along with all of you and I'm
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
disappointed that I will not be able to finish my term. It has been a privilege serving our residents. I again
thank all of you who have allowed me my due process and did not jump to any premature conclusions.
May God bless all of you and guide you in your future decisions and may God bless Chanhassen and all of
its residents. Regards, Mark Kroskin.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution/12001-29: Approve Resolution Establishing No On-Street Parking on Century
Boulevard-Project 97-1C.
Approval of Ordinances Amending City Code Chapter 20 including:
1) Definitions
2) Wetland Setbacks, Accessory Structures
3) Off-Street Parking
c. Approval of Bills.
Approval of City Council Minutes:
- Work Session Minutes dated May 14, 2001
- City Council Minutes dated May 14, 2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated May 1,2001
- Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 24, 2001
h. Appointment of Uli Sacchet to the Planning Commission, Three-Year Term.
Request for Site Plan Review Approval for the Construction of a Two-Story Office building with a
Parking Setback Variance, 7811 Great Plains Boulevard, Burger Office Building, Derril Burger.
Resolution/12001-30: Approve Resolution Declaring Intent to Exercise Local Transit Option for
Taxes in 2001.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
(Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.)
F. APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF TODD GERHARDT AS ACTING CITY MANAGER.
Mayor Jansen: ... appointing of the new city manager so.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that.
Mayor Jansen: So we do understand and we have established that we want to move through the process as
expeditiously as possible, but we certainly can't put an ending date on the acting position without a feel for
how quickly that will move forward. We've said that we want to move it quickly as possible.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that. What I'd like to do is put a milestone on it, let's say 90 days so
that if we do not have a city manager hired by that point in time, then we have an opportunity to revisit the
appointment of Mr. Gerhardt as acting manager. I just don't want this to last for an extended period of
time. So in my view I'd like to have a specific period of performance stated in his assignment so we do not
allow it to go too long. I know we all want to have this process go through as expeditiously as possible.
Nonetheless I think it's important that we put a milestone on a piece of paper so we don't let it go too long.
Mayor Jansen: Other council comments.
Councilman Peterson: I'd not adverse to putting down something. I think 90 days is too short but probably
120 is a logical time. I don't know what we're going to gain by putting that in there.
Councilman Ayotte: Well it'd make me happy.
Councilman Peterson: That in and of itself is worthy of a motion.
Councilman Ayotte: I just want to make sure that when we feel that crunch, that we get to a certain point
and we haven't done all the things we need to do to expeditiously get a new person on board, that we have
that mark in the sand.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I've made my feelings pretty well public.
Mayor Jansen: Is 120 days acceptable?
Councilman Labatt: Frankly I'd like zero days and I'd just make him the city manager ifI could. But
seeing I can't do that, you know whether it's 90 or 120, I don't care. You know let's just get it done as
quick as we can. I think 90 days keeps us more focused and pushed to get it done quicker and 120 might
make us drag things out a little bit longer. You know 7 months was when we hired Scott last time and we
all complained about that. How long that took so.
Councilman Ayotte: I'd prefer the 90 day mark personally. And also point of clarification. We have made
sure that he gets paid commensurate with the duties, right?
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: I'd go for 90. Keep us on track.
Mayor Jansen: My only hesitation, and I'm certainly committed to doing this as quickly and expeditiously
as possible, but I don't see where having a certain number of days in this agreement does anything but
make you feel a little bit better but if we end up going slightly beyond this, I'd see it as being a very flexible
target. As long as it's a flexible target, so we're not just rehashing something.
Councilman Ayotte: We can revisit it but if we target a period of performance than we push ourselves to
get through the process efficiently, quickly.
Mayor Jansen: If I can have a motion please.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to make a motion that we put a period of performance of 90 days on the acting
manager position, to revisit it at that milestone if need be.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion and a second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the appointment of Todd
Gerhardt as Acting City Manager for a period of 90 days. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Steve Berquist: My name is Steve Berquist. I live at 7207 Frontier Trail.
Mayor Jansen: I would hope that you're not going to put us through any more public spectacle Mr.
Berquist. I would certainly appreciate it.
Steve Berquist: Now that we are again facing a selection process for council member, I would propose a
method that would allow a relatively broad cross section of Chanhassen residents to participate. Our
volunteer commissions, planning, senior, environmental and park and rec, along with the city council are
made up of roughly 30 community members. Each member could participate with an equal vote in the
process. This would be a broader democratic method more closely representing the electoral process, and
would of course preclude us from the expense and time consuming special election. I would urge a new
application process as well. There may be other folks who would like to apply that did not the last time.
An initial selection down to 5 or 10 by all commission and city council members would be followed by
interviews before the entire body. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would care to address the council?
Audience: If there's an item coming up for discussion, will we be given a chance at that time to.
Mayor Jansen: We have numerous public hearing items, yes.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM
SGT. DAVE POTTS.
Mayor Jansen: Hello Sergeant Potts.
Scott Botcher: And Mr. Wolff was unavoidably detained and he will not be here tonight.
Mayor Jansen: And no representative then?
Scott Botcher: At this point we don't have anybody. If someone shows up, they show up.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Alright, great.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, council members. What I just gave you was a letter from the
sheriff that he wish to be enclosed with the monthly area report. However the letter wasn't ready in time to
get it into the council packet so that's why I've given it to you this evening to read at your leisure. But
once again the area reports are being published and that is in your packet. What I did is I gave you the
January through April summary rather than just the month of April normally comes out on pages of it's
own. I thought reduce a little paperwork in your council packets, I'd just give you the summary of that.
Also the area citation listing. Beth's crime prevention, public safety education report for March and April.
Jeff Mixner's community service officer report, and then a couple of items that came up for discussion
down at our office recently. Southwest Metro Drug Task Force was able to obtain the 2000 annual report.
I wasn't sure if council was familiar with that report or had seen that previously so I had that put into your
packets. Also the 2001 first quarter report. It was a rather lengthy report and I pulled out the items in that
report that I thought may be of interest to council to include in your packet for review there. And that's
what I have this evening. I don't have any other items to bring to the council's attention over the last month
of great significance unless council has specific questions or comments.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Council? Questions.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, how ya doing?
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good.
Councilman Ayotte: With respect to the crime free multi-housing program that is going on, and I hate to
use the word profile with all that's been discussed in the media, but has there been any demographic
profiling of the activity associated with the multi-housing effort? Has there been any look see at trends
with respect to incidents with the crimes that you've broken out?
Sgt. Dave Potts: We've taken the different apartment complexes and looked at the calls for service to the
various apartment complexes, and narrowing down where our problems are, what problems a particular
complex might have versus another and addressing those with the individual managers of those complexes.
Councilman Ayotte: Any conclusions at all with any trends that you've seen so far? I know it's pretty new
but.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah. I couldn't comment on any trends or anything. That's again something that we're
just getting started on.
Councilman Ayotte: Another question if you'd bring back to Sheriff Olson. I know he's very interested in
the task force that he had talked about, and he was going to have it project oriented. Has he come up with
any programs or efforts or issues that would generate the need for that task force to be activated?
Sgt. Dave Potts: We haven't begun any in depth discussions on the task force at this time.
Councilman Ayotte: Do you have an idea of the time line wise when they're going to start looking at that?
Sgt. Dave Potts: Not specific, no.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for Sergeant Potts?
Councilman Labatt: No, just a comment from a resident. I got a phone call from a homeowner over on
Stratford Ridge thanking him for your fine response of the deputies and the fire department for their
medical situation over there. Thank you. The only problem was the muddy footprints in the carpet. I told
the lady that that's just the cost of doing business at 4 days of rain.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Sometimes it's unavoidable, but appreciate the comment and I'll certainly pass that on.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for sharing that. Thank you. Appreciate your report. Okay we're moving on
to public hearings, of which we have several this evening. We have 6 public hearings. And why don't I
say before we get started with these, what we would appreciate, and we realize we've got a couple of issues
here involving neighborhoods and neighbors. As you are hearing comments being made before you, if you
could avoid standing up and repeating the same information. We have obviously received the packets that
include the minutes from the public hearing and neighborhood meetings that occurred on the trail
connection so we do go through all of those comments and any of the e-mails and letters that we receive.
So if there's new information that you would care to share with us, we obviously appreciate your
approaching the microphone and sharing that information with us. So why don't we go ahead and we'll
start with the first.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUINN ROAD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, CITY
PROJECT 01-02.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Skalb
Amy Schuette
Tom Schrupp
Jeff Reitan
Sherry Blosberg
Nancy Fults
510 Lyman Blvd.
8990 Quinn Road
8990 Quinn Road
8900 Quinn Road
3000 West 44th Street
8913 Quinn Road
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. Staff is recommending approval of the
feasibility study to install sanitary sewer to the failing septic system lot at 8955 Quinn Road. This project
was petitioned for by the property owners at 8955 due to their failing septic system. They have until, by
law, November 27th of this year to either repair, replace or hook up to city sewer. The original feasibility
study for the project looked at extending the street, the sewer and the water the length of Quinn Road.
Staff's feeling was that instead of waiting around for each of the septic systems to fail and piecemeal the
project we would look at serving the entire neighborhood at once. A neighborhood meeting was held a
couple weeks ago. The majority of the neighbors were against the project due to proposed assessment cost.
This project now, the one before you would be to just, as I said, extend sewer to serve the property at 8955
which has the failing septic system. The estimated cost as found in the feasibility is $25,000. The project
is proposed to be assessed to both benefiting property owners on each side of the street. Again we are
recommending approval of the feasibility study. I'd be happy to take any questions.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Before I open this up for the public hearing, does council have questions for
staff?
Councilman Ayotte: What's the basis of estimate for the assessment? I think you call out 50%. Is that it?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Why not 75? Why not 107 Why 50%?
Matt Saam: Each of the lots which abut the street where the sewer would be put down will benefit from the
installation of the sanitary sewer costs.
Councilman Ayotte: In the future would anyone potentially benefit from the installation of the system?
Matt Saam: Yes. Yep, the one on the west side would in the future. Currently there's no house on that lot
but in looking at it, it could sure be divided.
Councilman Ayotte: Well then, is there a potential for any other advantage to anyone else besides the two
home owners for that sewer system in addition to that potential site? So there'd be a total of 3?
Matt Saam: There would be 3 sewer stubs, yes. 2 to the west side, 1 to the east to serve the failing septic
system lot. Your question, could you repeat that for me. Is there any?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, what I want to know is, here what we're proposing is that these folks would
incur the assessment today. Down the road there may be others that would profit from the installation of
the system.
Matt Saam: Correct, sure. We have a policy, well not a policy. It's in the city code set up where there are
connection fees and hook up fees charged to two lots. Lots that haven't been previously assessed pay the
connection fee. Every lot that hooks up pays a hook-up fee. So that would address any lots that we forgot
about maybe if that's what you're.
Councilman Ayotte: But they would incur the front end cost.
Matt Saam: These lots now?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Matt Saam: Yes. Yep.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: So just following up on Bob, so how do you make it fair and equitable for the future
homeowners comparable to the current homeowners that are getting assessed?
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Matt Saam: Set up in the city code where this connection.
Councilman Labatt: So is that connection fee the same as what these people are being assessed?
Matt Saam: No. No, it does increase each year with inflation and construction costs but.
Councilman Labatt: So these people are going to be assessed half of $25,000, correct?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Scott Botcher: I think the theory is that that will be recouped at some point if there's a transaction
involving the property. I mean if you don't do it now, and say I was going to sell you my house, you'd be
stuck with the same expense and same hassle getting sewer to your property as I would. It's just that you
would defer it. If you did the time value of money put on top and you'd have the expense.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the council on this item,
please approach the podium and state your name and address for the record.
JeffReitan: My name is JeffReitan. My address is 8900 Quinn Road. I think there's a missing
component here in that Outlot A is simply that. It's one lot. The majority of that lot.
Councilman Ayotte: Sir, could I ask you to pull the mica little bit closer. I don't hear very well. There
you go.
Jeff Reitan: Sorry about that. Is that better?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Jeff Reitan: The majority of that lot will likely be annexed to the adjoining properties to the south and to
the north. My lot is the lot to the north of Outlot A. So it's likely that there may be a future subdivision
resulting in one lot being developed and the remainder annexed to the adjoining properties. I'd like to
explore opportunities to modify the scope of the staff's recommendation based on that information. It's not
clear to me if there's a final decision that's irrevocable or something that we can work towards a common
resolution.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, Matt. Can you address that for us?
Matt Saam: I guess I'm not sure what your question is. What exactly are your concerns sir?
Jeff Reitan: Your recommendations I believe include 2 connections to the west.
Matt Saam: Correct.
Jeff Reitan: I'm stipulating that probably only 1 will be required. So I'm asking that we work to modify
the scope of the recommendation.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Matt Saam: Okay. Basically eliminate a service stub.
Jeff Reitan: Yeah.
Matt Saam: Can I speak to that now or should I wait until after the public comments are closed?
Mayor Jansen: If you'd go ahead and speak to that now I'd appreciate it.
Matt Saam: Okay. Staff's thinking in stubbing 2 services to the west is the developable potential of that
outlot to the west. We're just planning for future service connections. We just thought it's good planning.
Inevitably if we don't put one in and the lot would sell, they would come back and say why didn't you give
me a stub. Here you assessed the property but I didn't get a stub. Now I have to rip, go into the street, rip
it up, connect, so that's what we're trying to avoid.
Councilman Ayotte: You could blame him.
Matt Saam: If he owns it.
Jeff Reitan: I can't refute that. I'm just trying to help the council understand what our expectations are.
Mayor Jansen: Sure, okay. Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: Point of clarification though. Is the assessment issue a craw for you? Is that?
Jeff Reitan: We'd rather not see an assessment at this time. There's obviously no benefit to the owners of
the outlot. Future benefit as described but no current benefit. If our expectations pan out we're just going
to annex the north and south portions and perhaps develop the center lot.
Matt Saam: Madam Mayor, if I could follow up quick.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Matt Saam: The cost of the actual service stub to the property to the west. One additional stub is $600.00.
