CC Minutes 2001 08 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle, Councilman
Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Teresa Burgess,
Todd Hoffman, Bruce DeJong, Jerry Ruegemer, and Lori Haak
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Deb Lloyd
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF MINNESOTA RECREATION AND
PARK ASSOCIATION AWARD OF EXCELLENCE TO THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN FOR
DAVE HUFFMAN MEMORIAL RACE.
Sandy Werts: Hi. I'm Sandy Werts. I work for the City of Eden Prairie but I'm here on behalf of the
Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. So Mayor, members of the City Council and the Dave
Huffman Memorial Race Committee, I'm very pleased to be here this evening on behalf of the Minnesota
Recreation And Park Association to present this 2001 Award of Excellence. The MRPA Award of
Excellence program recognizes agencies and organizations in Minnesota for outstanding achievements in
parks, recreation and leisure services. Awards of Excellence are awarded in the following categories.
Facility, Administrative or Management Strategies, Volunteer Initiatives, Sponsorships and Partnerships,
Communications, Technology, Programming and Events. Each application is judged for the planning
process, funding plan, collaboration with others, community support, originality and the evaluation
process. So is the committee going to come up? Okay. So tonight I am very pleased to present this 2001
Award of Excellence in the Programming and Events category to the City of Chanhassen and the Dave
Huffman Memorial Race Committee for the 2000 Dave Huffman 5K Memorial Race.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful and congratulations. Thank you for the award and our gratitude to the
committee for having pulled this wonderful event together and we realize that we're anticipating a growth
in this event as we're coming into this year, September correct? September 15th SO hopefully everyone will
mm out and participate in the next Dave Huffman Memorial Race. Appreciate it and congratulations.
Thank you for the award.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Jansen: Moving onto the consent agenda, are there any council members that have any items on the
consent agenda that they'd like to have removed for separate discussion?
Councilman Ayotte: Madam Mayor, I would request to have an item put onto the consent agenda. In order
to demonstrate council support to Highway 101 trail, I would like to make a motion to move item number 6
to the consent agenda. I further move that the council direct staff to 1, develop a scope and solicit bids for
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
the construction of the trail, including a variety of design options to afford the council a means of assessing
the best bang for the buck. Number 2, work in concert with MnDot and other public agents to solidify the
scope for the close-in repair of 101. Number 3, obtain formal recognition of trail construction from
MnDot. Number 4, secure a date and the generic long range plan for the reconstruction of 101. And
number 5, send a note to Representative Workman thanking him for the money and ask him to get some
more.
Councilman Boyle: I will second that motion.
Mayor Jansen: Discussion of the motion. Though I can certainly appreciate the enthusiasm of wanting to
put something of that significance forward with a unanimous vote, I think it only fair to staff, as well as
council, to allow for there to be some discussion and their presentation of where we stand as far as the
funding and the impacts on the community, which I believe is the intent of staff having put this under
unfinished business is to allow for that open discussion and comment. And certainly it's anticipated then
that that will, as the motion is under 6, call for the public hearing, which is a requirement of our being able
to discuss that application.
Councilman Ayotte: Could I have clarification from Mr. Knutson? We have a motion and a second, can
that go onto the consent agenda?
Roger Knutson: The item can go on the consent agenda if the council so chooses. You have to vote on
your motion obviously.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: And that is the discussion of the motion that we're having currently. Since there is a
motion on the table, I've opened it for discussion of the motion. Any additional discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah Madam Mayor, I think I agree 100% with all of Mr. Ayotte's comments. I
guess I would be interested to hear staff's current status report before making that decision. And again, on
the surface I 100% agree with everything he said. But I think it's worthy, actually the people that are here
to hear the current status. If we put it on the consent agenda, they won't hear the current status and it
won't be discussed so I think there's some merit to that point.
Councilman Labatt: All we're doing here is just calling for public hearing to be put on the next agenda. So
I don't have a problem with it on the consent agenda because all of the discussion with staff or not, the
residents can be done in 2 weeks or 4 weeks, whenever it gets on the next agenda. Then that gives
everybody more time to receive input. So I don't have a problem moving it to the consent agenda. We're
just calling for public hearing, that's all we're doing.
Mayor Jansen: If you were to simply take number 6 and move it to the consent agenda I would certainly
agree with that comment, though I would still appreciate being able to hear staff's update. However the
motion was not phrased specific to item number 6 simply being moved. There was a great deal more added
without the background and input from staff to be able to address that. So my only concern is better
understanding the motion and being able to allow staff to be able to review and comment on those steps and
the impacts then on the community so that we could have that perspective. However, if you would like to
make the motion for number 6 to go to the consent agenda, then that would be a separate issue.
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Ayotte: Say again?
Mayor Jansen: If you wanted to just simply move 6.
Councilman Ayotte: No, I want my motion to stand and.
Mayor Jansen: And we're going to vote on that right now.
Councilman Ayotte: Let me finish my comment. I want the motion to stand and then that the council on it,
and if there is a decision at some point to gain more information after the staff goes and responds to what
I've asked for, then that will give more information to the community but I want to lock this in to
demonstrate that the council does support the 101 trail. That's my motivation for making this motion. And
the parameters I put on for additional information is to further solidify the position that I think we ought to
make and I'm just asking for the rest of the council to vote on it. How's that?
Councilman Peterson: So would it be your intent not to hear from staff tonight then?
Councilman Ayotte: I really don't think that the staff can gather all the information needed. If they have
information to share, that's fine but my motion stands as is. I'd like to vote on it. And if staff can
comment on it, fine. Otherwise, we can wait another week or two but I wanted to make it as a matter of
public record that the council supports the trail and that we should continue to go forward as Teresa
Burgess has been going forward to continue the process. And I don't want it to be interrupted. I think the
motion I've stated would allow the process to continue in a professional, smooth fashion.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Councilman Ayotte: Without hiccups. Without any politicizing of the issue. I want to go forward with it.
Councilman Peterson: The other way to gain all that is to, after we hear the discussion with staff, you
could still make that same motion in the council presentations so that you have the information. You have
more information than what you have now. Again, I'm not trying to circumvent the process. I just want to
be as informed as we can, and the community as informed as we can prior to making that decision. If it's
just calling for a public hearing, then I'm not adverse to putting it on the consent agenda for a public
hearing.
Mayor Jansen: And I would agree with what Councilman Peterson just expressed. Is that during the
unfinished business, after the staff presentation when the community's had an opportunity to hear the
update and we have that we review.
Councilman Ayotte: I think in a few weeks we can get more information and share more information with
the community at large. I'd like to get this pushed through. My motion stands. I have a second. I think
we should vote on it.
Mayor Jansen: We will, and I do want to also, because you have emphasized that part of the motivation
here is to emphasize that the council supports the trail, this council has come out and voted and is in
support of the trail. What is being evaluated is how we go about doing that, and we now have another
proposal before us and additional funding available with staff prepared now to be able to speak to that and
the impacts. With the motion on the table, we have a motion and a second.
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd like to interrupt just one more time. Before we vote on that I'd
like you to re-state your motion so I.
Councilman Ayotte: You can't read it can you Craig.
Councilman Peterson: No I can't. I tried but I can't read your writing so.
