CC Minutes 2001 06 25CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 2S, 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 Ayotte, and
Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Matt Saam, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Lori Haak, Todd
Hoffman, Bruce DeJong and Kelley Janes
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Name Address
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Deb Lloyd
Linda Landsman
Wayne Fransdal
Julianne & Elinor Ortman
David Happe
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7329 Frontier Trail
6200 Murray Hill Road
8698 Chanhassen Hills Drive No.
604 Summerfield Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the Acting City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution/12001-38: Award of Bids for Century Boulevard Street & Utility Improvements, 2001
Sealcoating, Projects 97-1C and 01-05.
Approve Consultant Contract for Preparation of Plans & Specifications for Quinn Road
Improvement Project 01-02.
Resolution/12001-39: Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit Request, St. Hubert's Church,
August 17-19, 2001.
Resolution/12001-40: Approval of Gambling Permit Request, Chanhassen American Legion Post
580, 7995 Great Plains Boulevard.
e. Approve Amendment to Chapter 12 Concerning On-Street Parking.
f. Approval of Bills.
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Minutes dated June 11,2001
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated June 5,2001
- Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 22, 2001
h. Resolution/t2001-41: Approval of Resolution Revising Building Permit Fees.
Approval of Request for Fireworks Display Permit, Lake Minnewashta Fireworks Committee, July
4, 2001.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. And I'm sorry, I
ran to get here in time so I'm out of breath.
Mayor Jansen: Take a deep breath.
Debbie Lloyd: First of all I want to thank the city very much. Two weeks ago we had storm damage in our
yard and the whole front of our yard was covered with 8 inch diameter branches, which the city kindly
came and picked up and chopped up into small mulch, and it's a wonderful service the city provides. And I
want to thank you for myself and for other residents because I know they took advantage of this wonderful
service.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you so much for sharing that, and I'm sure that Mr. Gerhardt will be sure that the
staff that are responsible for that are commended. Appreciate your comments.
Debbie Lloyd: Thanks. I know you don't often get kudos and I know it's very important.
Councilman Ayotte: They'll appreciate it.
Debbie Lloyd: The other thing I just wanted to say tonight, there's an issue before you, a development on
Lotus Lake. The development meets all the standards of the code. However, it may be premature. The
planning department, the Planning Commission brought that up in their review of the development.
Premature in that the sewer might not be adequate for the development and there may be increased runoff
because of the slope of the land. So I'd like just to make sure that you pay due diligence to that too. Thank
you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If there's anyone else who would care to address the council at this time.
Seeing no one, we'll move on to, we have no public hearings.
UPDATE FROM SGT. DAVE POTTS, CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, Council members. If you've had a chance to look over the
information in the council packet at least the new standard sheriffs office area report for May. The area
citation listing. I only have a couple of comments on those. May was kind of a busy month for us. When
we look back at just the number of reports officers completed during the month of May, it was a large stack
comparatively so I don't know what to attribute all of that to, but just kind of a busy, a busy spring so far
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
so we'll see how that goes and how that develops. On the area citation report you'll see a jump from a
typical month and then of course you get into spring when we have our park patrol out there and park
patrol typically issues a number of tickets for violations in the parks and what not so you'll see an increase
in the citations there. Also you have the community service officer highlights again this month. On item
number 4, just miscellaneous items of possible interest for the council. Liquor compliance checks. We've
been kind of keeping tabs on where we're going with that and my understanding is that they have begun the
liquor compliance checks throughout the city, and actually throughout the county. Nowhere near
completing those checks but just wanted to let you know that they are under way in the city of Chanhassen.
Item of interest was that Jerry Ruegemer, one of our parks department supervisors, caught a youth stealing
one of the surveillance cameras right here from city hall. It was kind of an interesting and.
Mayor Jansen: Bold move.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Unique bold kind of a move, yeah. Yeah, caught red handed so he'll have some dues to
pay for that one so. On a sadder note or more serious note, I'm sure you're all familiar with the two recent
drownings over at Lake Ann and my understanding is that Greg Hayes has further details on the search and
that kind of information so I'm not going to go into that, other than to acknowledge that we did have these
two significant events in the city and very unfortunate. A note here of a loose dog complaint results in a
felony arrest. It's interesting how some things mm out. Somebody called in a complaint of a loose dog
near a vehicle in a parking lot. Tums out that that dog owner, that vehicle owner had an outstanding felony
warrant out of Scott County and take a simple little call like that and it tums into something. Once the
individual realized that officers knew he had a warrant, he fled and alluded officers for a time. I'm not sure
exactly how long but they had the canine out searching and kind of quadrant off the area and did finally
locate and apprehend that individual so it's a unique situation. Regarding our parks, as you know we try to
make a good effort and get to our parks frequently, especially this time of year when they're under heavy
use. After hours, you know we try to watch the issue with the people visiting the parks after hours, after
10:00 p.m. and a couple of recent incidents, 10 citations were issued over at Carver Park recently thanks to
a neighbor tip that there's some activity going on down there and we were able to clean that up hopefully
with no further problems other than those people being cited and sent on their way. Same thing up at the
skate park here recently. Had 6 youths actually from outside the city that were using their vehicles to light
up the skate park after hours and do their skating and took care of that matter. Also just wanted to mention
that the records division down at the sheriffs office is transitioning to their new record system that I've
talked to council previously about, so I'm sure there will be some glitches along the way but we're kind of
excited to see the information possibilities coming our way with this new system and retrieving information.
Often times it's been very laborious when we're asked by one community or another in the council for some
type of information to try to retrieve that so we're looking for good things to come with the new system so.
Pretty brief comments this evening. Any questions or concerns from the council?
Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: No. Thank you for the update. Appreciate it.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
UPDATE FROM GREG HAYES, CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT.
Greg Hayes: Hi. Well unfortunately at the fire department we've been busy. When we're busy at the fire
department it's usually a bad thing. Our business is better when it's slow. Second week of this month was
extremely busy. As you saw in your council packet, we ran 32 runs in a week. Pretty much in 5 days.
That is, usually we run about 16 a month. Every day during that week we had a major incident. From a
hail storm on Monday to a business fire at Rosemount on Tuesday, which will total upwards of $400,000
in damage to the building. With the beginning of a dive incident at the Lake Ann, first incident on that
Wednesday which went into Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Thursday and Friday we put in about 22
hours assisting the sheriff's department in the recovery of the victim. The victim was found in the water
between Greenwood Shores Park and Lake Ann Park. He had been out fishing. Had lost his bobber.
Chased his bobber about 100 feet from where it was last seen fishing and subsequently went in there. We
found him in about 6 to 8 feet of water so we were able to put that situation to a close and put some closure
for the family because there was some questions as to where he was. Maybe he wasn't in the water, but we
were able to mitigate that situation fairly quickly. Assisting the Carver County Sheriff's Department. We
did have Shakopee Fire and Chaska Fire assist us on that doing some other searches. Water searches and
some ground searches also. A week later we got a second call for the second drowning at Lake Ann. This
call came in as CPR in progress on the beach, which our people started to put 2 and 2 together fairly
quickly and realized that this was as a result of a drowning. What had happened with that individual, they
were out swimming. Swimming out to the platform. About ~ of the way out a yell for help and went
down. Why that person went down we do not know. Hopefully an autopsy will tell us a little bit more.
The lifeguards, big credit goes to the lifeguards. It's one thing being a diver and wearing a mask that you
can see underwater and searching in 3 to 4 foot visibility. Kind of closing your eyes and hoping in one to
hopefully not come upon somebody, but one of the lifeguards, I believe it was a female lifeguard, dove
down in 11 feet of water without a mask, 3 to 4 foot visibility and pulled the person out. They had him out
of the water within, between 5 to 10 minutes which is an extremely quick time from going down to time
out. We assisted them in CPR when we got there. Administered shocks with our AD. Paramedics came in
after us. Did their routine and after about an hour at Waconia Ridgeview they finally had to call it. So two
in a week is not something we look for, but we've got, able to mitigate the problems fairly quickly and deal
with them. Kind of last night there was some people saw, if you live anywhere near Powers, we did have a
garage fire last night. That's not in your packet. That family unfortunately moved in on Friday. They had
a garage fire. They were in their house for one day. They will be out for at 5 to 6 months. They were
waiting 9 months to get in it. So I know it was, we must have had at least 300 people watching. We had
people coming from everywhere because it was a beautiful night and you could see it so that's what was
happening down off of Powers Boulevard. But we were able to call in the Red Cross and get shelter for, it
was a duplex and we got shelter for both families. We were able to stop the fire in the garage. The
positive side is we saved everything on the inside of the house. They just have to take it out, clean it and
they have contracted with a company to do that so all their personal belongings will get returned to them
once they've been cleaned up. But that was last night. Hopefully it slows way down and we can be nice
and quiet at the fire station.
Mayor Jansen: Well we'll sure hope so and I'm sure on behalf of the council our condolences go out to the
families of all of these incidents and the drownings in particular. We would like to express our
appreciation to all of the emergency responders and the lifeguards as you mentioned. You know it's
certainly a difficult position that you find yourselves in when you have these tragic events, but the one thing
I think we all have our assurances in is that we do have wonderful emergency personnel looking out for us,
as you know spoken to by Debbie Lloyd when she came up and thanked again our city crews for coming
out and helping to clean up our neighborhoods. We have emergency responders like yourself and your
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
team that are certainly looking out for our residents and we want to, on behalf of the council, our
appreciation for your good work.
Greg Hayes: Well thank you and I'll pass that along.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions? Comments?
Councilman Ayotte: I do have a question. What do we have in place to respond to the trauma
requirements for those lifeguards as an example?
Greg Hayes: What I did, I got there about 45 minutes into the incident that night so as, I could kind of sit
back and I saw, I watched the lifeguards and there were some issues with lifeguards so I called critical
incident and stress debriefing right away and I linked them up with some people to get them taken care of.
Before they even left the park we already had that underway.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, but that procedure that's because you were there Greg. Do we have something
in place to make sure that we have as a matter of course something in a process so that when one of our
people has to go through a trauma like that, that there's an automatic opportunity to make sure they're
taken care of?
Greg Hayes: Through our Emergency Management Plan there are some resources in there. They would
just have to get a hold of myself, Mark or actually even the sheriff's department and they could link them
up with.