The total assessment is $12,000. So we'd be talking about deleting something that's $600.00.
Mayor Jansen: And the future cost to do that, you were stating is then ripping up the road and then
providing so incremental much larger.
Matt Saam: Much more than $600.00.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, understood. Thank you for clarifying that.
Jeff Reitan: I think there's an existing premise that this was going to become 3 lots. There was a
preliminary subdivision done by the previous owner and I just wanted to clarify that issue.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wanting to address the council on this item? Okay, I'll
bring this back to council. Matt, let me just pursue this and take one more shot at this. Where we're
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
showing the two stubs going off to the west, is there any way to have it be one and service all 3 lots in the
future? If it were to subdivide.
Matt Saam: No. Not just a service stub. Then you're talking about a trunk or a sewer main.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So I think that's what we need to understand is that now is the time to provide that
option or we end up doing it at a much higher cost in the future.
Matt Saam: Exactly.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Let's bring this back to council. Any additional questions for staff?
Councilman Ayotte: I'm going to state my concern, and we can react to it that way. Maybe a question will
come out of it. I'm not for septic. I don't like, it's not whether I like or dislike. It seems to me that we do
not have predictable algorithm for assessments. We had talked about this before. What exacerbates the
problem is because of our water situation we do not have the mechanism to generate more revenue because
of our meter situation, which would help offset part of this problem. And because we don't have those
things in place, I do not feel comfortable in giving a nod for the assessment levels that we have. And I
don't know if there's a way of working through that.
Scott Botcher: Except that, I don't get the tie between the metering and the assessment. Because it's not
an algorithm. It's simply here's the cost of the project. Here's the determination of benefit on a percentage
basis...
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that but we had discussed before that if we had a larger population to
accept assessments for improvements to utility, then it would not be allocated just to the folks that are
receiving the immediate benefit. Over time, as we build the infrastructure, a lot of folks are going to benefit
from it.
Mayor Jansen: Am I recalling that was a conversation about our road projects?
Scott Botcher: Yeah, I mean I think in terms of this you've got a finite defined area. You've got a defined
cost with distinct beneficiaries, as opposed to a road or to a force main or to a water system or water
treatment plant, something like that.
Councilman Ayotte: I understood, maybe I understood incorrectly that down the road other folks could
benefit, could proper from this improvement.
Mayor Jansen: Only potentially.
Phil Gravel: The people in the future would be assessed as the sewer were extended further north on a
similar basis so if people benefit in the future they would pay an assessment at that time.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any further council discussion of this item?
Councilman Labatt: None.
Mayor Jansen: Could I have a motion please.
10
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as presented.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the feasibility stuffy for Quinn
Road Improvement Project No. 01-02 for installing only the sanitary sewer portion of the project,
and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Ayotte who opposed and the motion failed with a vote of 3 to 1.
Andrea Poehler: This motion requires a 4/5 vote so the motion fails.
Councilman Ayotte: I didn't hear that.
Mayor Jansen: The motion just failed. We need a 4/5 vote to pass this. I think your question was
addressed by the city manager.
Councilman Ayotte: I, at this point do not feel comfortable because I don't totally understand, even though
there's an equitable distribution for the cost of the improvement, I don't know if I am accepting of the
argument totally. I just don't feel comfortable with it at this point. And I would not be doing the right
thing to say yes to it if I don't thoroughly understand and completely support what's being presented.
Mayor Jansen: Then I'm going to encourage you to sit down with staff and go through this because I do
believe that we have gone.
Councilman Ayotte: We have a time line, I know that.
Mayor Jansen: No, we've gone through the whole assessment process and that's what Mr. Botcher is
trying to explain.
Councilman Ayotte: Well let me ask some more questions then. With respect to assessments, we have an
algorithm that is predictable all the time, right?
Scott Botcher: No. I mean that's the fundamental pretext. I mean anytime you do an assessment, the
governing body of the city makes the determination as to benefit. That will change from project to project
to project to project. That's just life. That's how it is. There is no mathematical derivation that you can
lay upon a project and say, if you have this project, you lay this mathematical derivation upon it and it
results in this assessment. That's not how it works. In this case we have a very, and it's a nice, small
example quite frankly. We've got a small project. You've got a small number of beneficiaries and you
make the determination as a governing body as to benefit and you assess based upon that basis.
Bruce DeJong: Madam Mayor and Councilmember Ayotte, I'd like to address this a little bit because I've
been involved in some very lengthy discussions with the city's counsel regarding assessment process and
how we actually work things. To answer Mr. Ayotte's question, there is no benefit to any property that is
not directly abutting the project. If they wanted to hook up to the city sewer in the future because of any
other failures of a septic system, they would have to extend the sewer lines farther north from where it is
11
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
terminating based on the engineering proposal. So there is zero benefit to any of the additional owners that
are farther north on Quinn Road. They would not be charged a connection fee because there is nothing for
them to connect to.
Councilman Peterson: We have another smaller project similar in scale as this one potentially and have
them assess that in the same manner as tonight.
Bruce DeJong: Exactly.
Scott Botcher: And carrying that, the risk of having the cost inflate, having smaller incremental
administrative cost for smaller projects, I mean certainly it makes more sense to tie some of these smaller
projects together and be done with them. I mean I think there's some efficiencies built into that. Certainly
the governing bodies retain the authority to establish areas of benefit and make determinations of benefit
and assess upon that basis. Now most of these just want to do assessments for the heck of it. If the
neighborhoods really, really hate them, they're not going to do them.
Councilman Ayotte: How is the assessment played out? How is it paid out? Over what period of time and
how much of a hit do folks take on this?
Bruce DeJong: That's certainly something that you determine at the assessment hearing process.
Typically we've done these in 8 year payout. We do that with a fixed amount of principle payment and a
reducing amount of interest payment on those special assessments.
Councilman Ayotte: So there's latitude. There's some give and take based on the ability of the people to
take care of business, is that true?
Bruce DeJong: That's correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. I certainly think that there's some benefit to having the stubs put in place also
ahead of time so that those service connections are available because certainly the intentions of property
owners change and owners change on a regular basis because I was the beneficiary of that when I built my
house in Minnetonka. Actually having 2 stubs placed on the larger lot that I ended up building on so.
Councilman Ayotte: Understand my motivation for asking these questions. And if there's latitude for folks
to get some relief in their ability to pay the assessment, I'm going to feel more comfortable about it. What
can I put into a motion that would ensure that that particular point is carried out?
Mayor Jansen: It's already policy.
Bruce DeJong: I don't think there's anything at this point. The point where you do that is at the
assessment hearing at the completion of the project.
Scott Botcher: And our ordinances and our practices have allowed property owners to benefit through our
tax exempt rate when we go to market. In other words, you and I can't go to market and borrow money for
what the city can borrow money for. We pass that benefit on to the taxpayers who might choose not to pay
their assessments at the time they were due, or in some cases pre-pay them and they thus benefit from us
going to market so to speak on their behalf.
12
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: And you said there's an 8 year period top end at this point. Is that typical for the
area?
Bruce DeJong: I think that's pretty standard.
Councilman Ayotte: Alright.
Mayor Jansen: At this point can we amend the vote or do we need to remove the motion and vote again?
Andrea Poehler: The motion would need to be made to reconsider and it would need to be made by
Councilmember Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: I make a motion to reconsider this past motion.
Andrea Poehler: Yes you would vote on that.
Mayor Jansen: May I have a second please.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to reconsider the previous motion. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Now we can just put a new motion on the table.
Andrea Poehler: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: May I have a motion please?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2001-31: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
feasibility stuffy for Quinn Road Improvement Project No. 01-02 for installing only the sanitary
sewer portion of the project, and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you Councilman Ayotte for getting your questions asked. Appreciate it.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO
DOGWOOD ROAD, PROJECT NO. 00-01-1.
Public Present:
Name Address
Hal & Jen Newell 7550 Dogwood Road
13
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Dick Lundell 7341 Dogwood Road
Amy Adamson 7331 Dogwood Road
Barbara Freeman 7431 Dogwood Road
Jay Rubash HTPO Inc.
Richard Foley 7411 Dogwood Road
Martin & Donna Jones 7321 Dogwood Road
Scott &Maren Vergin 7311 Dogwood Road
Marjorie Getsch 7530 Dogwood Road
John Getsch 7500 Dogwood Road
Bill Coffman 600 West 78th Street
De Brandt 7570 Dogwood Road
Bruce Carlson 1440 Bavarian Shores Drive
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. Staff is not at this time recommending approval
of the feasibility study as attached to the staff report for Dogwood Road. Instead we are recommending
that that study be revised to look at a different sewer alignment option. This study was petitioned for by a
developer who is proposing a 30 lot subdivision along the southeast comer of Dogwood Road. The study
looked at extending sewer and water, widening the street to serve the existing property owners along
Dogwood. The majority of the existing property owners along Dogwood and the majority of the proposed
owners of the new subdivision. An informational meeting was held last week in which the neighborhood of
Dogwood Road could come and look at the proposed project. See how it affected their lots. Two main
viewpoints were expressed at the neighborhood meeting. One was to save as many trees as possible along
Dogwood Road. And two, to minimize the widening of Dogwood Road as much as possible. A majority of
the tree removal would be due to the sewer depth along Dogwood Road. In some parts it would be up to 30
feet deep. That in turn yields a wide swath of approximately 100 feet. That's how most of the tree
removal and replacement would be required. Upon hearing those concerns from the neighbors we started
looking at other options. How do we save trees? And since the sewer depth was the issue, we looked at the
possibility of moving the sewer to the back yard area along Lake Minnewashta. Initially staff did not
believe that the residents of Dogwood Road would be for this option. They'd be granting easements,
construction backhoes going through their back yard, that sort of thing, so we didn't have the consultant
look intently into the feasibility of that option really. We kept them up on the road, up on Dogwood Road.
If we do not move forward tonight with the project, I'd like to note that there would be the requirement of
another public hearing after we look at the revised feasibility study at which time we would bring forth
another option. I'd be happy to take any questions that you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions for staff? So this evening we would just be simply authorizing your
extending the, revise the feasibility study.
Matt Saam: Simply tabling, yeah. Not going ahead. Not approving plans and specs. Not ordering the
project.
Councilman Ayotte: What's the turn time for getting it done?
Matt Saam: The feasibility study? A month or two.
Mayor Jansen: So where you've noted in your staff report with the petitioner's consent. I gather we have
the petitioner's consent.
14
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Matt Saam: I'm sorry, I forgot that. Yes, I spoke with the petitioner today. He was at the neighborhood
meeting last week. In addition to the neighborhood consent, they are for looking at this option also.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sounds like we have an amicable situation here.
Councilman Ayotte: Let's grab it. It doesn't happen often.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, noting that we're probably going to be, from what I'm hearing, taking the staff
recommendation, if anyone would like to make comment. We obviously have been told we're going to have
yet another public hearing where you'll have the opportunity to address the new option as it comes forward,
but if there's anyone here this evening who would like to address the council on this item, please step
forward. If you'll state your name and address for the record please.
John Getsch: Yeah, name is John Getsch. I live in Edina but have property at 7530 and my mother lives at
7530 and then I have the lot next to that. In the meeting last week there were several things that came out
besides the depth of the sewer, the location. Looking at going along the lake for it had never really been
considered before. It had been kind of pushed off. That really makes sense to look at that. But another
issue that's coming up is the extension, possible extension, whatever of West 78th Street and providing
access for Westwood Church. And there needs to be a look at the whole access off of Tanadoona Drive
onto 41, extension of West 78th Street. How that's going to tie in. Also now have a developer looking at
putting in 30 lots off of Dogwood Road. That road was never designed for that. It's a very long cul-de-
sac. The people that live there now and have lots there now are happy with the road the way it is. We
don't, everybody said the same thing. It's a country feel. You drive in the road. You feel like you're 3
hours up north. To come in and make it 75-80 feet wide would completely change that and that's part of
the value of the lots out along there. The major benefactor of increasing the size of the road and the width
of the road would be the 30 lot subdivision. And you'd still end up with a, over a mile long or close to a
mile long cul-de-sac. It still would not change that issue so those are the comments I had.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Anyone else who would care to address the council on this item? Okay,
bringing it back. Matt, if you could maybe address the concern that John just brought up.
Matt Saam: Sure, and I'll let Kate jump in too on West 78th Street. She's been working with the church.
The way I understand it, until they would come in for a plat we really don't have much power to say
dedicate us this road. Extend West 78th Street through here. If this project would go ahead in the review
of the proposed subdivision, we would look for, we always do another access. An emergency access.
Something so if Dogwood Road would be closed down for some reason, people would have another way
out. So it is a good point but I don't know, Kate maybe you can speak to West 78th Street.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Westwood Church, who is the significant property owner in this area has 67 acres.
While they haven't formally submitted an application, we are working with them. We have requested they
do a traffic study. We realize that the impacts on Tanadoona will be significant and we've asked them to
look at an additional access point which will be the extension of West 78th. As another option to provide
access to the 30 acre, proposed subdivision, again we haven't seen a subdivision and we'll have to review
the merits of that and access as that comes in, but we're looking at other alternatives to provide access, not
only to the church but to this piece of property. So while West 78th is 100 foot wide at 41, it certainly
doesn't need to be that wide. As it gets, crosses over because it would just be a local street. 60 foot wide
at maximum so we're looking at that. And again the extra time that we're looking at the feasibility also
gives us time to look at, as Westwood, probably be in the next couple months and get their traffic study in
15
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
shortly. All those pieces will kind of come together so I think the additional time helps everybody. I think
the applicant on the Dogwood recognizes that too so hopefully we'll have more information as this evolves.
Councilman Ayotte: Did you include the traffic study possibly?
Kate Aanenson: Well the traffic study, the subdivision's going to have to fly on it's own merits. It's going
to have to meet the standards of access and certainly the church is going to have to, the good thing is
they're all kind of coming together and we're trying to work cooperatively and all parties are trying to work
cooperatively. They all need sewer. They all need access so there's mutually beneficial, and that's what
we're trying to work on and all parties so far are working well together so.