Councilman Ayotte: I left this out for everybody to see and they couldn't figure out what the heck I was
going to say because they can't read my writing. In order to demonstrate council support of the Highway
101 trail, I'd like to make a motion to move item number 6 to consent agenda. I further move that the
council direct staff to number 1, develop a scope and solicit bids for the actual construction of the trail,
including a variety of design options to afford council a means of assessing the best bang for the buck.
Referring primarily to Representative Workman's 500K but additional monies. Number 2, work in concert
with MnDot and other public agents to solidify the scope of the close-in repair. The things that we've got
to get done now on 101. Number 3, to obtain a formal recognition from MnDot as far as the trail is
concerned, the trail construction. Make sure that they give us a nod and understand that we have 500K to
go forward. Number 4, to secure a date on the generic long range plan for the reconstruction of 101. One
of these days there will be discussions about the reconstruction of 101 down the road. No pun intended.
Whether that's 10 years or 15 years, I think we should just kind of put a mark in the sand. Number 5, and
I wasn't saying that tongue in cheek. I think we ought to give a note from this council and the city staff for
Representative Workman's efforts on getting the 500K. That's my motion.
Mayor Jansen: I have a question for staff as far as where we are currently, as far as developing the scope
and soliciting the bids for the trail. We do currently have a set of plans and specifications, correct? Did we
make it that far.
Teresa Burgess: We do not have a set of plans and specs. What we have is a concept set of plans. We
prepared plans that were, what we understood MnDot needed for review of the trail. MnDot then came
back and said they needed additional information. We have not pursued that at this time. The grant is
something that just came out of the legislature so we did not have the sufficient funds. We only had the
$800,000, not the $1.3 necessary. We could certainly, I took Mr. Ayotte's comment to mean that he wants
us to prepare plans with design options to be brought back to the council for approval so that we know
which set to take for construction bids. And so we certainly have, we have a consultant on board that
would complete those plans still waiting from when we did the concept plans.
Mayor Jansen: And as far as the permit to be able to construct this in MnDot's right-of-way, what is the
status on that?
Teresa Burgess: We do not have a permit to construct in MnDot right-of-way. Today we received a fax
from MnDot that stated their willingness to work with us to construct in the right-of-way, but we do not
have a formal permit. We only have their statement of desire to work with us.
Mayor Jansen: So we do still have all of these steps that we need to take in order to be able to move the
project forward, and that is what staff has been directed in the previous discussion of 101 to go back and
continue to work on those issues. Correct as far as the permit for building in the right-of-way. You've still
been working with MnDot. You've been working with the other jurisdictions.
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Teresa Burgess: We are currently working our way through the DNR grant process. Even though the
legislature directed the DNR to give us a grant, we still need to go through the application process. We just
know the end result. And so that's currently what we're working through. Once we have worked through
that process, then we would initiate plans and specs for the trail. We need to make sure that we understand
all of the requirements of DNR. At the same time we would be meeting with MnDot to find out what their
requirements are. My understanding from the letter from MnDot today, and Todd Gerhardt and I both
discussed it after reading the letter, is that they are re-evaluating their position on the trail. Presumably
based on the DNR grant, realizing that there is some momentum for this trail, they are looking at it again.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I had one question for Teresa. There's no way we could have alternatives
available in 2 weeks, is there?
Teresa Burgess: Not in 2 weeks. We would need to go through the entire design process. That is going
to take probably at least a month because we would need to go out and do a topographical survey to do a
decent job, and to do the design alternatives.
Mayor Jansen: And the cost of that particular part of the project.
Teresa Burgess: We have estimated, based on the MnDot comments, that we are probably looking at
about $300,000 worth of engineering total. That would be both design and construction. Approximately
half of that is probably going to go into design. I have not sat down with the consultant to get an estimate
for the actual design. We may be able to negotiate a better price with the consultant than our estimate.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And I guess that's going to my initial comments that there's a great deal entailed in
this motion as far as some of the detail and the effects of it that I guess I would appreciate being able to
pose this motion to staff and enable them the time to be able to react and give us feedback as to what the
implementation of this motion would be. I certainly can appreciate wanting to show our support and as
stated, this council, one of the very first projects that we started discussing was the Highway 101 project
and we brought it forward with staff and started encouraging and directed staff to go back to the table and
get this discussion underway. And it certainly is a very positive step that we're at now to have been
presented with additional funding, but we have not had the clear report yet from staff as to what we need to
do and we need to get the application in in order to be able to receive the DNR funds. So that is the item
that's on the agenda this evening. We have a motion and a second.
Councilman Peterson: I'd like to ask for a friendly amendment. That we, I agree with everything that was,
Mr. Ayotte has offered and at least I'd like the opportunity for staff to make the presentation on item
number 6 when it comes up so we have an update for the people that are here and for ourselves so, I just
want to have staff, give the staff an opportunity tonight to articulate what information they've gathered
over the last 2 weeks.
Councilman Ayotte: I would have no problem with the staff doing a presentation if we could still vote on
my moving this to the consent agenda so that there's direction to go forward and then listen to the staff as a
mechanism to educate the public here on what's going on. But I'd like to keep my motion as is and vote on
it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, well.
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Peterson: I think he accepted my friendly amendment.
Mayor Jansen: So that we have discussion under item number 6 still. That we're not necessarily removing
it, but there is a motion on the consent agenda as stated by Councilman Ayotte, but when we do get to item
number 6 on the agenda, we will have discussion as planned on the update and status of Highway 101,
which is where the motion stands currently. Is the friendly amendment seconded?
Councilman Boyle: Yes it is.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Friendly amendment is seconded. All those in favor? Oh, we were doing the
consent agenda. I think we had one amendment that we needed, Mr. Knutson? Mr. Knutson please.
Roger Knutson: I believe, as I understand your motion, your motion is to put what the council member
said on the consent agenda. You're not moving the consent agenda. You're moving to put this on the
consent agenda. Then you have a separate motion to move the consent agenda.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm confused as heck now.
Mayor Jansen: We're voting to put your motion on the consent agenda. We're not approving the consent
agenda right now. So if I could have.
Councilman Ayotte: So my efforts to get it on the consent agenda and then have us approve the consent
agenda, then we've just gone full circle.
Roger Knutson: No, as I understand your motion, it's a two step process. You made your motion with the
various parts and if it passes now, it will be on the consent agenda. Then you'll vote on the whole consent
agenda at once.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Got it?
Councilman Ayotte: Got it.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to move item number 6, Call Public Hearing
to Discuss Application for the Minnesota DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program onto the consent
agenda, with the following directions to staff.'
1. Develop a scope and solicit bids for the construction of the trail, including a variety of design
options to afford the council a means of assessing the best bang for the buck.
2. Work in concert with MnDot and other public agents to solidify the scope for the close-in repair of
101.
3. Obtain formal recognition of trail construction from MnDot.
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
4. Secure a date and the generic long range plan for the reconstruction of 101.
5. Send a note to Representative Workman thanking him for the money and ask him to get some more.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: Excuse me. If we could please honor the council protocol for our meetings and have as
little disruption as possible. We certainly appreciate of all your enthusiasm around this project, but if we
could maybe have a little less disruption and certainly we appreciate, as I said, your enthusiasm. The rest
of the consent agenda please. Were there items that needed to be amended?
Councilman Labatt: Under (h), approving the bills. I'd like to remove under the special assessment
projects, Check #106104 for $8,684.78.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other changes to the consent agenda?