Councilman Ayotte: So we do have something in place?
Greg Hayes: Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: And like Greg, our personnel are very sensitive to the victims in these situations as they
were in the burglary that happened earlier this year at the Legion so it's appreciated that you do look out
for everyone involved so thanks. Thanks for asking the question. Okay, well thank you. Appreciate it.
AWARD OF BIDS: 2001 BOND SALE.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen and council members. Back in May you authorized us to go out for bonds
on four different projects. We have water and sewer bonds for extending the sewer lines out. It seems like
it's on. Is it better?
Mayor Jansen: Okay, yeah. Thanks.
Bruce DeJong: Extending water and sewer lines out to the west along the Highway 5 expansion and up
towards Highway 41 to serve the Puke project and the Westwood Church. We also have a GO
improvement bond for rebuilding Century Boulevard and for sealcoating streets in various neighborhoods
around town. The third issue is a $515,000 of equipment certificates for capital purchases that you have
programmed in the CIP when you went through the budget last year. And the last is a refunding of some
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
tax increment bonds that were issued in 1990. I'd like to have Mark Ruff from Ehlers and Associates step
up and he will give you the results of the sale that he conducted today.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Mark Ruff: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. Briefly,
explanation of the process that we follow when we work with a client on the sale of bonds. These are all
general obligation bonds and so they have a very broad market and we try to widen that market as much as
possible. We prepare an official statement in combination with staff, which is a document that's required
by the SEC to just give potential investors an idea of what the City of Chanhassen's about. What are their
strengths in terms of population growth, the market value growth, the diversity of taxpayers, a summary of
the financials is also included in the official statement. That's circulated literally nationwide. We then,
with staff, have a conference call with the rating agency. Standard and Poor's is the rating agency that the
city has chosen to use. That conference call took place last Thursday. Standard and Poor's did affirm the
outstanding city's rating of an A- with a positive outlook, and what that positive outlook means is that
they've got good confidence that things are going well in the city and will continue and it's likely within the
next year to 2 years, if everything stays stable and increasing as it has in the past, that that upgrade will be
included. A step up from an A- would be, the next step up would be an A rating. Generally an A rating is
a very good rating for a city of your size and in your growth pattern. It's very similar to other suburbs and
is well received by the marketplace as you'll see from the results of the bond sale. Then at 2:00 today we
did take bids on the bond sale, and I have the results that I'll go through quickly of each of the sales. The
first sale, as Bruce mentioned, Series A. $1,645,000 GO Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds. The City
received 5 bids. The winning bid was Nike Securities out of Illinois with a true interest rate, which is a
combination of both the coupons, the interest rates that they will pay as well as their fees of 4.2091%.
Nike has, we give the option to bidders and they chose to take this option of moving the rating up from an
A- up to a AAA by the purchase of private insurance. That's a relatively cheap purchase for them and also
again shows confidence of those private insurance companies in the City of Chanhassen's finances, either
because it's a relatively small insurance premium of $7,500 for that. And so those bonds will carry a AAA
rating. The next bond issue was the GO Improvement Bonds, $640,000. The winning bid of the 3 bids
was Dain Rauscher out of Minneapolis with a true interest rate of 4.3248%. The third series being the GO
Equipment Certificates, $515,000. The winning bid was U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, together with Wells
Fargo of a true interest rate of 4.0239%. Again the interest rates differ because these bond issues have
different terms and so the longer bond issues typically go the more expensive the interest rates. And so
these, the last two that you, the equipment certificates is a 4 ½ year bond issue as opposed to a 10 year
bond issue, or 9 year bond issue which was the previous one. And the last bond issue, $2,720,000 is a
refunding. Much like a refinancing on a home mortgage. Interest rates have decreased since that sale in
1990. The coupons that we're looking for, this is only a 2 year maturity. The true interest rate winning bid
was 3.5379% again by U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. The coupons, in other words what people will be
getting on interest costs in 2002 is 2.75% and 3.2% in 2003 so very low interest rates and was able to
achieve a savings of about $67,000 on present value for the city and so very positive all around from that
standpoint. And so I think generally the market's reacted favorably. You had a good diversity of bidders
from all over the nation and the winning bids was not all just by one firm. It was, out of the 4 bond issues
we had 3 different winning bids and so I think it speaks very well to the city. And one other thing that I'll
mention too is, I had a question raised earlier in terms of in the rating report, which we provided copies to
you, there was a mention of total outstanding debt for all the taxpayers of Chanhassen and it's important to
clarify out of that there were about $4,400 per person outstanding debt. The city's portion of that only
represents 44% and so you're really under $2,000 per person in outstanding debt and so I think that
hopefully answers the questions that were raised earlier. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
but I think the motion before you, or the action before you is a resolution approving the 4 bidders of the
bonds.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Two of the other statements that you made earlier that I thought maybe our
residents would appreciate hearing. Part of a hesitation you, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
If you can repeat what you said to us about the hesitation on Standard and Poor's part in raising our rating
because of the pending legislative issues and what those impacts might be.
Mark Ruff: Yeah, I think in the conference call that Bruce and I held with the rating agency is that they
read the papers just like we do. They read our newspapers and they are aware of what's going on at the
legislature and know that it's going to affect local government funding dramatically by taking the schools
off of the tax rolls and then thereby requiring local governments to increase their amount of tax rate and
their share is going to have some impact and I think that that instability. Any time you have instability it
causes difficulties within the markets and by no means did it affect, I don't think your interest rates overall.
It does affect how the rating agency is going to look on your rating. We do anticipate that, assuming that
we can assure the rating agencies that these are not going to affect the city's financial conditions, these
changes, whatever they may be, we would expect that within the next year you'd be looking at a good
chance for an upgrade in your rating.
Mayor Jansen: Just one of those other issues we don't have any control over in another organization. Then
you also mentioned, and I thought this spoke well of staff and the management that we've had, that with the
continued sound management of the finances and the growth in the community, that they're seeing that
positive outlook.
Mark Ruff: Yeah, it's not all just numbers for these folks at the rating agencies. They want to hear about
what your plans are and how well you stick with your plans and I think they applauded the staff and the
council on the fact that you've talked about managing growth without high levels of debt and that's been
materializing over the last 3 to 4 years and that you really have lowered the amount of debt that's been
outstanding. And as well as they want to know that, who are the people behind these numbers and these
discussions on these conference calls are important. I think they were very impressed with the management
and the discussions that we had with Bruce and the other staff in terms of how are you doing year end. Are
you on your budgets? Are you staying within your budgets? Do you have a surplus at the end of the year?
Are your surpluses increasing and all those things are happening, which they applauded the city and part of
the reason that you have an A- with a positive outlook.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for sharing that and thank you to staff for your management on those finances.
Appreciate it. Any comments or questions for Mr. Ehlers? Mark Ruff, excuse me. Mr. Ruff. No
comments or questions? Thank you. If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd make a motion that we accept the bids as presented this evening.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2001-42: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to award the sale of
bonds to the following agencies:
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
$1,645,000 General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds, Series 200 lA to Nike Securities,
L.P. with a true interest rate of 4.2091%.
$640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 200 lB to Dain Rauscher, Inc. with a
true interest rate of 4.3248%.
$515,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates, Series 200 lC to U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray
and Wells Fargo Brokerage Service, LLC with a true interest rate of 4.0239%.
$2,720,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2001D to U.S. Bancorp
Piper Jaffray and Wells Fargo Brokerage Service, LLC with a true interest rate of 3.5379%.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Moving onto new business, and we didn't amend the agenda when we got to this. We were
going to, can I still amend the agenda? We had talked about moving the appointment to City Council, since
that will be a discussion, later into the agenda so if council is amicable to that, moving it to agenda item
number 12. We'll make that amendment. Do I need a motion Roger?
Roger Knutson: That would be appropriate.
Mayor Jansen: I need a motion to amend the agenda, moving item number 4 to number 12.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion, and a second?
Councilman Labatt: I'll second it.
Mayor Jansen: I have a second from Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to amend the agenda to move item
number 4, Appointment to City Council, to item number 12. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously 4 to 0.
CARVER COUNTY 2002 BUDGET AND LIBRARY FUNDING UPDATE, COMMISSIONER
JULIANNE ORTMAN.
Mayor Jansen: Welcome Julianne.
Julianne Ortman: Thank you. Good evening Mayor, City Council members. It's a pleasure to be here.
This is my first appearance before the City Council and actually I'm a little nervous, but it is nice to be
here. I've been hard at work at Carver County as a new commissioner for the last 6 months, as many of
you have been I'm sure working very hard at a new position. I'm just starting to get my feet wet, but I
have to admit I'm still a little green behind the ears. I just wanted to come to talk tonight, give you a heads
up on what's happening down at the county offices and the courthouse. I see that our Chairman is here.
Chairman Siegfried is here and so where I fall short of explaining what's happening, he might be willing to
be called on to follow-up. I just wanted to give you an update on the library funding. I know that's a great
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
concern to the members here. The City of Chanhassen has made a great commitment to this new building
and I know the residents, including myself and my 4 children are very excited about that library. It
couldn't come too soon for us, so thank you for your efforts. At the county I've been appointed to the
Library Board. The County Library Board. I'm a liaison between that board and the County Board, and
what I wanted to share with you tonight is that the County Library Board has asked in it's budget process
for a significant amount of funds in it's capital projects for collection, adding to the collection for computer
equipment, furniture and those kinds of investments in the new library and what's currently being planned
is $432,291 in 2002. That's the request from the Library Board to the County Board, and for 2003 that
number is $622,547. So it's a very significant sum that they're asking for. I think the County expects that
we're going to be making a big investment in that library. Many of you may know that the City of Chaska
subsequent to the City of Chanhassen's design of it's new building has decided it's going to expand it's
facility in Chaska and the County's also looking at funding that project too. Obviously there are only so
many dollars to go around but in the plan for 2002 the Library Board is expecting to do a complete 100%
outlay of those capital costs in 2002 for the Chaska facility and that's $310,573. So what the board, the
Library Board is asking of the County Board is $740,000 in capital investments for 2002, and then the
remaining in 2003 for the Chanhassen Library and I've seen the work that this Library Board has done and
it's great commitment to the Chanhassen Library and I'll be all in favor of all the funds that the Library
Board asks. And I'm sure you all would want to see great funding for that library as well, since the city's
making such a huge investment.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Julianne Ortman: It's exciting I think in the next couple years we're going to have a really beautiful library
in the city so I commend you all for your efforts. Thank you very much on behalf of the residents.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for sharing those numbers, and just for those people who maybe aren't as familiar
with the timing on the opening of the library. In the year 2002 we're primarily under construction, so as
you're projecting the numbers into 2003, that will be when the doors of the library are planned on being
opened. Probably I believe it's spring of 2003. So the timing of the funds looks as though we won't be
sitting with bare shelves. I would just hesitate to hear them, have them hear two numbers and think we're
only opening up half full.