Mayor Jansen: And staff's doing a lot of coordinating from what I'm hearing, thank you very much.
Okay. Yes sir.
Dick Lundell: Could I make a comment? I'm Dick Lundell and I live at 7341 Dogwood Road. I just, you
know when you look at the numbers of this thing as well, there are existing 12 houses out there and they
almost, many of us have been there a long, long time. But and then all of a sudden at the very end of this
mile and a half cul-de-sac they're talking about development of 30. I mean that's 3 times basically what's
been out there so I would encourage again staff to look at an alternative way to serve. I mean it's like
we've got this little pod down at the end and you've got a mile and a half of this other and we're kind of
tipping upside down to take care of 30 new whatever's and if there's access actually off of 7. I'm not sure
if they can tie in off of, or not 7. I mean 5. Coming across, but I mean there's some University land there
too but I'd just encourage them to look at some other options because again it seems like they were tipping
this thing, the tail's wagging the dog.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for your comments. I guess I'm gathering from staff that all of those
options will be explored and the city standards will need to be met as that subdivision comes in so those
evaluations will definitely be done as that subdivision is actually being proposed and then also the church
site. Okay. Council, any further discussion?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to table.
Mayor Jansen: Do we need to table or direct to revise the feasibility study?
Matt Saam: I guess I would.
Mayor Jansen: Which is appropriate?
Matt Saam: I would defer to counsel.
Andrea Poehler: I guess I would recommend that you direct them to prepare a new feasibility study.
Mayor Jansen: Last paragraph.
16
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Andrea Poehler: You aren't really tabling this.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. We're authorizing staff to revise the feasibility study to look at the option of
constructing the sewer along the lake.
Councilman Peterson: Then I'll make a motion to that effect.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Can I have a second please.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to revise the feasibility study to look at
the option of constructing the sewer along Lake Minnewashta for the extension of utilities and street
improvements to Dogwood Road, Project 00-01-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS ADDENDUM TO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CENTURY
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 97-1C.
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. As an addendum to the previously approved
Century Boulevard feasibility study, staff is recommending that the feasibility study for the 2001 city
sealcoat project be approved. Sealcoating is a part of the city's annual maintenance program and in order,
this year in order to simplify the bidding process, we are combining this project with the Century Boulevard
project. Normally a public hearing would not be held for this project but due to it being bid with another
public project, it's required. I would be happy to take any questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions for staff? If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Jansen: All those in favor?
Andrea Poehler: I'm sorry.
Mayor Jansen: Oh! I forgot the public. Sorry about that. I'm moving along now. I figure it's the next
one everybody's waiting for. If there's anyone here that would like to address the council on this agenda
item, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Okay, I made a
good assumption. Okay, closing the public hearing. Do I have to redo the motion and the second?
Andrea Poehler: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
17
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Resolution #2001-32: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve
Addendum No. 1 to Feasibility Study for Century Boulevard Improvement Project 97-1C, to include
the 2001 Sealcoat Project No. 01-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR TRAIL PURPOSES
OVER AND ACROSS THE EASTERLY 15 FEET OF LOT 20, BLOCK 1, FOX CHASE AND
THE SOUTHERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 19, BLOCK 1, FOX CHASE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Barbara & Jerry Kreisler
Nancy F. Hoopes
Carolyn Nyman
Chuck Peterson
Rod Franks
764 Lake Point
6511 Fox Path
6341 Fox Path
708 Lake Point
8694 Mary Jane Circle
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. This thing's been around for 12
or 13 years. I kind of think of it as the sleeping giant. It just never has, it's been awoken and talked about
a number of times over those years but it's never been settled so hopefully this evening we can take one
more step towards settling this little trail connection. I guess I'll start, well we'll start with this. This is the
existing easement as it is in place today and again it's a trail easement for trail purposes. It is not
developed. The neighborhood, both neighborhoods I would say routinely use it, at least those who know
about it routinely use it today to get to and from recreational activities. Lake Point is one of the access
areas. It's out of the Fox Chase development. And then it's connecting to the Carver Beach neighborhood
in that location. So the existing easement travels inbetween these two lots, and tums 90 degrees and heads
directly towards Lotus Lake and Carver Beach Park at this location. Previous to this there was an
easement, proposed easement that wrapped around the front of these lots, but that one was not moved
forward with. Little history about how we came to this, to tonight's meeting. We weren't even talking
about the trail easement issue. We were talking about a separate issue down in Carver Beach. Sent out a
neighborhood mailing informing the residents of that particular discussion, and somebody called and said,
how about that trail easement into Fox Chase. When is the city going to do something about that? We'd
like to see that improved so everybody can have the benefit of that connection. So we sent out a mailing
again to talk about this in more specifics. That meeting was held here January of '99 1 believe it was.
January 26th of '99. At that time you have all the letters and e-mails that came in at that point. The
discussion centered around these two lots at this location, and I'll give you a close up view of what we're
talking about as far as the permanent easement. So it's titled close-up of the trail easement proposed to be
vacated. Kreisler's are in Lot 20. Hedlund's Lot 19. Wegler's on the other side in Carver Beach and
Schroeder's here. Existing easement is 15 feet of permanent trail easement on Lot 20 at this location. And
that again turns that 90 degrees and it's a 10 foot permanent trail easement on the Hedlund's at this
location. Generally what the Kreisler's were opposed to is the loss of privacy on that side of the yard and
along with a variety of other issues and they will speak to that this evening. So the park commission
attempted to strike a compromise, not really hearing from other people that evening between these two lots,
and generally what it's talking about, this compromise would be a horse trade to trade, get rid of this
easement on the Hedlund's. So you would do away with it and in return for that, the Hedlund's would
accept the trail on their side of the property and it would leave the side of the Kreisler's. So there's still a
little bit of permanent easement on the Kreisler's but the trail would move over into the other side of the lot.
18
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
So this is the proposed compromise as we have it today. The Kreisler's have signed this proposed
permanent easement. The Hedlund's have signed it but they're holding it until the vacation would be
approved. So in order to move forward we need a public hearing with a compromise position. We need a
public hearing to vacate these two easements before we would then go ahead and secure the new easements
to construct the trail connector between those lots. So that's the basic scenario, but obviously there's other
issues here that we'll hear about this evening from the neighbors. Why should we change it? Now we're
talking, if we change it the traffic pattern would change. Would now come out of the public road here,
Mohawk instead of going down into a park. This is a little bit cleaner. It's just a straight cut through, but
the folks down here always anticipated that it would indeed take a different configuration. I'll accept any
questions from council before you move on with your public hearing.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Ayotte: What kind of traffic goes up and down there right now? Joggers? Bikers? Can you
tell me a little bit about.
Todd Hoffman: Joggers mainly but we've heard about motorcycles and bikes as well so, it's intended to
be a pedestrian bikeway path.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, now.
Mayor Jansen: And it would be signed accordingly, correct?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Has public safety, has Carver County Sheriff or our public safety department
cut on this in terms of implication?
Todd Hoffman: There's many of these around the community. 30, 40, 50 of these neighborhood cut
throughs.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that but nonetheless, if we've got traffic going through people's areas,
whether they're joggers and have an occasional motorcyclist, get me excited. And if we have a traffic
pattern now of people using it, just because you improve part of it, what do we do to deter people from still
doing it the way it used to be because we've had this alive for how long?
Todd Hoffman: Dozen years or so.
Councilman Ayotte: So is it reasonable to suspect that they'd still use the old way even though we would.
Todd Hoffman: I think most of the cut through traffic today is using the proposed new way, and not
coming up. This is a longer route and heads down through the trees and the neighbors can speak to that but
I would think a greater percentage of the traffic currently goes through this route and then some of the
people would turn and go down along the lot lines to this location.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there anything that can be done structurally to like those pipes and so on that would
keep a motorcyclist out or snowmobiler out. Can something be done in that fashion to ensure that the
19
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
ingress/egress to those areas would be limited to what would be acceptable by the folks that live in that
area?
Todd Hoffman: Probably not at this location. I think the larger concern would be, this is coming down a
fairly steep grade and if you place those things down at the bottom, children could not have control of their
bicycles, may in fact find a hazard at the bottom in those posts.
Councilman Ayotte: It would cause a hazard rather than, okay.
Mayor Jansen: And I'm trying to recall when I went out and looked at this. There isn't signage there
currently, correct? Is there a sign that says no motorized?
Todd Hoffman: No. It's not an improved trail.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, and typically you would add that to a segment like this, wouldn't you?
Todd Hoffman: We offer a variety of signage. No motorized vehicles. Or trail abuts private property.
Please stay on trail, depending on the situation.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that's been rather effective in other areas? Where you put the signs as far as.
Todd Hoffman: Well a person who wants to take a snowmobile or motorcycle on a public trail that knows
they shouldn't be there, typically are not inclined to follow a sign. It may prevent a few of those that would
think it would be okay to do that, and they'd look back and read it but then on all of our trail connections
and all of our trails in the city we have the occasional violation.
Mayor Jansen: Sure, okay. But there would be at least signage that would go up. Any other questions for
staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. We will open this up for public hearing. If we could have
representatives of the opinions. Actually present the case the best way possible. Certainly don't want to
have anyone now feel heard. We realize that this has been an emotional, long term effort for all of you but
let's try to keep it just a little bit contained and I'll go ahead and open it up for the public hearing. If you'll
approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Thank you.
Chuck Peterson: Chuck Peterson, 708 Lake Point. We've been there for 10 years. I think just to address
the safety thing. I'm sure at some point in time somebody showed up with a motor scooter or something
but I don't really believe that there's somebody beating a path with a motorcycle very often. I think in 10
years you'd probably be able to speak to the maybe once or twice it might have happened. Snowmobiles,
never. The thing that you've got at the other end of this trail, you've got 2 boulders about this big that
really are very dangerous today and if they could get out of there and some posts put in, those would be
more safe than what we have today. If you try and take a bike up over that with a trailer, to get into
Chanhassen you can cut off about 3/4 of a mile going that way. So it would really be nice if a stroller and a
bike carrier would be able to get through on the end to get right onto the road because I think this easement
butts right up to the road itself. The other thing I think I'd start off by saying, just as a neighborhood, I
think we've got 40 out of 47 households that have said, you know here's a real logical solution that ties in
20
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
with really what's there today. What we're saying is that, I know that there's this fancy 15 feet that's
needed but in the grand scheme of things everybody's kind of beat a path today. We've living with about 8
inches right now and so if we could get something that's 42 inches wide that's right along the side there,
that would be sufficient for the neighborhood and I think you're talking about the people that practically
use it because the drawing card really is Carver Beach. And the people that are on the other side, while
they may come to visit, they really don't have anywhere to go because as you know Pleasant View, you've
heard enough times, there's no place to walk there safely and it's just not a path that people choose to take.
So this route kind of solves bikes and families having to get onto Pleasant View and being able to take a
straight shot into Chanhassen. It's a better spot to go. I'm a person that I've ran that trail. I cross country
ski it in the wintertime and mountain bike it on Lot 19 and Lot 20. And I can tell you for the last year or so
there's been a tree down and it's not the funnest thing to have to get through there but it'd be nice to have a
nice trail to get down there. And I think the number one thing in that neighborhood, if you'd kind of look at
the demographics, you know a lot of families. Strollers. It's been 10 years it would have been nice to
make it a little bit easier to get down there. And then Todd would probably come up with another thing.
We've had a conversation about this. One of the things that you have on Carver Beach is kind of a side
light to this is that the folks that live there today have a fire pit that what I believe is probably on public
property, which you know they enjoy that. We want to share that with them. Everybody, it's their public
land as much as it's anybody else's but the practical thing is that if you give up that Lot 19 getting down to
the lake, people are going to have to take the path, down the road. All the kids have to now be on the street
versus taking a trail to that path, and I think that everybody also agrees that Carver Park, from that point
all the way over to that development is a real gem for the city and to cut off that last piece to make it a
practical step for those people to walk through and make it safe, it just isn't logical. I mean that's just kind
of our way of looking at it. So our conclusion I think you'll see is a logical conclusion. I think there may
be some discussion about maybe how wide it is. Whether it's 42 or 48 inches, but I think generally
speaking you're going to see a neighborhood that would have no problem with that being right on the lot
line. And then the Hedlund's don't have anything on their lot. You know on that western side that they're
proposing right now so, I think that's it.
Mayor Jansen: I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're in favor of. The staff recommendation is
just.
Chuck Peterson: The staff recommendation, well the staff recommendation to just go straight, we're saying
no.
Mayor Jansen: You want the L?
Chuck Peterson: We absolutely need the L. We bought the L. The L is the lake access for that whole
development. And to give up that L, I'm not sure what public value that would give to anybody. The only
thing that I could see is it provides the Hedlund's with more privacy. That's the only value that's given in
that particular scenario.
Mayor Jansen: Well it also pushes the trail back towards the other home. Give me the last name. Yes,
because they would, the Hedlund's then would not be allowing the trail then to be built on their property,
correct Todd? From what I gather.
Todd Hoffman: Not the first part. The second part then would be back on the Hedlund's.
Mayor Jansen: Correct, but it would shift back over onto the previous property. Okay.