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda
items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Consultant Contract for Feasibility Study and Consultant Design for the 2002 Municipal
State Aid Improvement, Project 01-08.
b. Approve Consultant Contract for Feasibility Study and Consultant Design for Kings Road
Improvements.
c. Resolution /12001-46: Approve Resolution for No Parking on the North Side of Pleasant View
Road from TH 101 to Timber Hill Road.
d. Approve Revision to City Code Chapter 7, Initiating As-Built Grading Survey Requirement.
e. Adjust Consultant Contract for Crestview Circle, Project 00-05.
f. Resolution/12001-47: Accept Public Utilities in Vandemore Addition, Project 00-12.
g. Resolution /12001-48: Resolution Giving the City of Chaska 6 Months Notice to Terminate an
Existing Maintenance Agreement for West 82nd Street, PE067E 1.
h. Approval of Bills amended to delete Check #106104 in the amount of $8,684.78.
i. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Minutes dated July 23,2001
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 23,2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated July 17, 2001
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Call Public Hearing to Discuss Application for the Minnesota DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant
Program with the following direction to staff:
Develop a scope and solicit bids for the construction of the trail, including a variety of design
options to afford the council a means of assessing the best bang for the buck.
Work in concert with MnDot and other public agents to solidify the scope for the close-in
repair of 101.
3. Obtain formal recognition of trail construction from MnDot.
4. Secure a date and the generic long range plan for the reconstruction of 101.
Send a note to Representative Workman thanking him for the money and ask him to get some
more.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Jansen: Moving on to visitor presentations. The council meetings allow for citizen comment at this
time on city business. If there are members in the audience who have city business issues that you would
like to discuss at this time, we ask that you hold your comments to a 5 minute presentation. And if we can
restrict comments to professional and non-personal comments, we will be following the protocol then of our
City Council meetings so that would be appreciated. And since there are so many of you present who
would like to speak to the 101 issue, so that you have the benefit of hearing the staff presentation prior to
making your comments, I will open up that item on the agenda for public comment after staff has done their
presentation and you're able to hear any of the updated information. So if anyone else would like to come
to the podium, state your name and address for the record.
Alex Wagenaar: Hi. Thank you very much. I'm Alex Wagenaar and I live at 890 Fox Court in the Fox
Chase subdivision and I am here to speak in favor of the item number 5 on unfinished business to authorize
a budget amendment and complete the project Fox Chase trail connector. This is a trail easement that has
been in the public record for many, many years. At least a decade I believe and this is to finally improve
that trail and make it a fully usable trail. We've had several meetings in the Fox Chase neighborhood
about this and previous councils have addressed this issue. Recently a petition was circulated, I believe 42
out of 45 households signed in favor of completing this trail connection. I would urge you to not delay this
any longer. Many people have waited 5 or 10 years for the completion of this trail. To vote this through
and complete this relatively short trail connector down to Lotus Lake from the Fox Chase subdivision.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council? Please state your name
and address for the record.
Bob Mortenson: Bob Mortenson, 7371 Kurvers Point Road, Chanhassen. I just had a question about the
resurfacing recently. They did some with pebble stuff on the tar, and I was wondering why they didn't do
the ends of the cul-de-sacs. Anybody know? They did the main streets, but at all the ends of the cul-de-
sacs they didn't do...some good reason.
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: We do have our city engineer here this evening and Teresa could probably answer that
question for you.
Teresa Burgess: Actually we have a very good reason for not doing that. The majority of our complaints,
we estimate approximately 99%, 95 to 99% of our complaints come from those cul-de-sacs. With the
turning movements it tears up the rock and we get a lot of seepage of the oil. So this year we chose not to
do the cul-de-sac bulbs. It works very well through the straight away's, but by leaving the cul-de-sac bulbs
we will go back and not do it as often but we will actually do a thin overlay instead of the sealcoat project.
Less often but still treating those streets.
Bob Mortenson: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else caring to address the council at this time? Please approach the
podium. Okay. Moving on with the agenda. Oh, excuse me.
Steve Donen: I'd like to discuss the, oh my name's Steve Donen and I live at 7636 South Shore Drive. My
discussion is on the Lotus Lake no wake restrictions. I think that's on the agenda for tonight.
Mayor Jansen: It is actually under our public hearings so when we get to item number 3, that will be open
for public comment. Thank you very much.
Steve Donen: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: You can come back up at that time. Certainly, come forward. If you'll just state your
name and address for the record please.
Ann Miller: Yes, my name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path and I too am talking to you this evening
about the Fox Chase trail. Or access onto Lotus Lake and I know that the present figure I believe is
$46,000 something and, dollars to have that trail put in and I just want you to know too that I have the
entire grading plan in my possession this evening from Wendt Engineering. I'm not sure if that would help
save money but I'm sure it's in the city files too but I do have that in my possession if they would like to
use it. And I would appreciate that you vote that we do get a trail.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you very much.
Barb Hedlund: Hi. My name's Barb Hedlund. I live at 748 Lake Point. We own Lot 19, which has been
in the middle of this thing with the trail. First of all I'd like to say we've always been in favor, my husband
and I, of a trail. I think it was close to 2 years ago we talked to the city about it and they talked us into
giving 6 feet of our land to help the Kreisler's out to do a straight trail because we were told that the other
trail was unsafe because of the grade. Now all of a sudden it's not unsafe anymore. So we would just like
to state that we want no liability if somebody gets hurt on this trail. We have 32 steps that go down to the
lake on our property. And you're doing it in 6 so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Barb Hedlund: Okay.
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council so I don't close this too
quickly? Okay. We'll move on then to our public hearings.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER LOCATED
ON WEST 82N~ STREET, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK, MICHAEL SCHLANGEN:
A. CONSIDER LAND SALE (NORTH 200 FT. OF THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF THE NW QUARTER SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23).
B. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,800 SQ.
FT. AUTO SERVICE BUILDING.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council members. The first item is a public hearing. Under State statute
the City of Chanhassen must hold a public hearing when disposing of city owned property. Attached in
your packet is a purchase agreement with the Gateway Panners. The terms and conditions of the purchase
agreement are $2.78 a square foot, coming to a total purchase price of $177,000. Earnest money of
$25,000 and a proposed closing date of October 1, 2001. At this time staff would ask that you solicit
public comments.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff before we go to public hearing? Okay, this item
is a public hearing. If there's anyone present who would like to address the council on this issue, please
step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Going, going, okay. We'll
bring this back to council. Reviewing item 2(a). Any discussion? Otherwise if I could have a motion
please.
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion to approve item 2(a). A second please.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the Purchase Agreement with
Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership for the purchase price of $177,302.84. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Agenda item 2(b). Staff report please.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. The second pan of this is for an amendment
to the Planned Unit Development. Originally as pan of the Arboretum Business Park, or Gateway
Development, auto services were a prohibited use. The property immediately to the south of this, the
Wrase property is located on 41. North 82nd Street is down to the south. The property to the south
developed with the Citgo. Over time that property owner then came in and requested that the city look at
amending this site to permit an auto services center. The type of commercial we wanted in this
development is support commercial. We believe that is a good support use for that area. There are
industrial parks that don't have this type of service for their employees and so staff is recommending
approval of that amendment. The second pan of the request is for a site plan review for the actual auto
services building. It's a 700-800 square foot building located on the top of the bluff. It's son of hidden in
there. The access is via a right-in/right-out off of Highway 41 and they do have a driveway connection
through the Citgo site. The only issue we have with this one was we'd like them to provide additional
10
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
articulation on the building and they've agreed to add a stripe to help highlight the south and north
elevation and they are willing to relocate some existing trees on the property so they'll be able to re-use
some of the trees that are there. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in
our report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff council? Again this is a public hearing. If there's
anyone present who would like to speak to this issue, if you'd approach the podium. Seeing no one, bring it
back to council. Any discussion? If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Boyle: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the amendment to the Planned
Unit Development (PUD #92-6) to permit an Auto Services Center on the "Wrase" property with the
stipulation that auto body repair is prohibited on the site, and to approve Site Plan #2001-8, plans
prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated 5/4/01, 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.