Julianne Ortman: I think the plan is to make sure that it's got a reasonable collection for the size of the
library as well as the size of our city and it's user base. In 2004 1 know that the Library Board anticipates
spending a great deal more but I think that those requests will come through their regular budget at that
point, but that decision may be changing over the years. As you know things change a lot so.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for sharing those.
Julianne Ortman: Certainly. It's been my pleasure to serve on that Library Board. Going on, it seems to
flow well if I just mention that the County is underway working on their proposals for 2002 and each of us
commissioners have been assigned several of those departments for oversight. There will be two
commissioners in the next few weeks that will sit down with each of the department heads and go over the
amounts that they're requesting. By September we should have a pretty good idea of what our budget
requirements are. Hopefully by then we'll know what the State Legislature is going to do. We'll keep our
fingers crossed on that. But hopefully we'll know by then exactly what they're going to do and the County
can look at it's position with respect to tax cuts. But we need to see more of an overall picture. I'm very
hopeful and optimistic that in the long run the county will be cutting into taxes significantly, but that's
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
optimism on my part. There are no guarantees in government, as you all know. But I think that my
approach has met some respect finally and I think that the other Board members, while there's a little bit of
discomfort and growing pain maybe going on there, I commend them all for keeping their minds open on
that process and we're all continuing forward going through that process. Learning more about next year's
numbers and we'll see how that comes out at the end. I know that after September there will be quite some
time, a couple of months there for us to sort all these matters out between September and December and
I'm hopeful we'll all do that in the best interest of Carver County. Just a couple other updates. You all are
going to begin your construction for the library. There are significant construction projects going on in
Carver County. If you're not aware of them, they all will impact what you all do here in the city of
Chanhassen. First of all we have a new dispatch center for the sheriff that's underway currently and we
also have the environmental center, newly named environmental center which is a new facility for
household hazardous waste. And our chairman, that's been his big project for quite some time. He's to be
congratulated on succeeding with that through the process. And finally, we're still going through approvals
for the public works facility that is currently being planned for Cologne. Finally, well not quite finally.
One last proposal that I've been working on is putting Carver County Board meetings on cable and that's
been approved by the Board. We're just about ready to approve a contract so I'm hoping by September
we'll be on TV just like you. I'm hoping to get some cards and proposals from image consultants in a few
weeks. Get the hair and the make-up and the personal trainers and get them all working. And finally I just
wanted to come, extend a hand to all of you. Tell you that I'm hard at work at Carver County but I have
plenty of time to take phone calls and listen to any of your concerns. If there's anything that I can do to
assist your process at Carver County, I want to know about it and I'd like to get involved. So thank you
for having me.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Councilmembers, any questions for Julianne?
Councilman Peterson: Julianne, I've only got one. Obviously as we proceed with construction and start
expending costs on the library, what, how can we assist in getting commitments that the funding will be
there? We hate to spend money and not have those doors open with a substantial amount of books inside.
Is there some kind of balance that we can do so that we're assured that when we start spending money that
you guys will be doing the same thing.
Julianne Ortman: Well I appreciate your concern. A little bit more on that. There is a joint powers
agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Carver County whereby the city must provide the facility
and the county must provide the operating funds, which would include collections. It would include staff,
furniture and those kinds of things. The Library Board is well aware of the city's concerns and have put
these numbers forward to bring them forward to the board. I can't quicken that process. I've learned that
the hard way. The process is set up so that the commissioners have this oversight and this working meeting
with the department heads. That will be going forward Councilman in July. We should be done with that
in July and then those particular requests will be going to the County Board for it's full approval. But as a
liaison to that board, while I don't have more than one vote, I know that I'll be there working hard for as
much funding as we can get. This project is one that I see, one that I need to be very actively involved in
and I will be.
Councilman Peterson: So the initial funding will be completed in early fall probably, as far as us knowing?
Julianne Ortman: Yes. I would think that the County Board will have acted certainly by September 1.
Councilman Peterson: Good, thank you.
10
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Mayor Jansen: And when you shared these numbers with us, did I understand correctly that the Library
Board is comfortable with these numbers that they're putting forward for 2002 and 2003?
Julianne Ortman: That's correct. Melissa Breshon came up with the numbers. Presented it to the Library
Board. They had a significant number of working sessions with these numbers and so this is the Library
Board's adopted proposal to the County Board and I would guess that you could assist with that process
just by making sure that the commissioners all know that you support these proposals by the Library Board
for this funding.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Anything else for Julianne? Well thank you for coming this evening. We
certainly wish you luck. We know you have some difficult policy issues that you'll be working through
with the Board, and heaven knows we all understand what that is to work on a board and work through
those things so our best wishes and thank you for being here to give us an update. Appreciate your taking
the time.
Julianne Ortman: Thank you, my pleasure.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks. Chairman Siegfried, would you like to add anything? Not to put you on the spot
but it was pointed out that you were sitting in the audience. We appreciate your being here this evening.
Not often we end up with two of our county board members present. Welcome.
Chairman Siegfried: Well welcome yourself Madam Mayor and Council members. I supposed it isn't all
that often you have two county board members appear at one of your meetings, but I wanted to come over
and just sit in and hear some of the current discussion that is going on here amongst the Chanhassen
Council. As far as the budget process, just to clarify a little bit as it proceeds. We do set a preliminary
budget on September 15th and then the final budget is adopted around December so the preliminary budget
is set. We can't exceed that. We can decrease it though obviously in the December final adoption process.
So the concern that the Councilmember Peterson had in regards to the commitment that the county will
make in regards to funding the equipment and staffing for the Chanhassen library, that will be in the 2002
budget so it will coincide nicely with the timeframe that you have in mind for construction. So rest assured
that the recommendations of the library board will be taken into account very extensively and the
appropriate budget amount will be placed and put aside for the Chanhassen Library. So that shouldn't be a
concern that you have to have some other agreements or other things in place to ensure that that will occur.
This will occur.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, wonderful.
Chairman Siegfried: So yes we are continuing on doing the people's business here in Carver County and as
you stated, we do have to work through issues that come before us. There is always a difference of opinion
on a board that is functioning appropriate obviously so we'll continue on that basis and try to respectfully
disagree and come to the conclusion that satisfies the majority so that's our operating plan at this point so,
do you have any questions that weren't asked before that you would like to ask now?
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for Commissioner Siegfried? Appreciate your being here and taking your
personal time to join us. Always good to see you. thanks.
Chairman Siegfried: No problem.
11
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 32,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING
BUILDING (PHASE I) ON A 5.4 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK); 2860 WATER TOWER PLACE; LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2m~ ADDITION, PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council.
Councilman Ayotte: You're going to have to speak a little louder or into the mic.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. This is a fairly straight forward site plan.
It is for an office manufacturing building. The site is located on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park
2nd Addition. It is immediately north of Water Tower Place, and west of State Highway 41. There is one
parcel that separates 41 from the subject parcel. There's also another parcel, Lot 5 which separates
Highway 5 from the subject site. Access to the site is provided via Water Tower Place. As you can see on
the floor plan, this is the 32,000 square feet future addition will be another 32,000 square feet. The
applicant has mentioned that they would like to do that over the next 5 years or so. Materials on the
building will be mainly block. A band of brick will also be utilized as an accent. When this item appeared
before the Planning Commission the one issue that was raised deak with the east elevation. The majority of
this elevation is, well the middle section of this elevation is lacking in detail. Several options have been
suggested to the applicant including landscaping, extending columns, or maybe the use of this canopy so
there are different alternatives and staff is recommending that you allow staff to work it out with the
applicant to figure out how we resolve this detail. The west elevation is the expansion wall. And what
staff recommended and the applicant agreed to is to utilize 2 of the 3 materials that are currently being
proposed on the building. The darker tone block would be used along the lower portion of the building.
The lighter tone along the top portion. Future expansion would have to utilize all 3 materials. Again this is
a fairly straight forward site plan. Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff
report and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Ayotte: And probably Kelley can answer. Does this project help extend that loop to
eliminate, that's not the one?
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? Okay.
Councilman Labatt: I just wanted to talk about the north elevation. Will that be able to be viewed from
Highway 5 ?
Councilman Peterson: Why don't you use this picture. It's probably easier to, is that this elevation here?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, actually it would be the side that would.
Councilman Labatt: The north is going to be all the loading docks, correct?
12
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. And the elevation of Highway 5, can you zoom in please. Okay. The elevation
at this point is approximately at the same height as the, as Lot 2. At the same elevation as Lot 2. Please
keep in mind that in the future there will be buildings on Lots 4 as well as Lot 5 which will block the view
of the loading dock as well as the rear of that building. Also, there are evergreens along the north portion
of the site as well as a meandering berm. It will not screen it 100% but it will provide adequate screening.
Mayor Jansen: And once the evergreens grow, you've got full screening.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: To the other buildings. Because you won't be able to see it from 5, okay.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Does that answer the question?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I didn't see the landscape plan.., so okay.
Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Okay. The applicant is present. If council has questions for the applicant,
we can have them come forward. Otherwise if you've got all your information.
Councilman Peterson: My only comment I guess to the applicant would be, I like the idea of adding some
additional architectural interest on that one wall as staff and Planning Commission, otherwise I don't have
any questions for the applicant.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. If the applicant just has a few brief comments that you would like to make.
Otherwise if you're fine with the presentation we will move on to discussion. Okay. Thank you for being
here tonight. Appreciate it. Bringing this back to council. Discussion please.
Councilman Ayotte: Very straight forward.