21
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Chuck Peterson: That particular one right there, that L is what we, you know everybody signed up for and
everybody wants. I mean there's no reason, there's no reason not to have this piece right here down to the
lake. Even in the, you know I'm not into this easement thing because I know you've got to have all these
wide, wide things but the reality of it is, is that the practical issue is that the path that's there today is right
over the Hedlund's property...toward the Kreisler's 42 inches. I'm understanding also is that even in the
straight line one there is a solid 60 inches that was going onto the Kreisler's property. So we're even
saying closer to the lot line, Hedlund's don't have to give us anything on their western side of their lot, and
the easement then on the back side or south side of Lot 19 would stay there.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Chuck Peterson: And that's 40 of 47 neighbors saying that. And the other ones were on vacation.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Nancy Hoopes: Good evening Madam Mayor, Councilmen. We really appreciate you taking the time. My
name is Nancy Hoopes. I live at 6511 Fox Path. And I just want to clarify a little bit of what I think just
got lost here. We received the letter from the city 3 weeks ago saying this was what they had come up with
in regards to a modification to the plan of where the trail easement should go, and at that time neighbors
started talking and said, wait a minute. We understand it got tabled for 2 years but we never in a million
years thought the tabling was going to be to just have the easement go straight down into the end of the
road instead of continuing down the path down to the lake. And so then the Kreisler's put out a letter
saying we want our neighborhood to know, because we are trying to work as a neighborhood, why we have
concerns about not wanting to have this path so wide on their property. And they staked it out and as
neighbors they set up a time for us to come and meet and talk with them and see what they were talking
about, and I have to be honest. I was flabbergasted at how much their property was being taken over by
the path that would be there based on the width. As were many neighbors. So what occurred this past
weekend, after we got their letter and we found out this was all coming up in a quick period of time is, the
neighbors said to the Kreisler's, what would be acceptable on your property? Would you accept you know,
we said this is so wide it is under your window. Would you accept 42 inches? And they looked at it and
said, wow. 42 inches. That won't take us under our bedroom window. Under our dining room window.
And yes, we would be happy to go with a 42 inch path that would continue down their property and then
what I want to point out too, I want to make sure you understand. The other lot that the Hedlund's, you
keep hearing about, currently there is no home built on that lot. It is a vacant piece of property currently.
Now they might be building on it but currently it is vacant. And so we said well gosh if you keep it 42
inches, continuing down to the lake on the proposed property of Hedlund's, that might keep them happy.
Let's work together here as a team. So in a period of a day and a half on Memorial Day weekend I went
door to door with 2 other of our neighbors and said hey, this is what's going on. Most of you had gone up
to the Kreisler's home and had talked to them and said you know we're neighbors. We can't ask you to
give up all that property on your home by a misunderstanding of when you bought the home that this
easement was there. But the Kreisler's have agreed to do a 42 inch path if we can get the City Council to
say sure. Let's work as a neighborhood. Let's make it, I have 4 little boys. I took my stroller up and said,
this is wide enough for my double stroller. This is wide enough for bicycles. This is wide enough for a
Burley. This is wide enough for a running path. Out of the 48 homes in our neighborhood, 40 of the
homes have signed. 6 of the other homes are not home and 2 of the homes are people who are involved
with the property themselves so I think that's real important to know. And then the two other things that I
just wanted to address was that, currently in our little neighborhood there are 60 children under the age of
22
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
13 that walk down to the lake, 4 of which I said are mine, with fishing poles and it would sure be nice as a
mom, as a parent, because when we bought our home we thought we can't afford to buy the home that's on
the lake but gosh, you know. Chanhassen promotes the use of the lakes and last summer my little boys
were walking down the man made path that dumps into the street that Mr. Hoffman pointed out, and the
garbage trucks were backing up beeping and one of my little boys dropped the fish and tackle box. Well at
8 years old he saw his life ending and I don't mean by the garbage truck. I mean his lures were there and
he was going to save them. So I guess the bottom line for us is, we're trying to work as a neighborhood
together. I think that we showed support. We're not asking for palm trees and lights anymore or whatever.
We're asking for please, please don't let this easement end in the street where it's unsafe. Where motor
vehicles are. We're asking you to please reconsider taking it down the original and best walkway that takes
my children down to the lake. I live for Chanhassen. We got, this year it was Christmas in May. We got
one of the canoe rental spaces at Carver Beach. Then I found out the cost of canoes so that's another
problem but, but my children are children. The children of Chanhassen are supposed to be able, along with
the adults, to enjoy the lake. It's not just for the people that can afford to have the home on the lake. We
would like a safe walkway and we'd like that trail to go all the way down to the lake. And like I said, the
Kreisler's are here. They agreed to this smaller walkway. We're asking you. It's not city code at the
moment. Or city standards of how wide. Please, please reconsider a narrower walkway that would not be
obtrusive to this family's home, to their property value but also would keep all of us safe and happy
walking down to the lake. We can see the Lake Ann fireworks from there. It's great. Thanks for your
time and thank you for all you do for the city of Chanhassen.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If we can try to just.
Nancy Hoopes: Oh, I have a petition.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. No, that's fine. That's fine. Sure, you can maybe pass them to staff would be
great. Thank you. If we can just try to keep your individual comments to 5 minutes, I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Jerry Kreisler: Madam Mayor, Council members and good neighbors. It's been kind of a strange mm of
events. I'm Jerry Kreisler. I'm Lot 20. My wife Barbara. This has been a real painful issue. I won't give
you the whole sorted history but the bottom line is that when we bought the house there were disclosure
laws broken and all kinds of, just very messy things. Bottom line is, when the path was surveyed, the
easement was surveyed, we were surprised to say the least. Notwithstanding we have a problem. We have
this path easement that's in a very bad spot. I'm going to show you a very brief video on it just to make it
real. Unfortunately the line, albeit accurate, really doesn't do justice to what it really is. But the amazing
thing about what's happened recently is, our typical 2 years up until this past weekend. The neighborhood
has been pretty much at odds in terms of what shall we do with this development and path easement in
particular and we did come to an agreement and it requires, it requires a compromise on everybody's part.
Our's, the neighbors, and now we're asking the city to consider a compromise as well. We know the path
size is a little smaller than what the city's typically used to approving but that we've got near unanimous
support, 40 out of 47, we think speaks very loudly to this as a solution. I'm prepared to withdraw
primarily my support for the option presented today in favor of giving the neighborhood the path directly
down to the lake, which they have argued passionately that would be a good thing, and I happen to agree.
That ultimately it would be under a nice compromise like this, my wife and I see absolutely no reason why
we shouldn't do it. Let me know you the video which was prepared before we reached a compromise and
the good news is that there was nothing really bad in it anyway. So if we could just roll that thing.
23
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
A short video prepared by Jerry Kreisler was shown at this point in the meeting.
Jerry Kreisler: You can cut it off right there. As you can see it's a problem. The path would actually not
take up the entire area of course but the easement is there and part of the easement being there is the fact
that it remains there for at the will of the city and the council, the neighbors, potentially be expanded and
this is sort of a secondary concern. Obviously the house is not going to be very marketable with this kind
of option sitting out there so when all said and done, if we had to go where the straight path is proposed,
that would certainly be okay for the Kreisler's I guess but now we're saying that the Kreisler's would
prefer that we have some path on our property that does serve a larger good for the neighborhood, so I
would make that my primary plea and in doing so I withdraw support for Plan B. Part and parcel with this
would be the notion that the city would ask, consider removing any opportunity to extend that path once it's
in at 42 or 48 at the outside I suppose. And that way when it would come time for us to sell the house, we
would not have this burden of trying to sell a 15 foot easement in the front of our yard, which frankly is not
very sellable.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Jerry Kreisler: Thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it. Anyone else caring to address the council on this item.
Mike Wegler: Mike Wegler. I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. I've been waiting a long time for this trail to
be put in where it is originally proposed from in the developmental contract. The 42 inch we discussed
with the neighbors there. It seemed like a very good option. You could go a 5 foot when you got down to
the comer but I would recommend going 42 inch by their house. Exposed aggregate was because that's
what their front sidewalk is. It would look nice with their house and it would work for everybody.
Running a trail into my driveway, the letter is there. Kind of explains it. You're running these people
down my driveway. Down to Napa. All down streets. It doesn't make sense. That's all I have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Okay, I'm wanting to bring this back to council. I don't want to cut anyone
off if anyone has anything besides what's already been said that you care to say, certainly step up to the
podium. Otherwise I will bring this back to council. Thank you. Okay, council. Any discussion around
this item please?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, one of the things that I, I know that surprises you Councilman Labatt but I
would submit to the neighborhood that we ought to consider performance specification that would allow the
L shaped approach. And instead of saying 42 inches or 48 inches, something to the effect, let's make sure
passerby's don't look through the bedroom window. I'm not saying write that into the spec, but what I'm
suggesting is that the city has to do things like maintain the path so we have certain types of equipment to
do certain types of things. So if we put performance parameters, a design option and then have the design
come back to say yes or no to the design, but I like the idea of, it's wonderful that you've come to a
compromise and I think that there's room for the council to in fact deviate from ordinance if we have a look
see at a design. So that's how I would see going forward. In short order. Not a long time. In other words,
let's get to it and put it down.
Mayor Jansen: I'd like to have staff address for us please the width of the path. I know that you are
proposing a 6 foot and now I'm hearing a 4 foot would be acceptable. What do we lose in that 2 feet and
what would staff's concerns be?
24
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Todd Hoffman: Sure. Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the council. First off, let me say that I'm
pleased with the compromise, or at least the start of a compromise that we've, the neighborhood has come
up with. Planning for the city does in fact utilize that shoreland as the first speaker talked about and so
maintaining the L shape is a good planning move for the city's park system. The width of the trail was a
concern when we moved through and attempted to negotiate, or when we did negotiate on this amended
plan. Our typical standard width for pedestrian trail in Chanhassen is 8 feet wide. Many of, we have 8
foot concrete sidewalks. There are neighborhood sidewalks which are narrower than that. The trail
connectors or trails are either 8 foot bituminous or 8 foot concrete. There are some places, you will find
them along the trail system where it does narrow down to approximately 6 feet to avoid trees or get around
a barrier, something like that. I worked, or we all worked with Attorney Joel Jamnik from the city
attorney's office on this and when we talked about going from 8 to 6, the biggest issue was 2 way traffic
going down an incline. And so if you have traffic going down the hill, a bicycle or some other mode of
travel, having people have to jump off the trail if you're at 41 inches or 48 inches to allow a bike and a bike
trailer, it's not the best planning that you could propose in this situation so that's why we maintained the 6
feet. In regards to 42 inches or that's 3 ½ feet or 48 inches, that's 4 feet, again that's a compromise that
we would all have to recognize. Increases potential for hazards with traffic meeting each other on that trail.
Regarding the aggregate surface. I would not advocate that or support that. If we do a concrete trail there
I would advocate a heavy brushed finish for traction. Aggregate tends to be a slippery surface. It gets
sealed with a sealer and it tends to be slippery in wet conditions and I just could not see that at this
particular location.
Mayor Jansen: The question that occurred to me when we were looking at the 15 foot easement line being
right at the edge of the house, to build a 6 foot trail and hug it to the property line, how much easement do
you still need to have and can we put that trail and abut it to the edge of the easement on the property line,
instead of centering it?
Todd Hoffman: Yes. We've always talked about that .... picture, this is from the last meeting. It's in the
snow. I think you can pick up on the stakes there. The light pole would be generally about the start of the
lot line between the two, then it would follow back and hit these two last as you see them go down. So
initially here given these utilities would have to be moved. Or you'd just have to start a slight jog but then
you can follow right back in generally on the property line and you go down.., particular location. You
don't have to stay over or veer out to the right.
Mayor Jansen: So the track that you're showing in the snow here from I gather the snow blower, would
that be the edge of the bituminous? Is that where the.
Todd Hoffman: Approximately. I can't scale that from the picture but you go 6 feet and that's
approximately 6 feet right in that location.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And would the city be losing anything significant if we reduced the size of the
easement then instead of maintaining the 15 feet that's designated currently? Where he's saying, of course
if we kept the 15 foot easement, there's always that possibility of the city coming in 10 years from now and
saying it's our 15 feet. We're now going to put in an 8 foot trail. Do we reduce that easement or do we
leave it at the 15 feet? What's the recommendation?
Todd Hoffman: Well you always want to, I can't see having a 6 foot trail on a 6 foot easement.
Permanent easement or a 8 foot permanent easement. You need that protection in the future. Our standard
25
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
easement width for all other trail easements in the city is 20 feet. So 15 feet is already reduced from there
and just to allow for issues of construction or improvements. When we run maintenance equipment up and
down that, if we do not have a permanent easement there and the property owner maintains improvements,
the sprinkler system or plantings and we damage them, then we are at risk for paying for those into the
future. So currently we have that easement because it's public space. The public is there. We're there
maintaining it, cleaning it and we routinely hit irrigation heads and fences and other improvements and
people call us and say, we'd like you to pay for that. And again that's their risk to put those private
improvements out in that easement so I think to protect the city as a whole you want to maintain a
reasonable easement and I think 15 feet's a reasonable easement there. We talked at length about this, you
know what is going to happen in the future? Well we've waited a dozen years and if we get a 6 foot trail
built after all this and it goes in, I don't think we're going to see somebody turning around and advocating
for an 8 foot trail going in at any time in the near future.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. We didn't have the detail at least in this packet as to that L configuration. That L, is
that an 8 foot or does that also remain 6 feet?
Todd Hoffman: The proposed path?
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Todd Hoffman: 6 feet.
Mayor Jansen: That does stay at 6 also? You don't widen it as you get down to the bottom there? It's just
6 consistently.
Todd Hoffman: All the way and for your information, that easement does go down to 10 feet. For
whatever reason it was taken only at 10 feet so there you have, on a 6 foot trail you have 2 feet on either
side to work with. Again for tree clearing and other things like that, you know that's about as small as you
would ever want to go.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
Councilman Peterson: Can you get snow equipment down a 6 foot trail? I mean that's got to be the
minimum for snow equipment, isn't it?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah. I don't know that we would remove snow on this particular trail. And we have, I
don't know that we have a trail at 6 feet that we remove snow on. You would just continually be busting
up the edge.
Councilman Labatt: Todd, what are the sidewalk widths in downtown here?
Todd Hoffman: 5 feet Mike? 5 feet, yeah. Downtown sidewalks.
Mike Wegler: 5 feet along Carver Beach Road is 5 feet. Most are 5 feet.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, some of them are 8 feet in the downtown.
Councilman Labatt: And the sidewalks along Powers, or Kerber north.
26
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Todd Hoffman: 8 foot trail.
Councilman Labatt: So we're able to maintain the 5 foot sidewalks in downtown with a Bobcat, right?
You clean those off.
Todd Hoffman: With a Bobcat, yeah. They're in those narrower sidewalks.
Mike Wegler: We were pretty much told we weren't going to do this. It's a 3 season anyway...