2. The grading plan shall be revised to show the placement of silt fence.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
The applicant shall provide stormwater calculations to demonstrate that off-site ponding will be
adequate to meet all applicable city water quality and water quantity requirements. Submit storm
sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps
of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of
approval.
6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
A decorative show box 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.
8. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
11
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Add five deciduous overstory trees adjacent to the parking area and specify species in the plant
schedule. Submit revised plan to City.
10.
The applicant shall plant a minimum of 30 shrubs between the south property line and the parking
area. The locations and species shall be noted in a revised landscape plan.
11. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing prior to grading around all trees to be saved.
12.
The developer shall work with staff to identify and move all the trees on the northern portion of the
site.
13.
Add the following 2001 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans: 1004, 1006, 3101, 3102,
5203, 5300, and 5301.
14.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
15. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit for the site.
16. Add an approved fence on the top of all retaining walls over 4 feet in height.
17.
Add silt fence at the bottom of the slope off of the southwest comer of the parking lot. Tree
protection fencing must be added around all trees that are planned to be saved. Silt fence and tree
protection fencing must be removed after construction.
18. Add a benchmark to the plans.
19. Any off-site grading or construction will require easements.
20.
Revise the slopes along the south and east property lines to meet the City's maximum slope grade
of 3:1 or install retaining walls.
21.
A private utility easement is required over the portion of the water service that is outside of the
property limits.
22.
The property has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the property is subject to city
sewer and water hook-up and connection charges. The 2001 connection charges for both sanitary
sewer and water are $4,144 a piece. The 2001 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,322 per unit
for sanitary sewer and $1,723 per unit for water. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These
charges are collected prior to the building permit being issued.
23.
A cross access easement is required over the shared portion of the TH 41 driveway access which
serves both the subject property and the Citgo property.
24.
Increase the length of the parking stalls along the south side of the building to be 18 feet long and
provide acceptable turnaround areas at the east ends of the parking lot, as required by City code.
25. On the grading plan:
12
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
a. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc.
b. Show one standard size for all manhole structures.
c. Delete the retaining wall that is shown on the property to the east.
On the utility plan:
a. Include a note near the watermain connection that says, ;;Restore Water Tower Drive With
Heavy-Duty Bituminous Section (See Grading Plan)".
b. Add north arrow and bar scale.
c. Show the proposed water pipe easement.
d. Under the Construction Notes add, ;;All connections to existing manholes shall be core-
drilled".
e. Rename the proposed storm CB2 to CBMH2.
f. Rename MH1 to STMH1.
g. Revise existing MH4 invert to be 988.35.
h. Add a storm sewer schedule.
Invert for the existing sanitary manhole is 992.65.
Show one standard size for all manhole structures.
Lower the storm sewer line between CBMH2 to STMH1 so it's below the rim elevation of
STMH1.
i. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc.
The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
The access aisle for the accessible parking space must be a minimum of 8 feet wide.
The service area toilet room must be adaptable as required by Minnesota State Building Code
Chapter 1341.
A 1 hour fire resistive occupancy separation is required between the service area and the customer
area.
Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
A post indicator valve (PIV) will need to be added to the water line going into the building. This is
to shut down fire protection in the event of an emergency in the building.
Add a hydrant on either side of the main entrance onto the property. One hydrant is not sufficient
for this project.
13
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
37.
The applicant shall work with staff to add additional architectural interest to the south elevation of
the building.
38.
The developer shall provide a five-foot concrete sidewalk access to any trail built on the east side
of Highway 41.
39. The applicant shall work with staff to make the tree inventory consistent and accurate.
40. No outdoor loud speakers will be allowed on the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO ADOPT SLOW NO-
WAKE RESTRICTIONS FOR LOTUS LAKE DURING TIMES OF HIGH WATER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gina Mooty
Steve Donen
Sandra Resnick
Chad Taylor
Greg Fletcher
6871 Sand Ridge Road, Eden Prairie
7636 South Shore Drive
7490 Chanhassen Road
7616 South Shore Drive
Lori Haak: Madam Mayor, Council members. As you are all aware, we had some fairly high water this
spring and with that we got some phone calls and some concern from residents regarding those high water
levels and the damage that was done to private properties. The DNR requires a public hearing before
municipalities can adopt surface water regulations and so that is what this is fulfilling this evening.
Because of the volume of calls we received, council directed staff to prepare a slow no-wake ordinance. In
the staff report you can find a synopsis of the issues related to slow no-wake ordinances. The city has
considered amendments to the slow no-wake ordinance in the past and has not adopted those in the past
because the water levels tend to stay at those real high elevations for a very short period of time. Typically
less than a week. In addition, implementation and enforcement of those ordinances are challenging.
Currently the city does not have a public safety department. There is one water patrolmen for entire Carver
County and his time is limited so enforcement has been a concern in the past. On August 25th of 1997 the
City Council approved an ordinance, a temporary slow no-wake ordinance that basically established a slow
no-wake elevation for an undetermined period of time and that ordinance was never put in the rule book and
it was never rescinded. So part of the proposal before you this evening is actually to get rid of that old,
what staff meant as a temporary ordinance and is now proposing this additional slow no-wake ordinance
only for Lotus Lake instead of all the lakes in Chanhassen. And the reasons for that are detailed in the staff
report. There are several other communities that have slow no-wake ordinances such as Prior Lake,
Plymouth, Lake Elmo and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Basically the ordinance you have
before you this evening is a combination of those. The salient points of the proposed ordinance are that
above the ordinary high water elevation of 896.3 feet MSL, Mean Sea Level, there would be a, once that
elevation is exceeded for 3 days or more, a slow no-wake period would be in effect. That would be posted
primarily at the lake access. The public access on Lotus Lake. In addition staff would contact the Villager
14
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
in hopes that they would write an article about the slow no-wake conditions on Lotus Lake. In addition we
would post it as a public notice in the paper. The problem with that is that timing doesn't always work out
so the other thing that staff is proposing is that we would contact the homeowners associations on the lake
and potentially the Lotus Lake Association itself, although that's been kind of off and on for quite some
time now. We encourage the organization to revitalize for this purpose and in hopes of disseminating
information that way, through the homeowners associations. Through the Lotus Lake Association. At this
point I guess the staff recommendation is to adopt the ordinance as outlined in your staff report with the
condition of DNR approval. Following the public hearing this evening the DNR will have to take a look at
our ordinance and give us their blessing so to speak and staff is recommending that you make that a
condition of approval and that, and I guess I'd just as a side note, this would come back on, most likely on
the consent agenda after we've received that DNR approval and made any minor modifications that they
might call for. With that I'm willing to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Council, any questions for staff prior to opening for the public hearing?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes Mayor.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: First off I agree with passing the ordinance. Don't get worried Todd, but I always am
concerned about the ability to enforce and I know we only have one boat and so forth, but have we had any
dialogue through our public safety department to Carver County Sheriff?