Councilman Peterson: I just shared mine so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. It's a terrific project. I want to thank the applicant for bringing forward such a nice
looking building for relocating into our community. We certainly appreciate it. I had the pleasure of
meeting everyone at the Planning Commission meeting so thank you for your commitment coming into
Chanhassen. Much appreciated. So if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Ayotte: Motion to go forward with the staff recommendation and the added comment by
Councilman Peterson for addressing that one issue.
Mayor Jansen: Is there a condition in the staff report that addresses that point?
Councilman Peterson: I don't think there was.
Mayor Jansen: Is there?
Councilman Peterson: I don't think there was.
Todd Gerhardt: Which wall was it again?
13
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Mayor Jansen: So we're adding condition.
Councilman Peterson: The east wall.
Mayor Jansen: Condition 37, authorizing. Is it west?
Councilman Labatt: I thought it was east. West wall's expanded.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That would be the east elevation. East wall.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Authorizing staff to work with the applicant to add additional detail to the east wall
was your condition number 37. Okay. Is there a second please?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Jansen: All those in favor. Any additional discussion? The only point that I would want to add to
that condition is I would want to make sure that we're not putting the applicant through too many undue
hoops as we're working on detailing that side of the building so, if they can do it through landscaping, then
that's terrific too. Okay, great.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Site Plan #2001-6 as shown on
the plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc. dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and
subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security
to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the eastern building
elevation.
A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements shall be submitted to the city prior to
City Council approval.
Additional landscape peninsulas shall be located in the northern parking lot (two additional) and at
the north end of the parking spaces on the east side of the building. Trees shall be added in each of
the landscaping peninsulas. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then
aeration tubing shall be installed.
5. All new landscaped areas shall have irrigation system installed pursuant to city ordinance.
6. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
A decorative, shoe ox fixture 20 foot tall, 400 watt metal Halide lot light with a square ornamental
pole shall be used for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded with a 90 degree light cut
off. Any wall mounted lighting shall be shielded from direct off site view.
14
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/
Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section #904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
10.
Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to
Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed.
11.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum
allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994.
12.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to
be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
Policy #4-1991.
13. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
14.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
15. The development shall comply with state guidelines regarding handicap accessible parking spaces.
16.
Detailed occupancy retailed requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
(It does appear however that exiting from the office area does not comply with the code.)
17.
Utility Plan: If the addition is built MH 1 would have to be relocated and piping materials must
comply with the code.
18.
The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
19.
The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance at the time of building permit
approval.
20.
Grading on the west side of the proposed building needs to be revised to avoid ponding water on the
future building site.
21.
Move the proposed sidewalk to the west side of the driveway. Also, show this sidewalk on the
grading plan.
22. The developer shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Watershed District.
15
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
23. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
24. Revise the site plan and grading plan to comply with the minimum driveway entrance width of 26
feet.
25. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event prior to building permit approval.
26. The rock construction entrance shall be increased to a minimum of 75 feet in length as per City
Detail Plate No. 5301.
27. On the detail sheet, show the revised 2001 City detail plates for Nos. 1004 and 5207.
28. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
29. Show the location of the existing street lights along Water Tower Place. Also, show the location of
the existing catch basins in Water Tower Place, west of the sanitary sewer stub to the site.
30. Show a benchmark on the grading plan.
31. The site plan needs to be revised to show a proposed 5 foot concrete sidewalk following the main
entrance out to the southeasterly comer of the site.
32. The existing water stub to the site is an 8 inch service. As such, an 8" x 6" reducer will be needed.
33. On the site plan, label the drive aisle and entrance widths. Also, show the proposed curb radius at
the entrance drive.
34. The west elevation shall incorporate two of the primary materials along it's length.
35. Any future building expansion shall incorporate the three primary materials that are the same as
used on the first phase.
36. The primary metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD Agreement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO 9
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES; 610 AND 620 CARVER BEACH ROAD,
CREEKWOOD; COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. This is a fairly straight forward
subdivision. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 6.3 acres into 9 single family parcels. The site is
located west of Carver Beach Road, east of Lotus Lake and north of Shadowmere Subdivision. Access to
the site is provided via a connection off of Carver Beach Road. All 9 parcels are proposed to be served via
the cul-de-sac. All parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as lot area,
16
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
width, depth. All parcels maintain a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way or the front line. The one
exception deals with Lot number 6. There were some concerns raised regarding steep slopes along the
southern portion of Lot 6. Staff met with the surveyor as well as the applicant on site. Determined that
this parcel does not have a bluff in this immediate area. It does have steep slopes. It does not meet the
bluff criteria with the exception of one small portion along the southwest comer of this site. Lot 6. The 60
by 60 house pad will maintain the 30 foot setback, no problem. However, just to protect the integrity of
this slope, staff advised the applicant to move this house pad to a 20 foot distance from the right-of-way
rather than the typical 30 foot setback, front yard setback. We're also recommending the applicant
dedicate a preservation easement over the steep slopes along the southern portion of Lot 6. The riparian
lots all maintain the required frontage which exceeds 90 feet along the lake and maintain a 70 foot setback
from the OHW of the lake. 75 foot setback from the OHW. It is a heavily wooded site. There is a creek
that runs through this parcel. The creek is not protected by the DNR. However the applicant is dedicating
a preservation easement, a drainage and utility easement over the creek 50 feet from the edge of the OHW
of the creek. We have been in contact with the property owner immediately to the north of the site.
Basically the conversation dealt with should they decide to subdivide this property in the future, we wanted
to make sure that they have adequate connection to sewer, water, as well as street. It is also a condition of
the staff report and as the future properties develop within this area, ultimately you'll end up hooking up
this road to Fox Hill. I'm going to address a very brief issue dealing with the next item that will be on your
agenda. Please keep in mind the layout of these 3 riparian lots and the 75 foot setback. Our current
ordinance addresses lakeshore setbacks as having, all new structures would have to maintain a similar
setback to adjacent structures. The structure on this parcel is proposed to maintain a 75 foot setback.
Mayor Jansen: You're off the screen. There you go. Thanks.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The structure received a variance to maintain a 75 foot setback. This
structure maintains a 129 feet. If this parcel came in first, and this is the 75 foot setback line, you wouldn't
have an issue with this parcel, but then the neighboring parcel would have a problem, which is Lot 8 as
well as Lot 9. Just something to keep in mind as you are reviewing the following item. Staff is
recommending approval of this application. At this time I would like to mm it over to Matt Saam. There
was an issue raised with a lift station on the site and he would like to provide some additional information
on that.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you.
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. There is an existing lift station on the site. Lift
Station # 10 in the city. City numbering system of the lift stations. The existing problem or issue with that
lift station deals with it's wet well size, and for those of you who aren't familiar with lift stations. A wet
well is where the sewage flows to. Where it's stored prior to being pumped out of the lift station. The
problem with the wet well in this lift station only comes up if there's a power failure or a mechanical
problem where the pumps can't kick in. We don't have much time before the sewage builds up in the wet
well, in the storage and flows out of the lift station. Staff is aware of this problem. I've spoken with City
Engineer Teresa Burgess on this issue. We plan on addressing it in the near future when she returns from
maternity leave. If there's any other questions on it I'd be happy to take them now and Utility
Superintendent Kelley Janes is here also.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I guess what I would maybe like to have clarified, and maybe Mr. Gerhardt you can
speak to this a little bit. Realizing that it's a rather significant concern, and whether or not we're
proceeding with this and it's premature development, how much more specific can we get as to how quickly
17
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
we can remedy this situation so that it does not appear to be, or actually is, premature. How quickly can
the city react to this? In the staff report it's saying as such staff intends to obtain a consultant to study and
remedy the problem. Can we put a time line on that?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, you're probably talking 3 to 4 weeks to probably have an engineer come in and give
you some estimates on different alternatives to solve the problem. Be it a larger lift station or coming in to
put in a permanent generator are some of the things that Matt and I threw around this afternoon. As to the
premature of the development, the Coffman's have rights to develop their property. This is a city issue.
It's not a developer issue. It's something that the city needs to address and Roger can clarify any more
detail if he'd want but this is our problem. Seven additional homes to the system is not going to make a
dramatic impact on the water that is flowing into this system. We'll have the same problem basically if
electricity's gone, or some other mechanical problem happens, where we're going to have to step in and try
to get an individual out there with a generator as soon as possible. Kelley, can you think of any other
alternatives besides a larger lift station or a generator that potentially might solve this problem down line?
Kelley Janes: Those seem to be the 2 most logical solutions. It's really detention time in the case of a
power outage or a mechanical failure for, we needed a larger wet well to buy time until we can respond to
the problem and that's why I was brought in with Matt, but I think those are really, you know or the
possibility, we have a portable generator that we can bring to the site to hook up to the station in the case of
power failure. But the amount of time needed to, if it's after hours like if it happened right now, you know
the person has to respond to our facility. Get the truck. Head out there. Diagnose that it is actually a
power failure and get the thing hooked up and get it generated to restore power and that amount of time
under normal to heavier flow conditions, we don't have enough time to respond and it ends up being a
problem and comes out so.
Mayor Jansen: And I guess that's where, in hearing those issues I imagine council is probably more in a
position to say how do we correct this now? What kind of dollars are we talking about, and I don't want to
put anybody on the spot here to throw out any exacts but are we talking a capital expenditure or are we
talking, I mean I don't know what the cost of the generator is or the larger lift station.
Todd Gerhardt: Well the portable generator that we would install Kelley, would probably need to be hard
wired with some type of monitoring system to recognize when to turn.., probably less than $10,000 to
probably do something like that.
Kelley Janes: I would, it's going to require approximately 125 KW capability which is the one we have on
our mobile rig so we would probably be a little bit over that. With the capability of automatic start, which
is in the case of a power outage, many facilities have this where in the case of a power outage, the
generator senses the failure, starts itself up, brings itself up to speed and then starts generating power to it.
That's, it can be done. The wet well issue is a construction issue. There's a lot of factors involved with
that.
Todd Gerhardt: My concern on a wet well, do we have enough easement area? Enough property in this
area to put in a larger wet well?
Matt Saam: That's one of the conditions Todd of this plat. We asked for 10 additional square feet I think.
Our plans show a 50 square foot area. We're asking for a 60. We brought Kelley in to talk about how
much area he needs. We also talked about access. We, I believe put in there 20 foot easement for access
down to the lift station so I believe that's addressed in these conditions.