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, if you had to maintain it you know. This is obviously a hard situation, a tough
one and I think it comes down to reasonableness and the neighbors have struck up a compromise here
where they're saying no more than 48. I can see Todd's point on two way traffic and I'm wondering if we
bump it up to the standard sidewalk with the downtown sidewalks. If that would be amicable to the
neighbors. If they could go 5 feet, 60 inches. And then make the easement all of it just 10 foot on that one
L is already 10 foot easement. Why does this one have to be 15 ?
Councilman Peterson: What kind of maintenance would you be doing off winter then that would induce
issues with that stronger easement? I would assume the easement issues happen mainly in the winter when
you've got the blade or the blower in there.
Todd Hoffman: Tree removal. Those type of things.
Councilman Peterson: But that's only once right?
Todd Hoffman: Would be the summer issues. Inherent in the design of this easement is a 90 degree mm.
There's going to be some traffic control. You hit the bottom of that hill you've got to make a hard 90 so
there's some, you know the width of the trail. It's not an ideal situation to begin with.
Councilman Labatt: What's the overall length from the end of the circle to the 90 degree?
Todd Hoffman: It's the lot width. Let me see ifI know...
Councilman Labatt: Is it 110 feet?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, probably less than that.
Audience: 165.
Councilman Labatt: 165 feet.
Todd Hoffman: I have 138 feet. 140 feet from cul-de-sac to the back of the lot, and then it probably goes
about 200 feet to the lake at that point.
Councilman Labatt: I'm not worried about the 200 foot one. It's 138.4.
27
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Todd Hoffman: If it helps to get an idea, this is the view around the point of that 90 degree mm towards
the lake so it gives you an idea of what's there today with the trail alignment. So that's standing at the
back of the comer.
Councilman Labatt: And that's about the 10 foot easement right there?
Todd Hoffman: That's 10 feet, yep.
Todd Gerhardt: Do you have a picture going up the hill?
Todd Hoffman: Yep. That's standing at the same location but then looking back towards the front of...
the flagpole is standing up there. So this is right at the location where you're coming straight down the hill
and then it takes a 90 towards the lake.
Councilman Peterson: You're going to get some speed coming down that hill definitely.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: We'll put speed bumps in.
Mayor Jansen: No, actually we have closed the public hearing at this point. I'm liking what I'm hearing as
far as Councilman Labatt's comment about maybe standardizing the easement width. If the lower part of
this is 10 feet, I don't see where it makes more sense to have them both be 10 feet. If we're doing a 6 foot
trail and butting it as close to that property line as we can possibly get it right on the property line.
Councilman Labatt: On which, are you talking on the Hedlund's of the lot line or are you talking on the
Kreisler's? On Lot 197
Mayor Jansen: The one that's in question. Because at this point if we, I'm gathering and correct me if I'm
wrong. I'm making an assumption here, that if we go ahead with the trail as it was proposed, and we do
the extension down to the lake, we lose then the agreement to push the trail over onto the Hedlund's for this
upper connection.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, because that was the compromise. So now it goes back onto Kreisler's.
Todd Hoffman: Kreisler's were talking about taking that from 15 to.
Mayor Jansen: From 15 down to 10. And then having the 6 foot start at the property line. Not be centered
in the 10 foot easement, but that 10 foot easement would be consistent with the 10 foot easement that's
along the other segment.
Councilman Labatt: That still puts them only 8 feet away from their house.
Councilman Ayotte: See what I don't like about that is, I'm going back to my point about, if we ask them
to come up with a design that avoids encroachment on the people's privacy, and I go back to the bedroom
example. Without getting wound up in the detail of 6 feet versus 40 some inches, to come up with a design
28
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
to see if it works. You may have a variation in width from one point to the next. You may...of things and
if you have our engineers look at it to see whether or not there's too much of an incline as part of the road,
path to see what can be done about that. I'm saying let's take a performance approach rather than trying to
design it here at a council meeting to see if we can meet the requirements.
Mayor Jansen: I'm assuming that after 2 years that this has been looked at as far as any engineering.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm not going to make that supposition.
Todd Hoffman: The issue of performance standards to make the situation with the Kreisler's home more
palatable, the best way I can describe it is if we move it, if I stand on the trail as we were building it today,
and then I move myself over 6 feet and I look at that same bedroom window, my view really didn't change
much. And so it's, I don't think we can do any better than we're currently doing. The argument or the
debate over going from one side of the lot line to the other is just who is accepting what responsibility for
what easement. What the compromise says is we will accept what is currently on the books for the
easement. Let's just make sure it's reduced down a little bit. Put up to the lot line. I think they would be
more, the property owners would be more pleased with a narrower trail but again that's a decision. We
have a standard in place we're already deviating from so how far down are you going to deviate?
Mayor Jansen: We're down 2 feet and I heard you say that the 2 way traffic concern was an attorney's
concern, so now you've got your risk factor that you like to evaluate and the liability on the city's side
which was why that was brought up.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that and that's why I say if we had a design that had public safety take a
look see at it.
Todd Hoffman: We would never design a trail with a 90 degree T in it and so, we're just stuck with a
situation that we have to make the best of.
Councilman Ayotte: So we're already outside the envelope is what you're saying?
Todd Hoffman: Absolutely.
Mayor Jansen: In the easement width and in the size of the pavement, and we own the property. We own
the easement on the Kreisler's. We do not own it on the upper segment on the Hedlund's.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. At this point.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I mean that's why it ends up shifting off the compromise and it ends up back onto
the Kreisler's.
Councilman Labatt: But we weren't going on the Hedlund's on the lake portion?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So in order to get that leg we've got to.
29
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Jerry Kreisler: There's a permanent easement on both properties to get to our.., right now.
Scott Botcher: Well I guess just a couple things. First of all understand that Joel, and I don't know if Joel
gave a legal opinion as to liability or not but Joel certainly didn't give an opinion as to legal liability as he
doesn't represent our insurance carrier. My guess is given the amount of trail that's out there and the other
things we've got going on, and when we've talked to our insurance carrier about other things including a
skate park, that you would be surprised to know, and I would be willing to bet an expensive lunch at
Subway. That's how cheap I am. That there would be no change in terms of our premium and the
exposure that we would face would probably be negligible if you went to a 42, 48 as opposed to a 6.
Councilman Ayotte: If we went to what?
Scott Botcher: A smaller trail width. I agree with Todd. You don't build 90 degrees for a reason.
They're just a pain. In this case I think this is, and Todd's talked about this, it would be a low maintenance
trail, and the neighborhood's accepting of that. They probably want that. I mean it makes, I mean I can
see why you'd want that. The other thing Todd said that I think is right is, and I guess I'll state a little bit
stronger, I don't think I would ever, ever give up the access to the lake. I mean you own it. I mean it's
your's right now. You have the easements. There's all sorts of real estate issues it sounds like with the
home and wish it didn't happen but we could also say well it's really not our problem. You own the
easement. I think that the compromise that's been worked out is okay but I wouldn't give up the access to
the lake. I mean I think that's the starting point. You're not going to give it up. It's important as Todd
said and somebody said that that lake, or that park was a gem. And I think it is. I mean I see kids go down
there and go fishing and do different things and I think you want to maintain that and enhance it and if that
provides enhancement to the neighborhood.
Mayor Jansen: But the compromise.
Scott Botcher: But 42's pretty narrow. I've got to tell you, 42's really narrow. And I wish there was a
simple answer to the home location, but at some point we're just kind of, you know there's not a great one,
because I don't think there is. I mean Steve's idea is not bad. I agree with Todd on the aggregate. I think
that's problematic and those are all design things you can deal with later, but again stay big picture. As
Bob said, don't design it at the council meeting. What do you want out of this deal? You already know
what you have. You've got the easements now, but if the lake access is critical then say okay, that's
number one. We want the lake access. Two, we're willing to negotiate down perhaps off our standards
which are there, but one size fits all standards. You've heard me say this about streets before. The same
rule applies for trails. One size does not fit all, and I think we need to recognize that and we need to be
creative enough to do it. Then if there's another process that we need to continue discussions to go from 42
to 48, maybe have some stakes put, I don't care. Whatever we need to do to make you all buy into it, then
we just need to do that.
Mayor Jansen: What I'd like to avoid having happen is drag this out too long, so I would be inclined to
direct staff to evaluate and bring us back the recommendation as to keeping the lake access and then what
can we do then on the width and the easements and bring back a proposal to us that gives us those
components so that we can see it.
30
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I agree. I think I'm in that 5 foot range. I think going less than that is
problematic. I'm not adverse to lessening the easement so those are my humble thoughts. We're
presuming that the Hedlund's won't still negotiate so I think...
Mayor Jansen: They may. Yeah, good point.
Councilman Ayotte: This will give you a design to look at. Or give you something to look at.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, then I'm looking for a motion to table with direction to staff.
So moved with the points I mentioned.
Councilman Peterson:
Mayor Jansen: The?
Councilman Peterson:
5 foot.
Mayor Jansen: With being able to go.
Councilman Peterson: ... as a recommendation.
Councilman Labatt: 10 foot easement, 5 foot trail.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Scott Botcher: And just for inclusion in the motion, is it fair to say that the access to the lake is critical?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. Okay, second?
Councilman Ayotte: I'll second.
Mayor Jansen: I have a second from Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table vacation of the permanent
easement for trail purposes in Block 1, Fox Chase with direction to staffto provide lake access with a
10 foot easement and 5 foot trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for your patience while we work this through. Appreciate it and I'm sure staff
will, Todd be sure to keep the neighbors in the loop on this. I'm sure you will. Thank you. Appreciate it.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT TRADING 0.044 ACRES
OF CITY LAND FOR 0.055 ACRES OF LAKE OWNED BY DAVID STOCKDALE AND JANE
ANDERSON TO ACCOMMODATE A PRIVATE DRIVE, SUGARBUSH PARK.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. There shouldn't be nearly as
much discussion on this one. It's just a little bit of housekeeping to do. Back in the mid 1990's the City of
Chanhassen acquired a small portion of Sugarbush Park through the park dedication requirements and then
we purchased the remainder of the property for that park. Small problem occurred however in that the lot
line for the park included a portion of Mr. Stockdale's driveway. So the driveway you can see in this
31
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
location, it's a looped driveway. And as the park was platted, it followed this line. This location and then
up and back. When we went out to stake the property we identified this and at the time we talked about a
variety of scenarios. What should we do? Just ignore it. It's a very small issue. It's not in the developed
part of the park. But when we came right down to it, if Mr. Stockdale was to sell the property at some point
in the future and we thought we'd better, or may sell it, we thought we'd better clean this up. So we
designed a simple land trade in which the city gains area 3, in this triangle and then area 1 at this location.
Very small pieces of property and land given to the city, .55 acres of property and land given to the city.
.55 acres would be 1,487 feet. And then we give up Area 2 back to the Stockdale's to clarify or just to
allow for that improvement to stay in it's current location of that driveway. With that it's recommended
that the City Council authorize the attached purchase agreement taking care of that piece of business.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff before I open this for public hearing? This is a public
hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to address the council on this item, if you'd approach the
podium please. Seeing none, I'm going to bring this back to council. Any discussion? Otherwise if I could
have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion and a second please?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the real estate agreement
trading 0.044 acres of city land for 0.055 acres of land owned by David Stockdale and Jane Anderson
to accommodate a private drive, Sugarbush Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF HOYT/DTLK, LLC FOR VACATION
OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOT 5,
BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION.
Mayor Jansen: You thought we'd never get to you didn't you?
Kate Aanenson: This is an afterwards vacation of a drainage and utility easement. The city took more
than they needed. The building is placed over the drainage and utility easement. It is not in the wetland.
It's not violating any city ordinances, so the vacation is a simple clarification to make the building whole so
we are recommending approval.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff? Seeing no questions, can I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion. And a second please?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
32
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Resolution #2001-33: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve
vacation of a portion of the utility and drainage easement as described in the legal description dated
April 27, 2001 for Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (7802) FOR AN
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL STATION AND RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE; SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 3,984 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING WITH A 48' X 80' CANOPY
ON .74 ACRES; AND A VARIANCE FOR SEPARATION OF GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY
ZONED HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT; LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ZAMOR ADDITION, 441
WEST 79TM STREET, HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC.
Kate Aanenson: I believe the applicants are out in the hallway.
Councilman Ayotte: Should we grab them real quick?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, if you want to just give them a second. This application is for a site plan and a
conditional use. In the original review of this application was noted, there is a city ordinance requiring a
standard of 250 feet between the gas pumps. With the redesign of this building, it does require an
amendment to the conditional use. Amending the conditional use for that, and a variance. Again the 250
foot separation was to allow the separation between gas stations at every comer. Because there is existing
gas stations at this location the staff did support the variance. It could be redesigned to meet the standard
but we feel that this is a superior design for the location of the gas station and the service center. Again
Holiday will be basically redesigning the building. It's just a little bit larger in scale, in size of the square
footage. I have samples of the building material. If you want to look at those. The main issue that came
up on this building was the drainage between this property and the building, the Ramsey building right
here. The drainage was revised. The grading was revised. Both parties did work together. Mr. Ramsey
was just concerned that we follow up on the final grading to make sure, he did have some water problem in
drainage swale issues. We believe that has been resolved. There is a revised grading plan. We've just
committed to make sure that we walk it with him before it is sodded. He also had concerns about the air
conditioning units out on the ground. Where they are adjacent to the coolers and those are being screened
with arborvitae and his existing landscaping should stay in place so again that was the main issue that the
adjoining property had. The site plan itself is well conceived. The staff does support it. It will be a nice
looking building and is consistent with city ordinances. We believe the flow works well, existing driveway
access and the like, so with that the staff is recommending approval for the conditional use and amending
the existing conditional use and then also for the variance with the gas station pumps with conditions in the
staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No, she answered my question earlier about Mr. Ramsey's request.
Mayor Jansen: Alright. Well I have to comment that I'm just really pleased to see this comer being
redeveloped. It's a nice proposal. Nice structure that you're putting in on the comer there. Glad you're
staying in Chanhassen and appreciate your making that investment. With no further adieu, if I could have
a motion please.