Lori Haak: I have been the staff person most involved in this particular ordinance. I have spoken with the
sheriff's department and basically this spring especially we had a lot of dialogue about this particular
problem. Basically the word that I received from the sheriff's department is that they will enforce what we
have on the books.
Councilman Ayotte: So in other words the answer is yes.
Lori Haak: Yes, sorry.
Councilman Ayotte: And I would also, you've had discussions with the associations on Lotus Lake? Did
you say that?
Lori Haak: I have not had meetings with the associations, but I have sent letters alerting the associations
that this would be on the agenda and have asked them to contact their members so that the membership of
the lake was aware that this was going on. The members of those associations.
Councilman Ayotte: If this is approved, will you schedule meetings with the associations to discuss their
involvement on assisting us with it's.
Lori Haak: I can certainly do that.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you Mayor.
15
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: Sure. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone present this evening who'd like to address
the council on this issue, if you'd step forward and state your name and address for the record. Now's the
time.
Steve Donen: Well I live on the lake also and we found it very confusing this year because there was
rumors going around the lake that there was a no-wake that had been put in place. Rumors that there were
signs posted. It was very poorly handled and we did not know what the rules were. Now as living on the
lake, well I guess I had one question first of all. How much time this year would the lake been shut down
had we had this ordinance in place?
Lori Haak: Because we did not know the location of the gauge on the lake, and we didn't know some of the
things, it's very difficult to determine exactly how long it would have been. My guess is it would have been
about a week, and it would have been, we do have data from the end of April and the beginning of May.
So my guess is a week somewhere in there.
Steve Donen: Well I haven't seen your reports or heard from what the analysis are. I can only go by my
dock level, okay and I would believe we would have probably lost about a month of the season this year.
For those of us who are either driving our fishing boats quickly to one end of the lake or water skiing, and
me personally I spend a lot of time with my children. It's a month that's very important to me and my kids
water skiing on the lake. So you know where I'm coming from. I'm coming from the standpoint of, I
believe the rain, the wind, God himself does far more damage to our yards than the few boats that actually
end up on the lake in April. There's only a few of us out there that are crazy enough to be out there water
skiing at that time of the year, okay. So I firmly believe that a no-wake zone for purposes of
communication, purposes of enforcement, for purposes of time that we already are limited on the lake, I am
very much against and we would have lost a lot of time this year. From my dock. Now I'll tell you
honestly, my dock, the wind and the rain and the waves did knock my dock off. It took all the tops off.
Blew them into shore. And all those things did happen. So I was affected and it was not because other
boats were floating by, it was because God did it. Okay. And so I don't know, I believe honestly that a no-
wake zone on a lake like Lotus doesn't, isn't going to make that much difference in people's damage
because I personally can't go out and say well that boat going by caused that little wake and that made the
damage on the lake. What really happened was God did a lot of damage this year guys. The wind was
blowing. The waves were sometimes 2 and 3 feet tall and it did, so I'm not in favor of a no-wake zone on
Lotus Lake at all.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Sandra Resnick: My name is Sandra Resnick. I've probably spoken to all of you because I'm one of those
people who said it's about time we do something to protect Lotus Lake. I totally disagree with the
gentleman before me. If you've stood out when you watched how high the water was, it clearly was at least
3 weeks of higher water than any of us have seen since I've been out there for 10 years, alright. And it was
a 3 week kind of thing and the water seemed to keep rising because we had more and more rain and as it
accumulated, I watched as the water was almost to the top of my dock. And God doesn't create a wake
unless you're on a ocean like a speed boat coming across the lake. And if it's not one speed boat, then it's
2, 3, 4, 5 speed boats, all going, pulling water skiers and if you stood on the shoreline you would see the
waves coming back. You would see the waves beating across the shoreline. If you went out to look at
Lotus Lake today, there probably are at least 5 or 6 more places where people have tried to protect their
shoreline from going into the lake. And you can see the new rock shoreline. You can see people trying to
sheer up what they had to begin with. This is not just about water skiing, this is about water skiing 10
16
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
years from now. This is about water skiing 20 years from now. This is so that your grandchildren can use
the lake and your great grandchildren can use the lake. Because when the shoreline comes caving in, Lotus
is not a very deep lake to begin with. I'd like to know where all the shoreline goes once it goes washing
back into the lake. It makes the lake shallower. It not only damages the shoreline, it is not good for the
entire environment of it, so yes I understand that it will inconvenience some people who want to go water
skiing, but for many people who would like to maintain the shoreline and have that shoreline viable in years
to come, I think you had to have been out there and watched what damage those boats did because the rains
came and the rains didn't, well they washed out lots of things but when you watch a speed boat coming
across, full speed with the lake being higher than ever and you watch what the wake looks like, you can't
not say that it doesn't cause damage to a shoreline.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue, if you'd come
forward at this time. And state your name and address for the record.
Chad Taylor: My name is Chad Taylor. I live on 7490 Chanhassen Road. Number one, we are a member
of an association down that whole row and I guess I would ask how many she referred to multiple
complaints. Is there a vehicle that we can have access to find out what the complaints were exactly? Is
there a specific area of erosion? I know the lake was high. It rained and it rained a lot but I don't think the
enforcement of being able to tell everybody hey, you guys have a bound or it's going to work. We don't
see any signs. We don't go down to the boat dock. We don't go to the launch and you're referring to how
many police officers are out there. I see 3 everyday out there now so there are more out there, but what I'd
like to see is them enforce how many boats they allow at the landing. We have people parking on 101.
That creates more erosion than saying there's a no-wake zone so that's my say.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Lori, do we by chance have a record from this year of the number of
complaints that were received? I know I had received 3 or 4 from off of Lotus.
Lori Haak: That's what I recall off-hand. I don't have a count available this evening. That's something
that I could go back and reconstruct if the council was interested.
Mayor Jansen: But right now it's probably pretty close to say it was 3 or 4.
Lori Haak: There are 3 or 4 that I recall clearly.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And as far as our being able to restrict the number of boats onto the lakes, I know
that living on Lake Riley we've raised that as an association issue and that's not something that we can in
fact restrict. Is that the case with Lotus as well?
Lori Haak: I believe that's the case. We've restricted parking. There are 10 spots for boats. Rather
vehicles with trailers to park at that public landing and I believe that's the most restrictive that we can be.
It becomes a matter of, it's a public access. It's a public water body.
Mayor Jansen: And if they're parking along 101, I'm gathering they're running the risk of getting towed or
ticketed?
Lori Haak: Yes. Unless there's an area that I'm not aware of that's.
17
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Teresa Burgess: Parking on 101 would not be allowed and those cars should be towed or ticketed. If it
comes to the deputies attention, they will ticket. But it does have to be brought to their attention if they're
not in the area so certainly those property owners should be contacting dispatch to let them know if they're
seeing people parking there.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I know that too has been an issue in our area but they managed to come walking
from a 5 mile distance beyond the no parking area or they get a lift from a friend. Okay. I think those were
the two issues that were raised. Anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue.