18
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Todd Gerhardt: So in the short term I think we can internally fund the wiring of the portable generator that
we have and in the long term we'll probably bring back as a part of the capital replacement budget a larger
wet well that typically you're going to need plans and specs on a project of that size with probably
construction next spring, would be my guess. I don't know if we could get it done yet this year. I think
we'd be pushing it but, maybe real close.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Oh, go ahead.
Roger Knutson: I was just going to also point out, this is a preliminary plat and they have to final plat it.
Then they have to build the houses and they have to sell the houses and they've got to get occupied. I can't
tell you how long that will take but I can tell you it won't happen, all that won't happen in 4 weeks or 8
weeks. So you have some time to correct your problem.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you for mentioning that. I appreciate it. It sounds like maybe with our
immediate situation, the 20 minutes just doesn't seem like a reasonable position for us to have staff in
currently, so if I'm hearing that $10,000, possibly a little bit more gets a generator hooked up and we're no
longer having those emergency situations, that might be a good immediate fix for this situation. And then
from Roger's point, that then buys us some time to do what staff has proposed as part of your
recommendation and that's bring that consultant in and come up with what the long term remedies would
be for adding the additional homes. Certainly gives us the time to study that. Council, any other questions
or comments around that issue?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I just want to re-state the points that some folks in the crowd here voiced
concern. We got an e-mail today and it's not a function of residents moving in. That's a point that's made.
There's a short term solution, but there are other options. I hope once you talk to this consultant beyond
capital improvement, and I know Kelley knows that. That they are dry pumps and all that other good stuff,
so I just want to make that known. That staff is reacting to it and it's not a function again of this person
subdividing their property.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. Just one more question for Kelley. In the past year, how many
times has that lift station had trouble? Calls?
Kelley Janes: I would say about 3 in the past year. The year before we had some significant problems.
One of the problems I guess you could say directly is, these are large pumps. These are 90 horse
submersible pumps. They're about ~ the size of this table in diameter. Very large. The force main that it
pumps into runs all the way along Lotus Lake, all the way up to approximately the Villages, Chanhassen
Village, McDonald's. This is a very long force main that has to go uphill. And that is one of the only
probably the only 3 phase power, heavy duty 480 volt power that's going anywhere in that area. So when
we have power anomalies in the old part of town and areas very close to City Hall, that station goes down
because we lose 1 of the 3 phases somehow. So power outages are probably more common than
mechanical failures I guess I could say that so. If we lose power in town or something goes down at City
Hall or anywhere here in town, we see street lights out, we go to Lift Station 10. That's our first stop.
Mayor Jansen: Well it makes hard wiring that generator sound that much nicer. That's a good at least
temporary solution so thank you for addressing that.
19
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Councilman Labatt: Build a structure and building and put this generator in?
Councilman Ayotte: You have to do something to protect the power I would think.
Kelley Janes: That is a very good question.
Councilman Labatt: That wouldn't be figured into your $10,000-$15,000 price. You're just going to not
leave it outside.
Mayor Jansen: Well and staff can bring that forward as part of the analysis that they do too.
Todd Gerhardt: There are generators that are seasonal. I mean this is a temporary situation. If you were
going to leave this generator out for more than a year I would say you would consider building a building
for it. If there's going to be a permanent solution to the problem, but we've run lift stations for several
months using a generator and they've sat there before so. I don't know if we hard wired any generators.
Kelley Janes: Nothing is hard wired. We do have a capability of running all of the 30 sanitary lift stations
and 3 for wells with alternative power generation. So that is an operational thing with power outages like
we had 3 years ago when everything was out for extended periods of time, and in addition to when we lose
wells in strategic areas, we need to generate those because of the way our system is set up. We have that
capability. We just don't have anything permanently set up to run on, like I explained before, the
automatic switch over and start up on it's own. We have to physically react to the site with the generator,
connect it and fire it up so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions? Alright, I think we've addressed that issue as part of this
development. Any other questions for staff from Sharmin's presentation?
Councilman Labatt: I just have one for, Sharmin in your, let me just find it here. I believe it was talking
about the bluffs on page 6. In the bold paragraph. The top, two sentences down. The top, in the toe of the
slope were established and it was included that most of the slope did not fit. How much is most? What
sort of percentage of the slope?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: This portion would be considered a bluff right here. Everything else is not. So this is the
only area that would meet the definition. Where my finger is.
Mayor Jansen: And that section is included as part of the conservation easement that you've negotiated,
correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. My question involves the front yard setback on the other lots. Realizing what a
beautiful property this is, and having heard the applicant and read the minutes that there is definitely an
interest in preserving as much as they can as far as the trees on the lot. This variance to grant the 20 foot
20
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
front yard setback on Lot 6, would granting that same variance on the other lots, allowing the homes to be
built closer to the road, provide us with even more preservation on the sites?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We discussed this issue both amongst staff as well as with the applicant. The applicant
wanted to see some flexibility with the setback. For instance he'd grant the 20 foot setback but, and in
some instances they might want to set the house back to 25, or even maintain the 30 foot setback as
permitted by ordinance for several reasons. Maybe there was, there is a specific tree within the front yard
that they would want to preserve. A second deals with two story houses close to the right-of-way.
Sometimes they, in their opinion, they become over powering as you are traveling down the street. Even if
the city approved the 20 foot variance on the remainder of the lots it would be up to them whether they
would maintain it or not. With Lot 6 staff is requesting that that becomes a requirement of the subdivision.
It's not an option.
Mayor Jansen: So if we were to include the 20 foot setback as an option for them on the other lots, would
you want that listed as a separate condition of your recommendation or somehow adding it in the same area
where you have your Lot 6? Since you seem to be distinguishing the two.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: You might, you can add it as a condition of approval.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, make it a separate.
Councilman Ayotte: Roger's going to say something.
Mayor Jansen: Roger, if you might weigh in for me please.
Roger Knutson: I'm going to say something probably no one wants to hear but I guess that's my job. This
is a zoning variance, a setback variance and as I understand it the only setback variance that has been to
the Planning Commission is on the one lot. That's what your planning report says.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Well the right-of-way variance.
Roger Knutson: Yes, I'm talking about setback variance.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, that did not go.
Roger Knutson: Just for the one lot went to the Planning Commission.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Roger Knutson: So if you want to allow variances on the other lots, it would have to, it shouldn't hold
them up much because it's the preliminary plat but to do it right it should go to the Planning Commission
for public hearing and the other setback variances.
Mayor Jansen: Was the 20 foot even on Lot 6?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No.
Mayor Jansen: It wasn't, was it?
21
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. It was a variance free application that went before the Planning Commission.
Roger Knutson: Now the 50 foot street is different. That's a subdivision and you can take that directly
without a public hearing. But the zoning setback variances are supposed to go to the Planning Commission
for a public hearing. But this is a preliminary plat so you can still get there and it probably won't hold
anything up because he has to bring back the preliminary plat. And it doesn't hold up the plat at all
because it's a zoning variance, just in the placement of the house. So I don't think it should cause anyone
hiccups.
Councilman Peterson: Perhaps you would ask the applicant...
Roger Knutson: I see him nodding his head.
Mayor Jansen: So at this point what would the process be to do that? We would approve it as?
Roger Knutson: Approve the preliminary plat and then send back to the Planning Commission a request to
hold a public hearing on the variance for the setbacks on the lots.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: And you can give them direction and then they would hold a public hearing. And that
shouldn't hold anything up again because that only comes into play when you're actually building,
constructing the home.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I'm just, I'm not wanting to inconvenience the applicant because I realize that that's
not something that's being requested but if it would be something that we could add as it comes back
through the process.
Bill Coffman: That would work.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful, thank you. Okay.
Roger Knutson: I'm sure everyone wants to do it right now there are no questions about it later on.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. So Sharmin, if you could make a note to have that added, and I gather that too
would be for the 20 foot front yard setback on Lot 6. So we would need to remove that from the motion
this evening since it did not go before the Planning Commission. Okay, Gotch ya.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and Council, just so you understand. If this was a PUD we could make that a
condition. I think that's where we're getting caught on this is in the past we've put conditions like this on a
lot of our subdivisions and in this case the applicant has chosen to go through the traditional subdivision
process so thus you have to go back and get the variances as a part of that. So with the PUD you have a
little more flexibility in dealing with variances of this type, so I just wanted to make sure you understood
why this is going back.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, if this were a PUD you can deal with it on the spot tonight.
22
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Mayor Jansen: Sure, okay. Appreciate that. Again, it's just such a beautiful piece of property. I know
the applicant is certainly sensitive to that and you spoke to it at the Planning Commission that if we can do
this amicably and give a little bit of flexibility that you can work within without inconveniencing you, it'd
be appreciated. That was the only other comment that I had to make on the application. Anything else
Council as far as discussion? Okay. With that, if I could have a motion please amending the
recommendation.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I make a motion the City Council approve the preliminary plat for
Subdivision//2001-03 with a variance to allow 50 right-of-way for Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on plans
dated May 1, 2001 subject to conditions 1 through 39.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And do I have a second to the motion?
Councilman Ayotte: I'll second.
Mayor Jansen: I have a second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #2001-03 with a variance to allow a 50 foot right-of-way for
Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on the plans dated May 1, 2001, subject to the following conditions:
1. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment.
2. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement.
No water oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without an encroachment
agreement.
All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. The
slopes along the southern portion of Lot 6 shall be protected by a conservation easement.
5. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations.
6. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided.
A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the
sanitary sewer easement.
Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and proposed
storm water ponds.
Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this
project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are
estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are
provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and
storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's structures. The applicant
will not be assessed with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be
assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At
23
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording
is $17,514.
10. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions:
a. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 24 trees as replacement plantings. Plan
shall specify size, species and locations.
b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing
shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
11. Building Department conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any
structures on the property.
b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section
901.3.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2.
e. Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued. Trees or
shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the property.
With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy
Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street additional numbers
are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
13. Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance.
24
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
14.
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at
the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys
will be required on each lot prior to occupancy.
15.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
16. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
17.
Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to preliminary plat
approval by the City Council.
18.
The permanent utility easement around lift station # 10 must be increased from a 50 foot square
area to a 60 foot square area. In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required off of the
proposed cul-de-sac.
19.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer
will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will
need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds up to
the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency
overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction plans.
20.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion
control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing creek.
The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-
de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits.