Scott Botcher: Can I ask one quick question, and I apologize but I guess I'm entitled.
33
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: No, I'm moving along.
Scott Botcher: I know. And this is more of a question for the planners and I didn't ask Bob this question
and I apologize. There's a three reader line reader board on the pylon sign. It says, three line reader board.
Right below it says gas is a buck 11 a gallon. Is there an entitlement to that? I mean we had talked about,
that's what it says Kate. Right there, buck 11. Diesel's 1.16, 1.18. We talked about signage in the
community. We have a portable sign that we roll out for, and it's sort of embarrassing, the city rolls this
thing out. And I know it's functional and everything else. Is there an entitlement to that type of thing
where they put up like Marlboro's $25.00 a pack or whatever? I mean if we're going to try to clean up the
appearance of downtown, do we want to continue to perpetuate that?
Kate Aanenson: No. They do, the sign does require a separate sign permit. It is a condition of the site
plan agreement and there are regulations on those hanging, additional signs.
Scott Botcher: I'm just, you know I'm talking about this guy right here and if I'm barking up the wrong
tree just tell me to shut up and I'll mm my mic off.
Kate Aanenson: No. No, there is a condition for the sign permit and there are restrictions on those.
Scott Botcher: My question, if that's something you want to continue to have, if you're going to try to
dress up the appearance because they have done a nice job, but then they go with the old three line reader
where they're out there changing letters again.
Mayor Jansen: So I'm hearing Kate say that the applicant is aware that the signs will come through a
separate approval process.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It is a condition, yes.
Scott Botcher: Put it on your list.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded approval of Conditional Use Permit
#2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot variance from the 250 foot
separation requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels based on
the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
34
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles shall be permitted on the premises.
No public address system shall be audible from any residential property.
No sales, storage, or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles,
snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.
Facilities for the collection of waste oil shall be provided.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Site Plan Review #2001-3,
plans prepared by Insites, dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25, 2001, based on the findings of
fact and subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2. The developer shall increase the number of understory trees and shrubs along the southern property
line to fully screen the parking lot.
3. The pin oaks specified in the plant schedule shall be changed to white, bur or bicolor oaks and will
have a minimum size of 2 ½" diameter.
4. The Austrian pine in the plant schedule shall have a minimum size of seven feet.
5. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year storm event.
6. Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 5203, 5207, 5300, 5301, and 5302.
7. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
8. Revise existing catch basin invert elevation on Great Plains Boulevard.
9. Add rock construction entrance for the duration of construction.
10. Add silt fence around construction site prior to construction and removal of the silt fence at the end
of construction.
11. The developer shall utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water services for the new building.
12. The developer shall revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the General Notes add ~All connections to existing manholes shall be core-drilled".
35
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Under the Sewer & Water Notes add, ~Ann sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
26".
Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer.
Add a storm sewer schedule.
Revise the 8" storm sewer to a 12" RCP pipe.
13.
The developer shall revise the grading plan as follows:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Add a legend.
c. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
14. The existing flagpole must be relocated on the property at least 12.5 feet from the property line.
15.
Canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy. Such lighting shall not project beyond the
bottom face of said canopy.
16.
A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is
permitted on only two elevations.
17. The mechanical equipment on the western side of the building must be screened.
18. The retail store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
19.
The west wall and the west portion of the south wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction
as it is closer than 20 feet to the property line.
20.
The accessible route and accessible parking space must be located as close as possible to the
building entrance.
21.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
22.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
23.
The developer shall revise the roof drainage on the west elevation of the building to discharge to the
north and/or south of the building.
24.
The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to screen the mechanical boxes and
address the drainage issue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
LIBRARY PROJECT REVIEW.
Public Present:
36
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Name Address
Conrad & Lois Fiskness
Melissa Brechow
8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Carver County
Barry Pettit: We're here to review the status of the library, taking into account issues from the last
meeting. Also issues from the building committee meeting and I don't think there was a public meeting
between there... So at any rate, the title of this is, the Chanhassen Library Review by the City Council.
We thought we'd highlight a couple quick points in terms of where we've been so far. We've had four
public reviews. We've had one review by the Planning Commission and this will actually be the third
opportunity we've had to speak with the City Council. The next item is just a schedule. It's sort of to tell
you that we are on schedule and for those who probably don't have it memorized, the ultimate objective is
to get the project out for bidding on the first part of January. We're looking for that January window for
bidding as an ideal time to put drawings out because pricing is usually a little bit better than a more
competitive and people are interested in lining up work for the spring. So that still seems to be a schedule
that we're going to meet. Tonight what we wanted to do is review the site strategies and get approval on
the site strategies from the City Council. Future meetings. We've got a Planning Commission meeting.
This is sort of hot off the press. We're hoping it will be set up for June 19th and that will be again land use
issues. Sort of final review by the Planning Commission. And then followed by a public review at the end
of June on the 28th. And at that point it will be an additional, the work between now and that time in terms
of detailing and additional work on the exterior. Interior planning from the building coming together with
more detail, and more detail on site work as well. And one other item I just put on here that also would be,
if the plan, the strategies are approved this evening, that we start work also with a landscape architect that
looks at the whole site because there's sort of a piece of the puzzle that's beyond the original scope of the
work that deals with this green space, if you will for lack of a better term .... the site strategies and sort of
the, maybe another way to say it is kind of the rules of engagement with respect to the project right now.
And just review those. And these come.., sources through, you know input from the public. Input from
Planning Commission. Obviously input from the council. Input from the building committee so it really is
a compilation of a lot of those efforts that bring us to this total picture and the way the site goes together.
Strategy 1, a very simple one. The one story building. The second item is a parking deck along Kerber
Boulevard. Along with that is holding the new building tighter to Kerber Boulevard, and we've got an
antidotally align the west faCade of our building with the parking in back. No cul-de-sac. We talked about
that last time. We condensed the building mass to the west. More green space to the east. We've got the
green space between the east faCade of the building and on Market Boulevard is about an acre and a
quarter right now. So it's about 52,000-53,000 square feet. The other comment was move the library
closer to city hall. Strong gesture or probably we should put in here strong gesture for future consideration
for the connection back to city hall. So the library does make an obvious future point of which we would
link the library back into city hall if some day city hall remodels and that works out. A minor detail, in the
eastern parking lot as it sits right now is modified a little bit but it's also, a loop is created in there so it can
be worked as a drop off and it's more convenient to the cars coming in and being able to exit. The next
item is a major issue in terms of parking spaces. You basically have 90 spaces now that are dedicated to
the library and the formula for that is, we have 32 spaces in the east lot. That's the lower lot right behind
us. There's 25 right now. It's actually expanded from 25 to 32. So that lower lot then is designated
parking area. The other part of that equation is the deck that we're going to be building along Kerber. The
lower part of that, below the deck at the lower level is an additional 32 new spaces. 26 spaces on the new
deck and the fourth area would be that we have space from, the assigning sort of unused spaces up along
the west side of the current parking lot right now. There's basically a sort of reordering of the available
spaces up there and just make them more efficient. That parking. And then into the equation then is the
37
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
parking loss from Coulter Drive, so you add everything up and then subtract them off of Coulter. You
wind up with the 90 cars that have been designated for the library. The typical number use for parking is
about 2.75 cars per 1,000 square feet of building which would give us about 87 spaces so based on our
experience with libraries and what we have, you've got about 3 space overage. The next item of the design
soften the building geometry. Some of the plans we were showing were more diagrammatical and the
building was really shown more as sort of a more rigid geometry. We've shown how some of those edges
can be soften as the building develops. And then some of the, a couple minor details. Looking at an
outdoor reading area in the southwest comer. We'll see that on the plan and then there's also a sketch that
we can show you. And then soften, this is actually related to city hall and it's kind of some of the
landscape schemes. The city hall becomes part of this courtyard if you will, and the back drop then
becomes pretty prominent faCade relative to the whole development. So the thought is to restudy city hall
and maybe the way that it's planted. Maybe ivy on city hall so that it becomes more of a green back drop
to the whole plaza area, and those are just some thoughts on that. Those aren't cut in stone by any means
but some points of departure for studying the landscaping. And then the final point, just that you'll see
diagrammatically, is our reading room is going to operate independent from the library so in other words
there will be an opportunity to use the reading room in a very, very public way in with the library folks.
And it will be a room that's probably good for 150 people. It'd be ideal for example if you have a large
presentation for city council. It'd be an opportunity for the council to step over there and have a little
variety and be able to present with a bigger audience, if that's necessary. One of lots of different options
but.., so those are sort of the rules of engagement if you will with the building. The plan itself is like this.
What we've done, and you can see what we want to do is reference this plan back to the one that we last
presented and we showed a dashed line here that showed the extent of the building last presentation and we
retreated back from that line about 58 feet. And that again, one of the issues there was trying to compact
the building. Get it closer and tighter to Kerber Boulevard and then get more green area out in here. The
other dash line that we threw in there was the configuration at the last meeting of the cul-de-sac and so you
get a sense of where that is and then also at this point you see that the building is, how much tighter that
has been brought to city hall relative to where the cul-de-sac was. The interesting thing with the space is
now you've got the larger green space out in here, and then visually and physically connects in with what
becomes the courtyard. And then going over a few of the items that we talked about, the east parking lot
gets a curb cut at the other end so you can loop through that. Actually in both directions. It forms a drop
off along that side. Somewhat symmetric to the idea of the parking on the other side coming down to
Kerber. That there would be a loop also underneath the parking deck, and then act as a drop off here as
well. Very strong connection between the parking ramp and the front door of the library. Again the lion
share of the parking is going to be in this part of the site so we want to make sure those folks coming off
here are clearly aligned with the front door. It's very evident where that is. We're thinking along, in a
meeting today we wanted you to keep in mind that in terms of site strategy, site details, the only thing that
is probably more for certain on this site is the idea of this kind of a connection here with the library. The
configuration of the parking. When we show the areas in here, these are very preliminary ideas and we
haven't really had a chance to incorporate what might go on in here with the landscaping schemes through
here. But the suggestion that we're showing is more of a very wide... The parking lot to the library. Tree
line both sides. Benches inbetween. Those kind of opportunities so it's quite a nice sort of walking
boulevard, if you will. The other idea is a series or a sidewalk sequence then can take you from this access
point here down to the library. From the senior center down this way. Maybe it does begin to form a
border for...these things need a lot more studying but I think the essence of this idea is that the connect, the
way the green areas connect. Both the large green area out front as well as the way we think into the
smaller sort of plaza if you will between city hall and the library. Service comes in off of, I think we talked
about, the floor service still comes in off of here and brings materials and so forth to the library at that
point. We're trying to create an entry that's really quite visible from both parking lots so as you pull into
38
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
the lots, it's evident where the front door of the library is, which is an important idea. Again I think the
idea with the library, the design of the library, the plan of the library is nothing that's cut in stone but it
really is a tool right now to help everybody understand sort of as we said, the key strategies... I think the
last piece we have here, actually that fits just fine. Is a sketch of the building and it's a very rapid, free
hand sketch that sort of gives us some ideas about how some of the massing might break down. Some of
the issues that we're concerned about in terms of pieces and parts to the library. Things that might be
lower. Things that might be taller. Responding to entryways. Responding to views. We've got for
example you can see the back area here would be the ramp connection. Get a glimpse of the stairs coming
from the ramp and crossing the entry of the library. City hall over on this side. Creating some kind of arc
here that might be a background or might be a framework if you will for the flower garden .... coming
across here, tree lined. This could be an opportunity for a reading room for the children's area. The
meeting room would be designated with a higher mass out along this connection, so again very visible as
well. The area along West 78th has a series of different pieces to it. A reading room probably with a
fireplace in it. Periodicals, an outdoor plaza, reading area that's visible from 78th. Again the idea of seeing
more activity in the library on a lot of different levels. Not only just in the windows but actually engaging
the street by the opportunity to bring people out into the plaza. And then more reading rooms, sort of
lounge areas if you will. And then the higher mass in here is probably going to be the lion share of the
fiction, non-fiction collection. It still needs obviously a whole series of additional iterations to it to bring it
along. These represent our thinking at this point. And as we said, the critical thing that we're focused on
tonight is our site strategies. So giving you all that in a nutshell, it's a lot of information. Questions.
Mayor Jansen: We're mainly looking for, as Barry was saying, the conceptual review of the site and how
this is now laid out. Since this is a culmination of all the public hearing information. We've focused on
council input at the meetings that we have had. We're wanting to make sure that this is meeting council
approval before this now continues into Planning Commission for their review and then eventually back to
the public as they're pulling more the components together. So with that, comments please.
Councilman Peterson: You know I think generally it's a tremendous positive movement in my eyes. I think
we addressed the issues that we brought up 2 weeks ago and on the surface I feel 100% better than I did 2
weeks ago. You know again without really studying it, on the surface I think it looks very good and meets
the things that I had shared 2 weeks ago. The only thing that still is of interest to me that I need some help
understanding is, and you probably have discussed this at the public hearing before but the outside reading
area at one our busier intersections. You know you articulated that there's value in having people see that,
but if I'm out there reading, I wouldn't want to be in the busiest intersection of the city. I mean the draw is
negative to me. I'd much rather have it off to the green where there's peace and quiet. I mean I go to the
library for peace and quiet, not to see cars driving by.
Barry Pettit: I can address that one real quickly. This is a blow-up of that, and again it just shows the
internal organization which is a little bit beyond what we want to talk about tonight but what it does show
is, we also have a coffee area up in here and beginning to develop an outdoor reading area, plaza space
there as well, which addresses a little bit of what you're after because it brings that space internal to the
site as opposed to out here. And I will say that this is still kind of at best an idea. I think the jury's still out
on if that's going to work and how that's going to be used and whether it's a good way to spend their
resources. So the point's well taken. It's still a little up in the air.
Councilman Peterson: On our drawing the entrance, you know it looks like a series of steps which I
presume are not steps but is that a covered walkway?
39
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Barry Pettit: Right. It would be a logia that again would help gesture to the entries. We fail to see that
from these spots exactly.