Greg Fletcher: Hi, I'm Greg Fletcher. I live at 7616 South Shore Drive, so I live on the lake as well and
I'm against the ordinance. I don't think it's justified. I agree with Mr. Donen's comments that I think the
wind and waves, just natural wind causes more damage than the boats and I also feel it's unwarranted that
we single out this lake that's only had 3 or 4 calls versus enacting something across the whole city for all
lakes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for your comments. Anyone else who would like to address the council on
this issue at this time? Seeing no one, I will bring this back to council. Any questions for staff as far as
any of the issues that were raised during the public hearing?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: I've been fishing on Lotus Lake. I'm sorry, that's not true. I've been trying to fish on
Lotus Lake without much success, but one of the things I have noticed is a lot of traffic. I personally at
this point favor the ordinance but one thing I see missing that, in a comparable situation Mr. Hoffman
resolved was interaction with the associations. When he cracked the nut on the Fox Chase thing, and we're
going to talk about that a little bit later on this evening, there was more dialogue with the associations and
what I see missing here too is the staff does not have much impurical data to demonstrate the type of
damage that we're experiencing. Maybe we need a more stringent ordinance. And so one of the things I'm
going to voice is the concern that we don't have impurical data to depict sufficiently the parameters and
constraints of the ordinance. Number two, I'd like to see more interaction and dialogue with the
associations to improve the ordinance. But let me go on record, I do want something for Lotus Lake. Not
just because of my inability to catch fish, but I really think that we have to get more data. When I do this
subjectivity of bringing God into the discussion, that's an indication to me that we have to gather more data
so that's where I'm at. I ask my fellow council to either agree or disagree but I want you folks to hear what
I'm thinking. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any other questions or we can begin comments at this time. No questions
Craig?
Councilman Peterson: No.
Councilman Labatt: Lori the only question I have is, in the event this does pass, I have an issue with
number 3, monitoring of the lakes. Is there a better way to monitor the level rather than lease somebody's
private rain gauge that can be manipulated?
18
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Lori Haak: This is actually a gauge that's put in. It's installed annually by the DNR and surveyed in by
the DNR. The only catch per se is that it is located off shore of private property and we do have a letter,
I've spoken with this individual who has the gauge and he has agreed to let me on the property to take a
look at this. He reads it weekly for the DNR is the reason it's out there and he has verbally agreed to
provide staff with notification I guess when the water level reaches whatever threshold staff determines
would be close. I would end up making, or staff would end up making the final determination of the level,
but they would be the person on the ground letting us know when it was getting close, because it is, it's
kind of a trek to go up there.
Councilman Labatt: Would it be easier to have something installed at the launch itself on one of the
concrete, having something permanently installed on this little concrete ramp things as you drive in the
lake? To make the ordinary high water mark...
Lori Haak: I would, it's certainly an option and something that we could consider, although I would be
concerned about vandalism in a public location like that. And with frost heave and ice and things like that,
that's why the DNR puts in and takes out the gauge every year is because of the ice and the freezing and
thawing we get. It does change the level over a number of years can change that markedly.
Mayor Jansen: Does that answer your question?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. That's the only comment I had.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I guess I have mixed feelings about putting the ordinance in place. I know looking
at this year and that 3 week period that the water was so high, was such an anomaly and I'm speaking from
being a lakeshore property owner and watching what happened actually on Lake Riley. And the impacts
that we had as a lakeshore owner were coming from vehicle traffic that was coming from not your home
associations. None of your lakeshore owners. When you're living on the lake you're more conscious of
that water level. It was the people who were trailoring into the lake that weren't as conscious of the fact
that the water levels were as high as they were, and we were watching other people's docks floating away
as people were skiing and far too close to the docks because of the water level. But I don't think we would
have really had that restriction in place where we were for maybe a week. I think we're talking about a
very short period of time and water quality being the issue that it is, watching the amount of erosion that
does occur from the boating traffic as Ms. Resnick was speaking to, we watched those boulders literally get
washed down into the lake. So I think the intention of this ordinance and placing a sign at the public
launches would be an informational vehicle for the people who are visiting the lake. Again I think the lake
association or lakeshore owners are more conscious of those high levels and we see them, if anything being
more conscious of not going at those wake speeds and being more sensitive to the effects that we're having
on shore. I'm leaning towards being in favor of the ordinance, with the DNR approval of course, and
definitely as Councilman Ayotte expressed, the interaction with the associations is certainly helpful as far
as an information tool so everyone's aware of what the ordinance is trying to accomplish and there's the
short window that we're not trying to restrict activity on the lake. That it is very early spring. It's after the
thaws. It's after those heavy rains and it's not impacting as many people as we might be fearful of if this
was around 4th of July or into the August time period. As far as more impurical data being collected, I
think we're talking a simpler situation than that and the DNR being sensitive to the ordinary high water
mark, and I know it's typically what they're watching and the erosion, I'd hate to spend too much time
trying to substantiate the fact that that is an environmental impact that we should be trying to buffer as
much as possible versus having staff spend more time on this. That it is more simple and a shorter period
of time.
19
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Ayotte: Well I'm just, a question for clarification. In terms of timing, we're close to the end
of the season now. And so there is some amount of time, and when I say impurical data for clarification,
there's other sources for impurical data besides the DNR. And what I'm referring to is maybe some
gathering information where you either add, delete or change the parameters of the ordinance. I would just
like to table it to get input from the association and get some additional data points on what's already been
provided for that validation. And I don't see any risk at this point only because we're towards the end of
the summer. And that's my thinking. I think this is too important, even though it may be considered
overkill, Lotus Lake, like other lakes, we have 11 and it's a tremendously important asset to this city and if
we do a good job with this, it will serve as a template for the other 10 lakes. So I think we should spend a
little bit more time and get more data points.
Lori Haak: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Councilman Ayotte.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Lori Haak: My question to you is what types of impurical data would you be looking for?
Councilman Ayotte: I don't know Lori, you're the expert. I'm just saying there are people much, I mean
this gentleman brought in God into it. I mean you're asking for, I don't know. But I think we have to do
look at other pieces of information simply to validate. If nothing else, get input from the people who live
there. The associations are pretty darn strong. I think they'd welcome meetings to discuss the points and
possibly bring up some information.
Councilman Boyle: You know we've heard comments from 3 days to 3 weeks. We have a very short
summer. If it's 3 weeks, that's a whole lot different than 3 days so if the type of data that we gets say hey,
on an average it would be 3 days or 5 days or 3 weeks, I think it's going to make a difference.
Mayor Jansen: That's a good point. If you've got historical data for us as to high water marks that's
collected, okay. Any other comments? The public hearing is actually closed at this time. Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: I've got a couple. I spent 6 years in my profession on Lake Minnetonka enforcing
water rules and I would say 90% of the violators live on the lake. When they had the slow no-wake
ordinance up there. So it's kind of like 101. Speeding on 101. A lot of the, or on Pleasant View, lived on
Pleasant View. Kind of look in the mirror is when you want to look at these ordinances. So I've got mixed
emotions on this ordinance you know. I can see the benefit to it when you live in one of the narrower parts
of the lake. If you live on one of the ends of the bays, you know heck I'd want to go out water skiing too so
I kind of favor Mr. Ayotte's recommendation of tabling it to gather a little bit more information about the
lakeshore associations to see if they really want this. And if this does go through, the only addition to the
ordinance we need to make is that this ordinance exclude the Carver County Sheriff's office watercrafts,
Chanhassen Fire Department and the Minnesota DNR Conservation officers acting under their duties in an
emergency situation. If we don't exclude that then by all rights they should be ticketed if they go out there
and somebody's hurt and speeding. So we need to put exclusions for law enforcement and fire and DNR.