21.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition
of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be
required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a
letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval.
22.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time
of building permit issuance.
23. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site.
24.
Revise the preliminary grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the
normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond.
25.
A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from Lot 4. This street would be
extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed
to the north to serve future lots. A sign shall be installed stating that this street may be extended in
the future.
25
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
26.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds.
27.
Dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach
Road.
28. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
29. The applicant shall change the name of the proposed plat.
30.
Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the
applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must
meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on
Lot 8.
31. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way.
32.
Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shall work with staff to specify limitations
regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement.
33.
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of-way and
20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can grant a
variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because
it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible.
34.
The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new development
and the existing neighborhood.
35.
The sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Creekwood shall be installed with backflow
preventers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll see you when you come back through.
Bill Coffman: I've got a question though .... the conditions, I did want a clarification. I thought I would
have a chance to speak.
Mayor Jansen: I apologize. If you'd like to approach.
Bill Coffman: Okay, ifI may. Sorry about that. Madam Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Bill
Coffman. President of Coffman Development. The only condition that we would like to work with staff on
is number 19. Working with the easement location for the potential improvement project to the lift station.
We want to work with staff so it can be adjusted so it doesn't adversely impact Lot 8. I mean that
condition says it's a blanket 60 by 60. We want a little bit of control on that item. Other than that
everything else is fine. Is there a problem with this procedurally?
Mayor Jansen: Any comment?
26
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Matt Saam: We have no problem with that. I was assuming prior to final plat we would work with the
applicant so.
Roger Knutson: I don't think you need to re-vote. I think that's just understood. These can all be modified
to your approval when it comes back.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Appreciate it. Sorry I didn't invite you up.
Bill Coffman: That's okay.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 REGARDING LAKESHORE
PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES.
Lori Haak: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. I'd like to try to make this as simple as
possible. It gets kind of bogged down in the report but we'll try and make it easy for you. Before you this
evening is a proposal to revise Section 20-481 of the City Code to simplify the shoreland setback
requirements. Currently the city code states, as shown on the screen there, when a structure exists on the
lot on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance set forth in the
above table, which is also shown there, or the setback of the existing structure. This language was adopted
to encourage a continuous appearance of home placement on shore lots in an attempt to preserve views
from existing homes. In fact it was adopted primarily to address concerns with the Minnewashta Landings
subdivision. An aerial photograph of that subdivision is included as Attachment #3 in your staff reports.
The current standard is under consideration this evening because it is difficult to administer since it does
not prescribe a method for implementation. The city has reviewed many requests for variances from the
standard. The variance requests arise primarily in situations where a riparian lot of record would be
unbuildable without a variance. In cases where the lots in question are lots of record and by definition
should be buildable, the variance process can be seen by the applicant unnecessary and bureaucratic. Staff
maintains that the DNR setback is adequate to protect the city's lakes. Staff has spoken with DNR area
hydrologists Travis Germundson regarding the revisions that have been suggested both by staff and the
Planning Commission. His comments are included as Attachment # 10 in the staff report. Travis has stated
that the DNR has no outstanding concerns with any of the proposed revisions as included in the staff
report. That being said, staff recommendation is to adopt the proposed revisions to Section 20-481 so that
the city standards are no more stringent than those of the State of Minnesota. And again the proposed
language is in front of you on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. It calls for the deletion of the current
language in question that's highlighted by the oval on your screens in front of you to make the requirement
equitable, easier to administer and easier for the public to understand. With that I can take any questions
you might have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Councilman Ayotte: Well I just want to know the inference that if we understood it anyone could
understand it. Was that your?
Lori Haak: No. Certainly not. Just, it's easy to get bogged down in this.
27
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Seeing none, I don't know if there's anyone in the
audience who would like to comment on this item. I would certainly open this up for comment if anyone
would care to approach the podium. I kind of figured.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. You may or may not be aware that the DNR now has a
guideline for shoreline properties, riparian lots. One of those is a maximum height of 25 feet. Chan did not
adopt that. The 75 feet is the standard the DNR has which Chanhassen just, that's just a point of interest.
So it would restrict the height of the house if we went along with what the DNR says it should be. Thank
you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Lori, are you familiar with where we are with that?
Lori Haak: I am familiar with it. The DNR's regulations are fairly unique in that they allow municipalities
to adopt regulations that differ from their requirements, and basically what the City of Chanhassen did
when it adopted it's shoreland ordinance that you see a portion of before you tonight, is they took that DNR
recommendations into consideration and they can adopt things that are more stringent than that. The DNR
recommends a height requirement of, as Mr. Paulsen stated, 25 feet. And that's merely a recommendation.
We did not implement that into our city code and it was just a decision that was made at that point. It's
really a separate issue that was under consideration when the entire shoreland ordinance was adopted but
it's not in front of us this evening.
Mayor Jansen: And I believe you said that the city can adopt standards that are less, that are more
stringent.
Lori Haak: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: By not having a height requirement, aren't we less?
Lori Haak: It was still approved by the DNR and that's I guess the bottom line. Typically yes, we do see
things that are more stringent than the DNR's requirements, but the, I guess the bottom, bottom line.
Below the bottom line would be that it just needs to be approved by the DNR.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So bottom line is, if the council wanted to adopt the 25 foot height, we would be
within the DNR's requirements.
Lori Haak: Absolutely.
Mayor Jansen: In that it's already there as precedent. Okay. Okay.
Roger Knutson: Mayor just to point out two things. First, if you wanted to deal with that you really
couldn't deal with that issue tonight because it hasn't been subject to a public hearing yet. And second, I
don't know if you've all been brought up to speed but as of May 3 0th an amendment to the, of this year, an
amendment to the zoning ordinance now requires a simple majority vote. That's a brand new, just off the
books.
Councilman Peterson: That's big.
28
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Roger Knutson: There's qualification. Except for rezoning residential to commercial and industrial which
still requires a 2/3. Big change.
Mayor Jansen: Big change.
Roger Knutson: Went through virtually unnoticed without discussion or debate.
Mayor Jansen: Where was the League on that one?
Roger Knutson: They were on it.
Mayor Jansen: Were they?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I don't remember reading about it.
Roger Knutson: It just came out and it came in at the last minute in the conference committee bill. I can
tell you some more stories afterwards how it got there.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well thank you for mentioning it. We appreciate it I guess. Okay.
Roger Knutson: Whether you like it or not, it wasn't my idea.
Mayor Jansen: Exactly. You're just the messenger. Okay, Council. Discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Seems reasonable to me.
Councilman Labatt: Ditto.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because there's, if I'm not mistaken the Planning Commission recommendation is
different than the staff recommendation so when you're saying it seems reasonable to you, you're
supporting the staff recommendation versus the Planning Commission recommendation?
Councilman Peterson: Yes I am.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Actually I liked the Planning Commission recommendation and I guess I should
preface with, though I am the liaison on the Planning Commission, I did not participate in any of these
conversations at all. In fact I don't think I attended okay, this meeting. In order to not present any sort of
bias, since it is more of a policy issue. But I guess what I liked about what the Planning Commission was
trying to accomplish and then staff in adding their additional comments saying if you were to use the
Planning Commission add this language, you seem to at least make it a little bit more easier to apply. But
one of the key conversations around these shorelines and the consistency is whether you have a jagged
pattern of homes, or if you can present a smoother, more cohesive line of development along the lakeshores.
29
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Because past setbacks were greater. We have homes that are at those 150 foot setbacks. Now you're
placing homes up at the 75 foot and it's not as if the older homes without bulldozing have the option to
move themselves forward. So I was thinking more of the consistency within a neighborhood and thinking
of those shorelines as more of a neighborhood feel. And if they can be maybe a little bit more in line with
each other.
Councilman Peterson: I think in further clarifying my point, I think I would look to staff. I think my
interpretation was, it would be easier to administer if we used staff's recommendation. And if that is
different, obviously what I'm going after is consistency and ease of use for the interpretation and the
administration of the ordinance so if you can share with us that the Planning Commission might be more
appropriate for administering, then I can be swayed.
Lori Haak: And that was staff's concern I guess. If you look just even at the difference in length of the
proposed revisions, I guess it gives you quite a picture of the way staff is looking at it. And I guess from
staff's perspective we'd like to think that we can work with homeowners as we review building permits and
that sort of thing as far as views are concerned. As far as additional concerns arise with regard to
structures near the lake. We'd like to think that we could address those on a staff level. I would think that
a majority of the time we would be able to do that. Our problem becomes in situations like the previous
example where you have the Creekwood Subdivision and you have in particular, you have several lots that
have varying requirements and we were actually on the staff level, looking at the Planning Commission's
recommendation and thinking that we would actually have to dictate build order in order to meet those
regulations.
Councilman Ayotte: Say that again. You'd have to what?
Lori Haak: We'd have to dictate the order in which the subdivision was built out along the riparian zone,
and that's, staff wasn't comfortable making that jump and basically we just came down to the fact that
each of our other setback requirements are a number. Your front yard setback is 30 feet unless you're in a
PUD or unless you get a variance. Your side yard setback is going to be 10 feet. Same deal. And it's
much easier, it is much more clear, it is much more equitable if you have the 75 foot and you can just say
you've got a 75 foot zone here on a recreational development lake. This is what you need to meet.
Councilman Ayotte: So the staff's recommendation is friendlier both to staff and to applicant?
Lori Haak: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Well, but not necessarily to an existing neighborhood, because what we're having occur,
again is if someone can sit 75 feet off the lakeshore, they're going to sit 75 feet off the lakeshore. There's
not going to be any flexibility. If they've got homes on either side that are at the 150 foot mark, they're not
going to just friendly say okay, well I won't sit so close. So that was part of the rationale around the
previous language, but I absolutely understand how difficult it is to apply. I did like what you've added to
the Planning Commission recommendation as far as that language, and where you were saying that it
almost makes some of these, you have to designate the build sequence. Your language of, if a lot on either
side does not contain a structure, the setback of a structure on that lot used for calculating subsections (a)
and (b) shall be 150 feet. So there you've got your standard, not having to dictate which lot develops first,
second, third. And be impacted that way. Again, I guess I can appreciate that we're wanting to simplify
how this gets applied but we do lose a little bit of a level of control if we just say it's 75 feet. Even going
into an established neighborhood.