Pat Mackey: It's in alignment with some steps down from the ramp.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. In the three dimensional I sensed that so. I genuinely like it.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you for your comments.
Councilman Labatt: I tend to agree with Craig whole-heartedly on this. I think it's a tremendous
improvement. The only thing, I mean I really think that the outdoor reading area, if you can flip that to the
other comer. I think Craig has a point there where I'd rather sit out overlooking the grass area than that
intersection. Other than that I like it, but just flip flop that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Ayotte, anything to add?
Councilman Ayotte: No ma'am.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. I agree with Councilman Peterson. When I saw this configuration, I thought it
was much improved so thank you for taking all of the comments along with the building committee and the
public and everything. You're having to try to bring together into one plan and doing such a nice job of
bringing this together for us so, keep it moving forward.
Barry Pettit: We will.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate all your effort on this, thanks.
Barry Pettit: ... to that point we're excited about it as well. I think one of our assignments as designers is
to take comments and rework them here. We got to sort of take a little turn in direction and improve or
change what we've got and it's just part of the assignment. Part of the use so you get thick skin after a
while and it always seems to come out better at the end anyways.
Mayor Jansen: Great, well this is exciting to see how this has come together so thank you.
Barry Pettit: Thank you.
The City Council took a short break at this point in the meeting.
2001 BUDGET UPDATE/CLARIFICATION.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen and council members.
Mayor Jansen: And thank you for having joined us earlier on that other issue. I appreciate that.
Bruce DeJong: You're welcome. It's been weighing heavily on my mind for the last 4 months or so.
Scott Botcher: He's been crabby.
40
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Bruce DeJong: What you have before you is a recommendation of budget strategies that was updated on
May 9th and really what we took as our charge I guess is to try and get to the $650,000 that we reduced the
levy by last year. And I think we've exceeded that somewhat through a combination of revenue
enhancements and expenditure reductions. Cash on cash revenue, or expenditure reductions are probably
going to be someplace in the neighborhood of about $110,000 this year. What we're actually eliminating
from the budget would be the MIS salaries, which is $4,000 for that new position that was in the budget,
$3,000 for election supplies. About $35,000, between 35 and $40,000 for the sealcoating and I'm guessing
this year probably someplace between 20 and $25,000 for eliminating a finance position, which isn't
identified on here but is certainly what we're pursuing. What we've discovered is that we probably really
don't have enough work for another full time position there based on some simplifications that we've done
in some of our procedures, but we are using some of that money to pay for additional consultant services
from our auditors, HLB Tautges-Redpath to help get us through the hump and to provide some of the
services that the position would do as far as report preparation for our annual or financial report and stuff
like that so. I'm not sure exactly where that will shake out but we will be saving some actual, real dollars
out of our budget and it's not just all moving money around. But what I'd like to have you do is just pass a
resolution adopting this or with any modifications that you might choose to make so that we can kind of
finalize the budget and proceed on with the next item which is deciding what we're going to actually bond
for this year.
Scott Botcher: Now understand that as is the nature of budgets, you may at the end of every budget year
come back and further budget modifications, and I think you all are sophisticated enough, you've been
through this, you understand that but I want to make sure everyone knows that. And really what, and not
to correct Bruce. I don't think we're seeking a formal resolution tonight because obviously we didn't
prepare one, but at least we wanted some, well no we did. No sense in doing that, but we do want some,
the record to indicate on the part of the council some understanding and acceptance of the strategies
included in this.
Mayor Jansen: That we've approved the budget modifications I gather.
Scott Botcher: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: No questions, any discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I spent some, obviously this $200,000 was my bogey last fall and I think that
although with this revised budget wasn't quite what I was thinking about, I think we've gone a long way in
that direction. I think that the additional cuts may come from the employee program that we put in place
last time.
Mayor Jansen: The incentive program.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, so I think, I like the intent. We've come a long way in reaching my intent of
that in my motion of last fall so I'm certainly in favor of this and moving ahead.
41
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? I appreciate your bringing this forward and
noting these modifications and then keeping us posted as we progress, probably with our quarterly financial
updates as to where we stand with our revenues and expenses so thank you for pulling this together. And
with that, can I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval that we approve the budget modifications as shown in the attached
document and recommendations dated May 9, 2001.
Mayor Jansen: And a second please.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the budget modifications for
2001as shown in the attachment dated May 9, 2001. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
CALL FOR SALE OF 2001 BONDS.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen and council members. What you have in front of you is a recommendation
to bond for approximately $2.6 million right now, with the BC-7 and 8 water and sewer extension project
for a million and a half. The equipment as outlined in the 2001 CIP. The Century Boulevard for
$440,000 and sealcoating of $160,000 as was shown in the CIP. That's $2,580,000 that we would do right
now and then we have proposed postponing the library bonds for issuance later this year for basically
technical reasons. It's not that we think interest rates are going to get any better or, they can't get much
better than right now because they're really low, but we do want to take advantage of them so that we can
provide this in a timely fashion. What happens with the library is that there are some spend down
requirements on projects over $5 million that we have to meet the time lines of spending down, I believe it's
10% within the first 6 months after the bonds are issued. You have to meet 95% within the first, or 75%
within 18 months and then we have to have it completely spent down within 3 years so in order to do that,
given Minnesota construction cycles, we really need to postpone those so we can actually have something
happen within the first 6 months beyond the planning stages that you're going through right now with your
architectural consultants.
Scott Botcher: So we don't need to pay interest on money you haven't borrowed.
Bruce DeJong: That's right.
Councilman Peterson: Or that you don't need.
Scott Botcher: Well I mean you're paying these guys now. You're still cash flowing this.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff? Any discussion? If I could have a motion please.
Resolution #2001-34: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the sale
of 2001 bonds in the amount of $2,580,000 as outlined in the staff report dated May 7, 2001. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
42
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
EVALUATION OF CITY MANAGER PROFILE AND COMMITTEE STRUCTURE.
Mayor Jansen: A couple updates of what Mr. Botcher has included in our packets. That first page is the
ad that is running in the ICMA. The International City Managers Association publication. As well as, is
this the same ad Scott that you submitted then to the League of Minnesota Cities?
Scott Botcher: I've got to confirm that but it's the one I submitted to them. I want to make sure it gets on.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then the League of Minnesota Cities will also be running this ad.
Councilman Peterson: Do we know when that's going out?
Scott Botcher: No, I need to confirm that.
Councilman Peterson: And this went out when?
Scott Botcher: Last week. Last Thursday I finished it up. I need to confirm what, I mean the big thing
with the League is that the publication date on their magazine, the lead times are frankly terrible.
Councilman Peterson: That was my question...
Mayor Jansen: It will be web site, correct?
Scott Botcher: It's going to be on the web site and to dump it on the web site is really pretty quick but they
have a web master and I need to figure out when that person is actually going to do this.
Councilman Peterson: When do you think it will go in the hands of the people that are potential applicants?
Scott Botcher: Oh, I'm sorry. June 4th for sure. The ICMA newsletter will be out and so city managers
across the country and internationally will have then this ad. Generally the same thing goes on the web site
in Expedia format sometimes on Wednesdays so it could be there tomorrow. It might be there Thursday or
Friday, if it's not there tomorrow.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Scott Botcher: But Monday for sure. And it's going to be published twice. The 4th and the 18th.
Mayor Jansen: The profile we had talked about having that listed or posted to our web site. Has Karen
had an opportunity to look into that?
Scott Botcher: Nope.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Scott Botcher: Did you, and some of this I just need direction and I assume you want it posted on the web
site. Do you want it internally posted? For internal candidates. I mean the Mayor had mentioned that. I
just want to make sure that that, okay.
43
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: Sure, if it's our policy.
Scott Botcher: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, this is the revised version of the profile with everybody's comments. We got that
complete after the last meeting.
Scott Botcher: Take the word draft off it but yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, we've also then heard back on a couple of the community leaders who have
volunteered to serve on the 4 member committee that we had discussed. One of those individuals is Kevin
McShane of the Chanhassen Bank. And the other individual is Michael Leonard, who has a dentist office
here in town. So those are the two candidates that were brought forward under the parameters of looking
for an active member in the community who's experienced in community activities and organizations so
they've got a good feel for the community and our needs. And then with some human resource skills and
management skills applicable to the task, which is of course to act as the review board of the applications
and resumes that we receive, filtering through those, and then making their recommendations coming up to
council. We had discussed having 2 council people serve on that committee. We made it as far as, I had in
my notes suggesting that Councilman Peterson should be one of those individuals because of his HR
experience. Am I remembering correctly?
Councilman Ayotte: Yep.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So then we just need the second member, and I guess I would appreciate it if council
would leave me involved in the process in that I have already started, of course since we started talking
about trying to move this forward and that we couldn't talk about it at the last meeting, I've already been
contacting mayors that have been going through city manager applications recently, as well as talking to
some of the candidates about the possibility of their putting in applications so I would like to be the second
member of the committee. And having gone through the city manager's search the first time through 2
years ago, bringing that experience to the committee.
Councilman Peterson: I would agree with that.
Councilman Labatt: Let's hear from Mr. Ayotte...
Councilman Ayotte: Well Councilman Labatt's already got his vote in so I know it can't be him. His
skewed view.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I agree. I mean I'm not, I think it would be.
Mayor Jansen: This is just strictly to go through the applications prior to them coming up and that's the
only function of this committee. There and then citizen groups as we've discussed involved in the whole
interview process.
Councilman Peterson: Bring it from 50 to 10.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Alright.
44
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Comfortable?
Councilman Ayotte: Not completely but it's the best solution at this point. It can't be me and it can't be
Labatt. Me because my learning curve issue so I think at this point yes. It makes sense.
Mayor Jansen: I appreciate that.
Scott Botcher: For what it's worth, just so you all understand what I think you need to do, have to do
tonight. And some of this is pursuant to a conversation I had with Roger. And the other thing is just for
FYI. The thing you need to do tonight, and I think Linda's getting there is to make sure you identify the
who, primarily in terms of the public membership. You all are elected officials so you're a little bit
different duck than just a regular citizen. When applications come in, they'll be logged by Karen and
stored in a secure place. She has the personnel files anyway for all of us. And I don't even know if I could
tell you where they are all the time, because I just don't have a need to go there but she's got them locked
up. You as elected officials have a right to look at those legally, as long as there's not a quorum of you
around Karen's desk. So if one of you wanted to come in, two of you wanted to come in, you could do
that. Those documents and applications that are submitted are private record. They are exempt from the
public records legislation, until you get to the point where you identify finalists. At that point then they
become public record and then the whole issue of Kevin and Dr. Leonard being involved becomes moot but
you need to bless this structure and this process because otherwise Kevin and Dr. Leonard have no right to
look at this documents because they're private. And so I think that's just what Roger's two cents were to
me so, just so you know that.
Mayor Jansen: Yep. That was exactly where I was going. And I appreciate your identifying the system
for us within city hall. I know you and I had talked about coming up with that strategy as to how the
applications would be handled. Let's just give the committee a name. City Manager Search Committee.
And so we'll need a motion to approve the committee... So ifI could have a motion please. To approve the
committee.
Councilman Peterson: Well didn't you just motion?
Mayor Jansen: I don't make the motions. I need a motion to approve the City Manager Search Committee.
Councilman Ayotte: I make a motion to approve the City Manager Search Committee as was stated by
Mayor Jansen to include 2 citizens and 2 council members to go through the initial evaluation of
applications for submittal to the council.
Mayor Jansen: And a second please.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to form the City Manager Search
Committee to include 2 citizens, Kevin McShane and Dr. Michael Leonard, and 2 council members,
Councilman Peterson and Mayor Jansen, to go through the initial evaluation of applications for
submittal to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: So we'll keep moving forward, accepting the applications and they will be here at city hall,
and I'll notify these two citizens that we appreciate their stepping up to volunteer for this task.
45
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Jansen: Let's open up council discussion for the appointment process for our council member
opening. We've got of course a multitude of options that we could address. One of them was brought up
earlier. We could just re-open the whole application process. It was suggested earlier that maybe there's
people who are interested now that weren't previously, and I would throw in vice versa. My other thought
was if we care to confirm the interest of the candidates that we interviewed, and check with those
candidates, see if they are still interested in the seat, we could then schedule a meeting. I'm assuming a
special meeting that we'll want to get this accomplished as quickly as possible. And review and vote again
on that list of candidates.
Councilman Ayotte: It's also an option, and I'm going back to Berquist's comments where he had gone
through a wider berth but what's involved in a special election?
Mayor Jansen: Money.
Councilman Ayotte: How much money?
Councilman Labatt: There's less than half the term left so you can't do it.
Councilman Ayotte: I can't hear you, what?
Mayor Jansen: That's true.
Councilman Labatt: There's less, it's a 4 year term and there's only 16-18 months left on the term.
Scott Botcher: If it's less than half the term. If it's more than half the term you have to have a special
election. If it's less than half a term, you can appoint or you can have an election.
Councilman Ayotte: Or you can what?
Scott Botcher: Or you can have the special election. You can appoint or have the special election if it's
less than half the term.
Mayor Jansen: You're talking about a delay for.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm just, when we said throw out all the options, that is an option. I'm not saying it's
a good, the captain one but in fact given the climate, you know a special election is also something that can
be discussed.
Mayor Jansen: And I would actually add to that, the brutality of the last election, I don't know why we'd
want to put this community through that again. They're going to go through it again in a year and a half.
Councilman Ayotte: Good point.
Councilman Labatt: Don't want to wear them out.
46
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: That speaks to my comment months ago about taking the number two candidate.
That's equally controversial perhaps but somewhat easier.
Councilman Labatt: I'd almost go with candidates, the applicants we interviewed and see who's still
interested in putting themselves up on that pedestal there and seeing if anybody's willing to even do it
anymore. And we've already interviewed them, we know who they are. There's other candidates in that
group that we should take a hard look at.
Mayor Jansen: I actually would favor that same alternative.
Councilman Labatt: First... make sure that someone has a flack jacket they can handle...