If we need to table this to get a little more information, I'm okay with that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay with that if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: It was your idea Bob.
20
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Ayotte: Wait a minute, I did the last one.
Councilman Labatt: Go ahead with this one too.
Mayor Jansen: Could I have a motion please?
Councilman Ayotte: I'm coming. I'd like to make a motion to table this particular action until staff is able
to provide more data and involve the associations as one, but not limited to that particular source for more
impurical data to either delete, add or change the parameters of the ordinance as stated.
Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second please?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table action on the amendment to City
Code to adopt Slow No-Wake Restrictions on Lotus Lake during times of high water and direct staff
to provide more data and involve the associations as one, but not limited to that particular source for
more impurical data to either delete, add or change the parameters of the ordinance as stated. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS ON THE COMMON LOT LINE BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, WHITE
OAK ADDITION (3920 WHITE OAK LANE) TO PERMIT COMBINING THE LOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, LEGRAN HOMES.
Teresa Burgess: City staff has received an application from the property owners of Lots 3 and 4, Block
1, White Oak Addition, the two shaded lots you can see on the map. This is Lake Minnewashta. Kings
Road. Minnewashta Parkway. The existing drainage and utility easement was dedicated to the city as a
part of the White Oak Addition plat. That is standard practice when plats are done to dedicate a 5 foot
easement on either side of the lot line, and I know that one's hard to see. These are the easements in
question shaded down the middle of the lot line. Property owner is proposing to build one house on both
lots. Combine the two lots into one under the zoning lot that's governed by city code 20-903 that allows us
to do that. If the property owner ever desired to re-split the property so you had two lots again, he would
have to go through the planning process to split those properties. Would be subject to the city's zoning
subdivision ordinance in which case we would require rededication of those easements. The property is in
compliance with the single family requirements. By doing this we do get one large lot with a nice home on
it and staff does recommend approval of the request tonight. The staff has drafted a motion for council,
has recommended a motion. It is on the back side of the staff report. If there's any questions I'd be happy
to answer those.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff prior to the public hearing? Okay. We'll open this
item on the agenda to the public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council at this time, please come
forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, bringing this back to
council. Discussion council.
Councilman Peterson: It's a reasonable request. I think we should move forward.
21
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: The only comment that came to me from the public involved the trail connector again, and I
know we have our Parks and Rec Director in the audience with us this evening. I did not hear anyone come
up from the public to address that issue but it's my understanding that that trail connector was in fact
eliminated through the last round of reviews, correct? If you might come forward Mr. Hoffman, I
appreciate it. Thanks Todd.
Todd Hoffman: Mayor Jansen, I'm glad to answer that question. The first time that the larger development
of the lots was reviewed some years ago, there was a call for a trail easement right at this location to allow
connection to a trail loop that winds down through the park. At that time there was a recommendation to
the Park and Recreation Commission not to connect, make that connection based on citizen input at the
time, and thus it was never taken as a part of the platting process, that trail easement. The second go
around with the discussions of that occurred when the adjoining property was platted, down through this
area, and again a trail connector was sought in one of those locations between those lots and again that
request was not approved by the city at that time and the trail connection was not put through for reasons
of just privacy reasons, the narrowness of the lots as they're only 90 foot lots, very narrow lots, and the
fact that there was a precedence set that it was reviewed on a much larger scale when it certainly could
have easily been put in place and it was determined at that time it was not desirable for the community at
that particular time. In this case I think, I'm not even sure Kate if just combining lots, or maybe Roger can
answer this, combining lots, would that give the city the opportunity to go ahead and require a trail
easement at that location?
Roger Knutson: No. The consolidation is not a subdivision.
Todd Hoffman: So at this time we don't even have the opportunity to make that requirement.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I appreciate your having addressed that for the record. Thank you very much.
Council if there's no other discussion of agenda item, if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Resolution #2001-49: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve a
resolution vacating the existing drainage and utility easement located on the common property line of
Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, White Oak Addition as defined in the attached vacation description, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The developer must combine the two lots under a single property identification number.
2. Setbacks from the common lot line between Lots 3 & 4 shall be disregarded.
After designation of a zoning lot, the lot may not be subdivided without complying with the City's
subdivision ordinance.
The building permit will not be issued until the City has received verification from the County that
the lots have been combined and have been recorded.
22
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
CONSIDER PLAN AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECT; FOX CHASE TRAIL CONNECTOR.
Public Present:
Name Address
Carolyn Hudson 6541 Fox Path
Rebecca McMillen 880 Fox Court
Jerry & Barbara Kreisler 764 Lake Point
Chris Pelletier 6420 Fox Path
George Assie 6430 Fox Path
David Sanford 6440 Fox Path
Bob Doran 788 Lake Point
Chuck Nagel 6340 Fox Path
Barb & Greg Hedlund 748 Lake Point
David Callaway 8320 Fox Path
Marti Nyman 6341 Fox Path
Jim Manders 6791 Chaparral
Lane
Todd Hoffman: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. The last time that you reviewed this was on
Monday, July 9th. The City Council tabled action with the understanding that staff take one more
opportunity to interface with the community and gain some sort of consensus about this trail. To
accomplish that a neighborhood meeting was held on Monday, July 30th at 7:00 p.m. If you recall it was
one of those 90 degree nights, plus the humidity. We had a cooler of pop. If we would have had burgers
and brats and a cooler of beer I think we would have just been done with the entire meeting and went on
with a neighborhood picnic. It was a good gathering and a sense of a neighborhood coming together to talk
about an issue so we had business to do, not a celebration at that time. The meeting was notified in a
variety of ways, due to the fact that at previous conversations there was question about notification.
Articles were posted in the Lakeshore Weekly News, on the front cover, in the Chanhassen Villager. There
was a neighborhood mailing to all residents in Carver Beach, and all residents in Fox Chase. I'm not sure
how it happens but some people in Carver Beach receive 3 or 4 mailings, some in Fox Chase did not
receive any. Once they go outside of our door and you have the mailing list in your packet, after that it's
within the realm of the postal service to get them to your front door so we trust that they're doing their job.
Lastly my daughter and I also delivered 100 notification letters door to door on July 25th, SO I believe we
had the notification element covered. The location of the trail easements between Lots 19 and 20 were
staked. Field staked the week prior to the meeting so people interested in this issue could go out and take a
look in the field. See where those two easements were at and the staking included the 15 foot easement
between Lots 19 and 20. The 10 foot easement going down to the lake, and then staking of the road right-
of-way down along Lotus Lake. So all those elements of the trail connector were staked for the public to
witness. That evening we had 38 people sign the attendance sheet. A large gathering. With such a large
gathering it wasn't as if we were going sit around in a small conversation and gain a consensus so I opened
the meeting with an overview of the history of the trail connector. After that we opened the floor for public
comment. I would say approximately half or estimate approximately half of those in attendance made
comments amongst themselves and to the neighbors. We utilized the drawing of the trail as it was currently
23
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
being proposed to facilitate that conversation. To narrow the scope of the conversation there was a hand
vote taken at one point to determine if the long route, meaning the L route, was desirable or just a simple
cut through down to Mohawk. The overwhelming emphasis was on the full trail down to Lotus Lake and
so discussion about the cut through was eliminated. Upon conclusion of the discussion that evening, Mr.