30
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Councilman Ayotte: With respect to, do you have a sense of feel of with respect to the availability of
building opportunities in the older neighborhoods. The events that you would be confronted with where the
Planning Commission's approach would be more applicable.
Lori Haak: Frankly we don't, I don't think we have a whole lot of lakeshore left in the city. I was just out
on Lotus Lake last weekend.
Councilman Ayotte: I guess that's my point, yeah.
Lori Haak: The number of situations in which we're actually going to be confronted with this situation are
few and far between, or increasingly few and far between I should say. We've got you know a subdivision
coming in supposedly for final plat approval within a couple weeks and so we'll be dealing with it a little
bit then but.
Councilman Peterson: What happens in a tear down situation?
Lori Haak: And that's exactly where this would come into play. With the 75 foot. And we've had that
discussion amongst the planning staff and I guess the feel that we've come to is, we have something
currently that does not work. The current ordinance doesn't work. We need to make a change and what is
the easiest way to make that change? What is the most equitable way to make that change? And really, if
you get into a situation, we are having some of these older homes being torn down around Lotus Lake.
We're seeing a couple of them with the subdivision we looked at this evening and these people then begin to
have that opportunity. Or people to add decks who weren't able to do that before. There are several
situations in Chanhassen where people were denied decks because they couldn't encroach upon the setback
that was required. That was dictated by the neighbors and so it kind of weighs out in the minds of staff.
Mayor Jansen: I guess I can see into your comment about how many new subdivisions are we or aren't we
going to have. That there aren't going to be that many. That seems to be where we hit more of a
complication than in applying this where you have the vacant lots inbetween and so forth. Again I guess
I'm looking at how do we protect the integrity of these neighborhoods without now having the staggered
development occurring and I again, I like where the Planning Commission had gone trying to simplify it for
their application with staff's addition to this of the 75 foot being the setback if there isn't a structure on
either side to have to gauge from. So that was just my general feel. I like where the Planning Commission
went with their language.
Councilman Peterson: It's a toss up for me.
Councilman Ayotte: Hey Todd, say something about it. You're just sitting there. Come on, you're
making big money now.
Todd Gerhardt: You're kind of limiting these homes too for width. I mean if you take a look at the
Creekwood plat, they have potentially 3 lake lots there and the width on some of those you're going to limit
the size of the home and I've been told that some of those lots will go as far as $200,000 and you're going
to put a smaller home on there? I mean that's not going to be a very good investment to put a small home
on a lot of that value so for them to try to get their money back, out of the piece of property, potentially
they're probably going to have to go up with it. So that's a factor that came to me at first. But we're not
supposed to base economic decisions when we dealing with planning issues.
31
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: But it's a policy decision that the council needs to make and when you ride around in a
boat and you take a look at what's going on on Minnetonka and places like that, you know traditionally you
don't see the ramblers anymore. You see the 2 to 3 story houses and take advantage of the views up high
or have the big picture windows as you look out and the great rooms so. My house wouldn't even fit on
there. Roger was measuring his, and his wouldn't fit on there and neither one of us are on a lake so.
Mayor Jansen: Well and that's in how those lots are configured under the expectation that the current
regulation would be in place.
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Mayor Jansen: Right, and again it's basing it on one plat that we're looking at here this evening so, I just
want to be a little careful with that.
Councilman Labatt: I'm okay with staff. They've obviously put a lot of thought into it and...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, if I could have a motion if there isn't any more discussion.
Councilman Labatt: Move approval for staff's recommendation.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Section 20-481 shall be
modified to read:
'Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure.
(a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and
facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be
setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows:
Classes of Public
Waters
LAKES
Natural environment 150
Recreational 100
development
RIVERS
Agricultural and 100
tributary
Structures Structures Sewered Sewage Treatment
Unsewered System
150 150
75 75
50 75
All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
32
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS FOR TELEPHONE AND VOICE MESSAGING
EOUIPMENT.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. Staff, during your budget process this past year had asked
staff to bring back an estimated budget for the proposed telephone and voice messaging system. In 2000
we did spend $6,000 to access the KMC fiber line. It also cost an additional $19,265 to basically light up
the fiber wire to transmit. Also we had some wiring and some capital costs in relocating some of the
electrical lines as we accessed the public works facility. The telephone voice system, which would be a
2001 expense, Rick's best estimate from people that he has talked to is in the range of about $90,000 so
our total proposed budget for the new system would be $115,265. I also believe the council had asked to
take a look at the specifications for the request for proposals. I've attached those in your packet. Staff is
recommending approval of the Request for Proposals dated June 7th and also to, we would have to bring
bids back for your award since we will be over that $25,000 mark.
Roger Knutson: 50.
Todd Gerhardt: 50. They changed it. So, and I would expect to see those back probably later part of July,
first part of August for your award.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I had one question Todd that just stood out as I was reading through the
specifications. On page 4, initial number of mailboxes will be 500. Is that a financial difference in where
the bid will come in, because what we have 75 employees and how many phones?
Todd Gerhardt: Probably 500's kind of the minimum I would think or fairly close.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, basically it's a software. It's not a hardware thing. It's mostly software.
You buy groups and it's 500 is a minimum.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: But that's more to probably limit some of the smaller systems out there that might try to
have a lowball bid on it would be my guess.
Councilman Peterson: The one item, that same spec, 100 hours is a lot. That does cost additional
money.., for the price of a system. The ports are not a cost factor. The hours are.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thanks for sharing that. So you're comfortable with 100 hours you're saying?
Okay. Any other questions for staff'?
Councilman Peterson: Todd the only thing, and I didn't talk to Rick about this or you, but you may want
to consider putting out the bid on a new or used refurbished system. You may find you can get a
refurbished system for a third or greater less than this. I've put in used systems over the last 5 years
successfully because the refurbed and they're guaranteed and they're a lot less money so, something at least
to consider. All depends upon availability. There may be a system out there that specs out at exactly the
same.
33
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Roger Knutson: Comments so I'm clear on that. When going out for bids, if we say you can have
refurbished or new, and I'm not answering the question but just so we're clear. Refurbished or new, and if
the refurbished comes in at a dollar less, the refurbished gets the bid.
Councilman Peterson: That would be a factor. So it would have to be substantially less so.
Todd Gerhardt: What if we did it as a bid alternative on a refurbished system.
Roger Knutson: You could do a bid alternative.
Councilman Peterson: I guess I'd recommend that if we could.
Todd Gerhardt: Alright, that's what we'll do.
Councilman Labatt: You can make the recommendation then.
Todd Gerhardt: So we'll call that Bid Alternative # 1 on a refurbished system versus a new system, and
that the refurbished system would have to have the same specifications as the new. We can do that.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay, very good. Can I have a motion please?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Authorize staff to take bids for telephone and voice messaging
equipment.
Mayor Jansen: Do we need to be mentioning the bid alternative as part of the motion?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
Councilman Peterson: So noted.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second please?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that City Council approve the Request for
Proposals dated June 7, 2001 and authorize staff to take bids for the Telephone and Voice Messaging
equipment, with a bid alternative for a refurbished system. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION
PLAN.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. Before you is a request to modify the City's Position
Classification and Compensation Plan. The issue with the current plan is for those positions who have base
salaries that may exceed 100% of the midpoint. In the past we have seen a percentage increase onto those
base salaries and under the old cube system, that would allow an employee to possibly go up to 130% of
that midpoint. That just is not good management practices to have employees 30% above what the market
is. So staff is asking that you modify the merit pay system to include a step process for those employees
34
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
that are under 100% of the midpoint. And also to include a lump sum merit pay based on performance.
And those people that exceed 100% of the midpoint, we would suggest that a 2% lump sum merit pay
system be put in place. With that, in January we would continue to see the cost of living based on the
CIPU of whatever the Minneapolis/St. Paul rating would come in for that year. With that staff, I'll answer
any questions that you have regarding the proposed modifications.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, the only question I had, and I talked to Todd about it a little bit is
if, in a plan in and of itself is relatively complex plan. The trend today in compensation is certainly going
away from a complex plan to more market based and what he has recommended and what staff's
recommending is going towards that a little bit. Having more flexibility to be sure we're paying
appropriately. So I liked what staff is moving towards. The only thing I'd throw out for discussion I think
is you look at, you know you're putting the staff administratively through I think what would be considered
as additional work that definitely isn't required. You've got two raises during the year. And I think there
is certainly some discussion that could be generated around having one. Having them both combined. It
would take less staff time in administering both from a verbal conversation standpoint and from
administrative payroll standpoint. I look at it, I don't see us gaining anything by having two separate
increases during the year, and Todd you can maybe add to this.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I can't disagree. We do spend a substantial amount of time doing reviews in July.
Our January performance adjustments or the cost of living adjustment at that time is basically based on
getting the goals and objectives in for the upcoming year. Combining the two does make some sense from
an operational standpoint. It would assist Bruce's department in only having to process one pay
adjustment. December, in the past has been a busy month but with the holidays and people coming and
going, but it would be a good time to do reviews for employees. The development is pretty much shut
down. It'd be a good incentive to sit down and work with past year's goals and upcoming year's goals. So
it does make some sense in putting them together. I guess when we put this proposed modification together
we kind of stuck to the old method and didn't really look down to the efficiencies of trying to do a one step
process. From the business side of it, you are giving up that lost interest that you would have had in saving
the money for a mid-year adjustment and giving it all up in January. But it's not substantial savings.
You'd probably make that up in the efficiency of doing a one year review versus doing a bi-annual review.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I guess then from a management point of view, you're not feeling as if you're losing
a point of contact in sitting down with the employees once every 6 months, if this is going to an annual
versus a twice a month. One for goals. One for review.
Todd Gerhardt: No. I mean you're always going to, you're constantly, Bruce is constantly evaluating his
employees on a daily basis. Communicating with them and if we have performance issues that come up,
we usually attack them on the spot. Department heads meet weekly and check their goals and objectives.
If not weekly, at least monthly to see how they're progressing and so there may be an occasional check in
with the city manager and department heads to see how they're doing on goals so they don't forget about
them but no, I'm happy with the one year process. It's kind of been the trend I think in other places.
Mayor Jansen: I think it sounds like an excellent proposal and if you support it as the management team,
then I certainly would support making that change. Thanks for bringing it up Craig. Appreciate it. Would
we need any sort of action to add to your request here this evening?