Councilman Ayotte: Interview everybody that would, I don't want to make a supposition of anything. If
someone says I'm interested again, I wouldn't want to take the position we already know that person. I
want to interview again. You're not saying don't interview again?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilman Ayotte: I didn't catch it.
Councilman Labatt:
Mayor Jansen: 7.
Councilman Labatt:
Mayor Jansen: Yep.
We started with 23, right? Then we whittled it down to.
7. Then we got 6 left, right?
So we have 6 that we interviewed.
Councilman Labatt: Unless you want to start with all 23. I'm fine with that too. Let's start with all 23
and see who's interested again and.
Mayor Jansen: I'd be more comfortable with the 6 because we got it down to 6 that we had at least.
Councilman Ayotte: But what if there's somebody out there that didn't apply before and would apply
now? Are we being, what do you think?
Mayor Jansen: And we don't have to decide tonight. I mean obviously.
Councilman Peterson: I mean clearly people, if we opened it up to the public again, there are new people
that would apply probably. But if we do that we're looking at another month delay probably.
Mayor Jansen: It took us 6 weeks. Yeah, 6 or 7. We appointed the first meeting in February.
Councilman Ayotte: You've got 3 constraints. You've got time, schedule, performance is an issue and the
cost. Well if we're not going to do a special election, there's not a cost so it's just performance and
schedule and I would prefer to look at the spread and see if there's some other folks that might have an
interest, personally. Even though it would take a little bit longer.
47
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: So run an ad?
Councilman Ayotte: I'd run an ad.
Councilman Peterson: I'd probably go back to the 23, just to. It's been too long since I've made that
criteria. I may make a different decision today. It's been too long since I remember why I whittled it down
to 7. I mean that's maybe another hour discussion but, at least I can have the opportunity to look at the
applications again.
Councilman Labatt: Then you have 22 in actuality. Start with 22 is our foundation.., people that are
qualified.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, then I'm going to complicate it because I guess if we're going to go back I'd be
interested in running the ad and letting people step up because they're interested again.
Councilman Labatt: Why don't we just take a vote and see what we do?
Councilman Ayotte: Could we talk a little bit more? Another part of this is, from my own selfish view of
the world, I'd like, it'd be another kind of look see at the community's view of things to see if we get some
more applicants. Wouldn't it be a message if we got no one but.
Mayor Jansen: I think the circumstances have changed. I mean people are now seeing the environment that
we're working under, and that's where I'm not even sure that the 7 or the 6 that we came down to are
necessarily as interested, and maybe we have some people that like a good fight and they're going to step
up because now they want to defend the community and they want to get involved and try and straighten
things out that they perceive to be wrong, you know from whatever perspective they've coming from but
there may be some people who have maybe been incited into public service. I think it's a different position
today than it was.
Councilman Peterson: That's why I go back to my 21. So I mean, you know I'm not adverse to putting it
out to the public again but it just takes a lot of time and that will put us, that will put us into the city
manager search timeframe too so we've got 2 big things happening at once and I'm concerned about that
we'll tax ourselves.
Mayor Jansen: Because we've missed this week's paper.
Councilman Ayotte: We what?
Mayor Jansen: We missed this week's paper so then we're out to next week's paper at the soonest. We're
out to June 7th would be the first ad. I think we advertised it twice.
Councilman Peterson: And we wouldn't necessarily have to do that again. Linda walk me through why
you don't want to go back to the 22 versus you're saying that you'd rather.
Councilman Ayotte: You know the other part of it is, if we did a quick canvas of those 22 or 23 and found
a lot of people said no I don't want to do it. No, I don't want to do it. We may get back to the point where
we have to put an ad out but there's that part of it too so maybe we're being, maybe we ought to do a look
see at the list again. Maybe that's another problem.
48
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Well they can still throw their hats in again too. We edited that first list pretty quick and it
got down to a very distinct, smaller version so if we're saying that we're not necessarily sold on confirming
the top 6 now, then I'm liking the idea of putting it back out there and as we've been sitting here talking,
and I've thought about how our circumstances have changed, you might have a different personality or skill
set that's going to be willing and able to want to step into a position like this. Whereas we may have
caused the opposite reaction in some of the people who wanted originally to serve on the council.
Councilman Peterson: If we got the ad in next week, could we limit the time frame so that they have to get
it back within a week? So we still get a pile of 21 that we could potentially pull from so we're looking to
augment that. So would we have to advertise for 2 weeks in a row and elongate the process.
Mayor Jansen: What if we advertised on the 7th with a deadline for applications being end of business on
the 15th, because then it could still be advertised on the 14th for people who missed it the week before and
they'd just have that next day to get an application in, which would be simple enough.
Councilman Labatt: ... the Villager's going to run an article this week about Kroskin's resignation and the
council's going to decide on what to do. How we're going to handle it so that's actually a week of free
advertising. So if we run our ad next week, on the 7th and you put the deadline to have it on the 13th, then
that means another on the 14th when they deliver packets, we can have this stuff to act on it on the 18th.
Mayor Jansen: There's no council meeting the 18th.
Councilman Labatt: The 22nd?
Mayor Jansen: It's the 25th.
Councilman Labatt: Well then that gives us a week to read things. Why don't we have a special meeting
on the 25th.
Mayor Jansen: If we're just cutting comers on a couple days, if we put that deadline on the 15th, you've
got that week then to go through them. Or if you want to call a special meeting, that following week you'd
need 3 days, well we could set it up now. And say the 20th or the 21st.
Councilman Labatt: ... this week here to, you know we'd have.
Mayor Jansen: All they have to do is copy these. They did this the last time. They just Xeroxed them.
Councilman Labatt: I know, I was here. I know.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, and out them came so.
Councilman Labatt: But the packets usually come out on the 14th so.
Mayor Jansen: But that's what I'm saying, they special delivered them so that we had them. But that
would give people two opportunities.
Councilman Labatt: I'm just trying to streamline things a little bit but, you know.
49
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: I can appreciate that but all I'm suggesting is if we give people enough opportunity, then
we've done an open process. Everybody's had an opportunity to see two ads. And we can still expedite it
then during that next week is all I was suggesting.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I don't think you need to do two ads. I think we'll have front page placement
Thursday.
Councilman Labatt: You don't need to run the ad twice. Trust me, the residents are going to know.
Mayor Jansen: I'm going to jump in and Melissa.
Melissa Gilbert from the Villager gave an update on the newspaper's schedule.
Councilman Peterson: I still don't think we need to run it twice. We're augmenting a group of 22. You
know how much does an ad cost? Is it $200 or like $500? Any idea?
Scott Botcher: I don't know what it is.
Mayor Jansen: Well, I guess I'm just suggesting if we can get that much exposure in a 2 week period and
give everyone a fair opportunity and a shot at it. I mean we're just talking about a day and a couple
hundred dollars so.
Scott Botcher: Probably less than a sewer lateral.
Councilman Peterson: Could we bill this off?
Scott Botcher: Stub, sorry.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so is everyone comfortable with the ad on the 7th, ad on the 14th. Deadline of the
15th, and do you then want a special meeting in the following week to then be able to have, we'd have the
application to then either whittle down and do more interviews, because we're back to that initial whittling
down. And we did that in one night. Everyone took the applications. Came in. We each said our top 9.
Councilman Peterson: Something like that, right.
Mayor Jansen: And ended up getting down to 7 to interview.
Councilman Peterson: That week I may be out of state. 50/50 chance. For sure the later part of the week.
Probably the first part of the week.
Scott Botcher: Conference call?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I can do that.
Mayor Jansen: Because we could actually do a work session then on Monday the 18th. It's an off council
Monday night. To go through the applications.
50
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: So would we contact the 21 or would we presume them to reapply? Got to address
it.
Mayor Jansen: Yep. We could just send them a letter letting them know that it's open again.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. If you want to re-apply notify us.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so if we get together on the 18th and we get it down to 6 applicants, or 8 applicants
and we've got interviews that we need to do, do you want to do them the end of that week in order to then
be able to vote on Monday the 25th. It would mean that Wednesday or Thursday night.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there, again because of.
Mayor Jansen: We're only short a council person then one meeting after this.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there an advantage to having anyone else brought in to the process with us? We
obviously vote through our, us but do we alter the procedure that we employed last time in any way?
Mayor Jansen: It depends on the time commitment you want to make.
Councilman Ayotte: Well I'm thinking, pulling in a commissioner or. Scott, is that a bad idea? Good
idea? Is there an advantage to it? Do we have 4?
Scott Botcher: I generally say never abdicate your authority. You've heard that before.
Councilman Ayotte: Beg your pardon?
Scott Botcher: Never abdicate your authority. I mean I think this is, you were elected to these jobs. And
the law's pretty clear on what you can and can't do. If you want to have input from people, then your
constituents will tell you and/or you need to ask your constituents for input.
Councilman Ayotte: Point well taken.
Scott Botcher: So if you Bob want to do that, you can contact Joe Blow and say listen, I'm helping select
some city council member. Do you want a green duck with 3 legs and 2, you know what do you want?
What do you look for and that's, but I do think if you're going to advertise and interview, all of those
people, however you're going to do it, I agree with Steve. You need to re-establish contact with the 20
some people and then run them through the same process. I would hate to have you identify the 6 people
through a previous interview process and interview some other people and try to blend those, because that
doesn't work too well.
Mayor Jansen: No, we'll send letters.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks. Okay, so are we setting up a second meeting later in that week for potential
interviews because we'd have to have it posted. We wouldn't be able to decide Monday night. Otherwise
they'd just have to be scheduled on Friday.
51
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Labatt: You're just going to be gone towards the later part of the week.
Councilman Peterson: No, I'm gone the week of the 25th. So I'm open.
Mayor Jansen: The week of the 18th?
Councilman Peterson: I presume that I'm open right now, yeah. I'm on vacation this week so I don't know
what my calendar's going to look like yet.
Councilman Labatt: We don't need to set a date today, do we?
Councilman Peterson: We should.
Mayor Jansen: We should just to make sure we've got it scheduled.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: So 18th, regular work session time. 5:30. That will be to do the initial cut. And review
and cut of the applications. And then if we schedule, is everyone open on Thursday the 21st at 5:30?
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: I've got one okay.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: I'll have to change some plans.
Mayor Jansen: Is it doable? Thank you. So then 5:30 on the 21st we'll tentatively schedule for interviews.
And we can make that final decision then on the 18th. The deadline for applications will be June 15th.
Councilman Ayotte: Now I had the 14th and one on the 7th was it?
Mayor Jansen: 7th, yep. Okay, thanks for running through that. I appreciate it. I think we're clear.
Councilman Labatt: I have one more thing under council presentations I want to talk about.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: We got some phone calls about the letter, or the article about the appointment process
in Park and Rec and I just wanted to for point of clarification, and future consideration, I want to make
sure that we stick to one plan or one policy, whatever you want to call it but the fact that the commission
didn't interview the applicants before has.., some people so I wanted to discuss it among the council to see
what the process is going to be so that it's consistent with all the commissions.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, we did have a glitch on the, I don't want to place blame but there was no direction
given from council that the commission would not interview the applicants. The discussion that Mr.
52
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Botcher and I had had was that because the Planning Commission process for replacing Councilman
Peterson's position had already started into the old procedures, that we would stay consistent and follow
the procedure throughout all of the commission appointments this year and that council then would need to
have a conversation around changing that procedure if we care to next year. That was the discussion.
There was no direction given from council to change the procedure.
Councilman Ayotte: Let me play it back, make sure I understand. Let's just, from a go forward
standpoint.
Mayor Jansen: We need to review the policy and the procedure and decide as a council how we want to
handle it next year. We don't need to decide anything right now because we're through with that process.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, but what was the procedure was we should have taken input from the
commission? Recommendations from the commission?
Mayor Jansen: As the Planning Commission had done, they performed an initial round of interviews with
all of the applicants. That did not happen for Parks and Rec.
Councilman Ayotte: And we probably should have but since it's kind of water.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, it wasn't council direction not to.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. But on a go forward we need to establish procedurally what we're going to do.
Mayor Jansen: Or stay with the old way of doing it. Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: But that's a decision point.
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And when should we be making that?
Mayor Jansen: When we have a full compliment of council people. It's not a pressing issue.
Councilman Ayotte: So when we get the fifth person we'll take care of business.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah. At this point it's not something we'll do again until next April.
Councilman Ayotte: Is that in the form of a resolution?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. So we did not break an ordinance. We did not break any sort of a major issue. It's
just a resolution. And we technically can do the process however we want to do it. So that's where we
throw it up for discussion. Okay. Anything else?
Scott Botcher: I just had one in the correspondence packet that's been sort of under the radar screen, and
it's been sort of quiet coming in and out. It's the letter from the Avalon Group inviting us, whoever us is,
to an open house regarding the potential construction of a Cub Food Store at 7 and 41. And they have been
in and out of our office for a year plus, give or take, and we obviously have some concerns within our
53
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
comprehensive plan about the expansion of commercial at 7 and 41. I know Craig's very familiar with
that, and how we want to make sure that we keep commercial development in our downtown core and not
start stripping out 7 and stripping down 41. Todd and I have had discussions with various individuals at
the Village of Shorewood, but I think that this is one that you should all stay on top of. And if you know
Woody Love and the rest of the folks up there in Shorewood, it would behoove you to make some contact
with them and express concerns, or support, whatever your position is on the Cub Foods, but I think that I
have been privy to see some of the site plans. My gut tells me that it wouldn't come anywhere close to
passing mustard with you or the Planning Commission and that's across the street so to speak. And the
traffic impacts from the traffic generation handbook that we have up in the planning room will be
substantial within your community. I mean it's not just largely handled there. It's dumped into Chan so
please pay attention to that. So, and you could skip a council meeting and go to this thing I think. Kind of
double benefit here.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thanks for bringing that up, appreciate it. Motion to adjourn?
Councilman Labatt: Well no, this is Scott's last meeting.
Mayor Jansen: Oh!
Councilman Labatt: Thank you.
Scott Botcher: Thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, thank you.
Scott Botcher: Now we're adjourned.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
54