35
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Todd Gerhardt: The only alternative I would suggest is that you approve the plan as presented with it
taking effect in January. The 2002 budget process with pay adjustments occurring in January. Bruce, did
you want to add any comments to going from the two to the one?
Bruce DeJong: It takes me a little while to process these things and I don't know. I don't see that there's
any big issue with the number of staff contacts that you have. I'm not sure exactly how we work the
adjustment this year. If we postpone this until January, but we could certainly work through that.
Councilman Ayotte: Well since we're working with your folks, is there any reason why we don't ask staff
to evaluate the impact of a per annum review. Is there a need to finalize this this evening or should we take
a more?
Mayor Jansen: I think it's a management decision, and we have the HR manager here as far as Mr.
Gerhardt's direction and he certainly works as a team with his staff and can work through any changes that
we make.
Councilman Peterson: I think Bob as just logically, you're talking about a few percentage points over 6
months, you're probably talking hundreds of dollars, not thousands. That was really your questions,
wasn't it?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, so we're comfortable. Any other comments? Bruce? Okay.
Bruce DeJong: No thanks.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, bringing it back to council. Any other discussion? If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd recommend that staff approve the modification to position
classification and pay compensation plan as presented to be effective January 1 with the additional caveat
that we go to an annual merit and cost of living increase effective January 1.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
modification to the Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan as presented to be effective
January 1, 2002, with the caveat that there be only one annual cost of living and merit increase
effective January 1 of each year. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
RATIFY INTER-FUND LOANS TO TIF DISTRICTS.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen, Council members. What the legislature has done, or at least what they
were thinking about doing sometime before they agreed to disagree and went into the special session was
that they were going to make a technical corrections bill to the TIF statutes. And part of that was to
resolve some outstanding issues that the cities have had with the state auditor's office regarding application
of the TIF statutes. What the state auditor's office has taken as a position is that you do not have the
36
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
authority to make inter-fund loans because there is no statutory language specifically allowing you to do
that. In other words, a TIF district cannot be in a deficit situation because you don't have authority to
spend increments you haven't received yet. That puts us in an awkward position because we do have TIF
districts that are in deficit. The technical corrections bill would allow inter-fund loans for TIF districts that
are in a deficit position and it would ratify all inter-fund loans that were in place prior to July 1,2001. So
what I'm asking you to do tonight is to approve a maximum loan for each TIF district that we have that is
in deficit or may be in deficit at some point in the future. And to determine an interest rate that is at the
same percentage that we earn on our other investment funds. Basically to make the other funds whole with
what they would have received, but not to charge an excessive rate to the TIF districts. So with that, I
know this is probably confusing. I'll just let you ask some questions and see if I can answer them
effectively.
Mayor Jansen: Well I think my first question is, as far as when these districts went into deficit, realizing
that when you came on board with us we did have funds that were in these sorts of situations. Is this, has
this been a long term situation? Is this something that just occurred or how did this deficit situation occur?
Bruce DeJong: These deficits have been around for actually quite a while. Starting back probably in '96
or '97. Particularly in the downtown district we did issue some additional debt in that timeframe and I
suppose that's when they technically started going into deficit position. The assumption was always that
we would make enough increment to pay ourselves back without probably having done the hard analysis
that we went through last year to see exactly what the possible deficits could be. And at that point we had
pegged the possible deficit for TIF District 1 at about $11 million. Now that has since come down due to
the grants that we've received, but depending on what happens with the property tax situation at the state
legislature, we could still be facing large TIF deficits simply because the process that the state has used for
TIF grants is a current year deficit rather than using an accumulated deficit position. So that means that
you have to have expenditures greater than your revenues. And with our downtown TIF district as of April
1st of this year, we are no longer able to expend money on anything except for debt that existed prior to
April 1st of 1990. So I still don't know exactly how much it will be but by allowing this inter-fund loan I
believe that we'll put ourselves in a better position for whatever grant pool the state may put out there as
kind of a relief for taking the school districts off the property tax rolls.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because right now what you're projecting to us is a $16 million deficit.
Bruce DeJong: No. That's not a projection. That is just simply a maximum loan amount.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Bruce DeJong: Kind of like, you know a home equity loan you can draw against if you need it but I
certainly don't expect that to be the case. If you look at North Bay, just because of timing differences that
you may go into deficit in North Bay. Because we have special assessments that are being paid off over an
8 year cycle, but yet you have a district that has a 25 year life. We're certainly going to collect a lot more
increment than we expend, but because of that timing difference, we may fall into deficit as you go through
that. And I think we're in deficit on Eden Trace right now, but as those buildings come on line, we're
certainly not going to be in deficit. So in most of these situations we're okay. The McGlynn District is in
deficit and it doesn't have any increment coming in so I'm not sure where that leaves us. Actually if you
noticed that last week on the fund closings, I did close out some bond funds. There is still one existing
bond fund outstanding on that district. But all it's done is make the deficit bigger without providing for any
37
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
repayment of that and I still don't know how that's going to shake out. Whether that may actually fall
under a new grant program or not, who knows.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Bruce?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: No? Can I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval per staff's recommendation.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Resolution #2001-43: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve to ratify
the Inter-fund Loans to TIF Districts in an amount not to exceed the following totals:
Downtown TID 1
McGlynn TID 2-1
Natl Weather Svc TID 2-2
North Bay TID 5
Eden Trace TID 7
$10,000,000
$3,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
APPOINTMENT TO CITY COUNCIL.
Mayor Jansen: After the conclusion of our discussion on Thursday evening we had two applicants that we
were considering and making comment amongst ourselves at our public meeting. Mr. Bruce Helmer and
Mr. Gary Boyle. The place we had left this was there were two council members, myself and Councilman
Ayotte who cared to have additional discussion with both applicants before concluding our discussion as a
council. So why don't we pick up where we left off and Councilman Ayotte, not to put you on the spot, but
if you would like to give us your additional comments.
Councilman Ayotte: I talked to both gentlemen again and, well first off I'm going to preface it by saying
that all the folks that applied this time out applied in a more strained time in the city's business so I'll use
the word courageous that they stepped forward in difficult times so all of them, thank you for applying. I
will also say that a number of them, in my personal view, could, have the skills to do the job. With respect
to what we need at this point in terms of a quick mm and getting on the band wagon and running with the
ball, and I really hate using sport analogies but what the heck. But looking at both of them, I favored Mr.
Boyle versus Mr. Helmer after the discussions I've had with them this afternoon.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I too had a conversation with the applicants. Some of the concerns that were raised
around bringing another relatively new to city business individual and Mr. Helmer certainly spoke to the
fact that he's not worked within a city process in the past. In my conversation with him he voiced his full
commitment to getting up to speed and being able to provide the time to be able to go through an
orientation on processes. I guess I'm still torn between the two skill sets. I mean they're diametrically
38
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
opposite in my mind. I certainly can appreciate council's comments last Thursday speaking to Mr. Boyle's
years serving on the EDA and being familiar with those processes. Obviously representing a commitment
to our community. He's lived here for 24 years. I see that as a limited exposure to the process. There will
still be, and as he said, as Mr. Boyle said himself, he too will need to be learning and getting up to speed so
I see both situations as being a learning and familiarizing themselves with the issues and the system. I still
tend to favor a stronger financial background, and I think the article in the Star Tribune certainly was timed
such that it emphasized some of the financial burdens and decisions and discussions that this council will be
having over the next year and a half. So in looking at the two gentlemen, I do tend to favor Mr. Helmer's
background in that he has run his own company. He works with a chief financial officer in running his
company, which is a similar role of a council working with a director of finance. So I see him bringing that
sort of an experience of needing to rely on a talented financial officer in running his company. Very
visionary. Spoke to budgeting and planning issues. Very much came across as a team player and a
collaborator and I think would be an excellent addition to the council. Could speak to pluses on both sides.
It's simply a difference in skill set as to what we're actually looking for and I certainly relied on the 5
points that we had used in reviewing skill set for the council. Financial acumen being one of them. The
organizational, participation and management. Public interaction and communication. And the planning
land use and development, along with technology. And as I had expressed the first time through the
process, I certainly put a higher value on the financial capabilities of the applicants, but with that I guess,
unless council wants to continue to have discussion, I too want to echo what Councilman Ayotte expressed
as far as appreciation to all of the people who applied this time around. Certainly the atmosphere has
changed and anyone who did step forward was certainly looking at stepping into an environment that
certainly could present some challenges and making that personal commitment I think was very significant
on all of their parts. So my appreciation and I'm sure all of council's appreciation to all of the applicants
for having stepped forward to serve the community. With that, if there's any other discussion? Otherwise
we could call for a vote.
Councilman Labatt: I'm set with.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: I move we approve Mr. Gary Boyle to the open seat on the City Council.
Mayor Jansen: There's a motion to appoint Gary Boyle to the City Council member position. Do I have a
second?
Councilman Peterson: I second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to appoint Gary Boyle to fill the vacant
City Council seat. All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: And I certainly welcome Mr. Boyle. I do have to stand by my intended purpose in doing
this appointment. I mean no disrespect Mr. Boyle and I certainly have worked very well and compatibly
together for the last 2 ½ years on the EDA and I certainly look forward to serving and working with him
on behalf on the community and I've appreciated his commitment so with that, we move on to, are there
any administrative presentations this evening?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
39
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Todd Gerhardt: ... on the survey during our work session. Again we're looking at the 23rd for an update
from Bill Morris from Decision Resources and that's it.
Mayor Jansen: Great. Any Council discussion?
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Peterson: Status of recruiting. We haven't talked for a while about that. The deadline is over
so, I know we've got some applications in there. I just want to keep that process moving so.
Mayor Jansen: I have it on my calendar to call all of the members of the committee and see if we can set
up a time to get together to then go through those applications. So thanks for bringing that up, and then we
would be able to move onto the, well probably the next council meeting. Maybe the work session. We'll
see how that schedule is. We can have that conversation once we go through the applications. At last
count, did you get a last count on the number of.
Councilman Peterson: There were 12 last week. I don't know whether any more came in.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah. 12 was the last I was aware of.
Todd Gerhardt: I tried to shy away from that part.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, appreciate that. Okay. Any correspondence discussion? If I could have a motion to
adjoum.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
40