David Sandberg, who is here in the audience this evening, proposed that the trail plan with a single
modification be approved. And that modification is the narrowing of the trail at this location, just so it goes
from 5 to 4 feet to get past this side of the home on Lot 20. In addition to that, the utilities at this location
be moved as necessary to allow for that trail to hug the property line at that location. That motion was
seconded by Marjorie Nagel and a hand vote indicated that 32 of the residents present were in favor and
that 6 were in opposition to that plan. With that, with those findings and that motion from the
neighborhood, it was recommended that the City Council approve the Fox Chase trail connector plan as
modified at the July 30th neighborhood meeting, and authorize staff to indicate a budget amendment not to
exceed $50,000 to finance the project. The funding source being park and trail acquisition and
development dollars. This project has been on and off the budget rolls over the past dozen years. It
happens that it's not on there this time so it's not as if it's an unbudgeted, not that it's a new item and so
that budget amendment is no surprise to you, the park commission or the City Council. With that I'll
answer any questions of the council.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, and I want to thank you for your efforts and the time that you spent getting
back out with the neighborhood and bringing everyone together and opening up this kind of dialogue so that
you could come back with this sort of validation from out of the neighborhood and our appreciation to then
too the neighbors for having participated in this rather lengthy discussion over this connector and staying
with us as we were building this consensus. I had one question that came up in the visitor presentations as
to the liability issue around the stairs and the slope of the trail. The liability I'm assuming is on the city.
Could you speak to that for us Mr. Hoffman?
Todd Hoffman: I can speak to it. Roger can speak to it. Liability, this is a public improvement made by
the City of Chanhassen. Any issues regarding liability would certainly come back to us. It's a public
easement for trail purposes. Roger, as far as I know, there is no responsibility upon the property owner or
private property owner.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. It would be our easement. It would be our trail. It would be our stairs.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: Clarification on the stairs. There are 6 sets of approximately 6 treads so there's
approximately 36 treads leading down to the lake. But they're spaced apart by about 4 feet so you travel
down 6 stairs and you walk forward on a flat 4 foot stairway and then you go down again.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. And that was obviously well understood as you approached the neighborhood
and you were showing them the plan that these steps are present. Okay. Any additional comments or I'm
sorry, any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Ayotte: Not to exceed a $50,000 has gone down because we originally had a cost estimate
around 57, was it. Could you explain that delta?
Todd Hoffman: Why it went down?
24
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Todd Hoffman: There were some errors in quantity based on the consulting engineering work and so they
had this trail extending down to Carver Beach and so the quantities were wrong.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And but you still have to do a full up design now so we'll see, you're just
putting that $50,000 as a not to exceed and we do have some?
Todd Hoffman: As of right now we're ready to solicit quotes. The City can perform this project on a
quote basis. Anything over $50,000 necessitate a formal bid so we're ready to go out with this plans for
quote process.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any additional questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: What do you anticipate completion?
Todd Hoffman: I would hope late this fall, if we can get a contractor on site and get them working.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you Mr. Hoffman. Council discussion. Otherwise I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Peterson: I think they answered our questions that we sent them out to answer so let's move
ahead.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as staff recommended.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the Fox Chase Trail
Connector Plan as modified at the July 30, 2001 neighborhood meeting and authorize staff to execute
a budget amendment not to exceed $50,000 to finance the project. The funding source being Park
and Trail Acquisition and Development dollars. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you again to everyone that stayed with us as far as getting this issue taken care of.
Appreciate it.
UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 101 TRAIL AND STATE TURNBACK, PROJECT 97-12.
Public Present:
25
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Nflme
Address
Rebekkah Moscatelli
Jay Strohmaier
Steve Donen
Kim Current
Steve Frankwitz
Tim & Diane McHugh
Susan & Neil Libson
Tom Workman
Mark Perkins
Steve & Liza Bloom
Jim & Sue Lacey
Carey Bohn
Charles & Paula B. Hallau
Evan Niefeld
Pat Miller
Janet Wolter
Bryan & Tesa Laskin
Tom & Dorothy Jamieson
Leon Narem
Peter Sperling
Rich & Char Borotz
Rathana & Chantha Bo
Steve & Monica Posnick
Joan & Rich Wright
Colleen McCreight
Brian & Lynn Thompson
Harvey & Carol Parker
Carolyn & Dave Wetterlin
Jim & Carolyn
John Host
Karen Hoffner
Cindy Russ
Barbara J. Vemes
Gordie Hampton
Sandy & Tim Love
Philip & Paula Mosley
Terese Krulik
Jim Manders
Beth ?
102 Sandy Hook Road
80 Sandy Hook Road
7636 South Shore Drive
7001 Dakota Avenue
6770 Brule Circle
7450 Chanhassen Road
140 Choctaw Circle
181 South Shore Court
160 South Shore Court
6781 Brule Circle
121 Choctaw Circle
160 Choctaw Circle
115 Choctaw Circle
7016 Dakota Circle
71 Choctaw Circle
6850 Chanhassen Road
7002 Sandy Hook Circle
30 Sandy Hook Road
20 Sandy Hook Road
7021 Cheyenne Trail
6750 Brule Circle
7004 Sandy Hook Circle
7010 Dakota Avenue
6640 Lotus Trail
6561 Foxtail Court
41 Hill Street
7480 Chanhassen Road
7420 Chanhassen Road
7008 Sandy Hook Circle
191 South Shore Court
150 Choctaw Circle
6791 Brule Circle
83 Castle Ridge Court
7003 Sandy Hook Circle
7010 Sandy Hook Circle
7012 Sandy Hook Circle
6509 Gray Fox Curve
6791 Chaparral Lane
7013 Sandy Hook Circle
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. Tonight's agenda item was intended to call the public
hearing and also because we do have a new council member since our last update. And the addition of the
grants being awarded, we wanted to give a quick update on the trail. We did not have a lot of information
at the time this was added to the agenda. Since that time we have heard more from MnDot so real quickly,
we have received word from the DNR and also through Representative Workman that we have received a
$500,000 grant from the Minnesota DNR. That is for a trail along Highway 101 due to it's environmental
26
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
issues that are related to that. The cost of the trail has been estimated based on MnDot comments at 1.3
million dollars. That would leave the remainder of the project to be funded through alternative funding
through the city. We do need to match the $500,000 grant to receive it. The city is required to complete
the application for the grant program to receive the funds, even though we have received, they have been
directed to give us the grant, we have not officially accepted it yet. We must go through the public hearing
process and the application and resolution process to obtain the grant itself. The council is being asked to
call the public hearing on the 27th. At that time we will be hearing from the public on their, whether they
believe is a good project and whether they feel that we should be obtaining this grant and also then the
council would be discussing the resolution and approving that resolution to apply for the grant. We cannot
apply for the grant through the resolution until after the public hearing. We do have to follow the steps in
order. At this time we have received a letter from MnDot. That came through today. It is my understanding
that is probably due to efforts both by members of council who have spoken with people and also through
discussions Representative Workman has been having with MnDot to get them to move off of their
statement previously that they would not take a position on the trail.
Councilman Ayotte: Off of their what?
Teresa Burgess: Off of their position. This is a public, you know this is publicly on TV. I try to keep
my language clean. As far a the Trunk Highway 101 project, it is not part of the public hearing but I did
want to give a brief update because we do have a new council member that was not part of those
discussions. The city has officially adopted Option lA. This council has not moved from that option. We
have not adopted a revised resolution. Until we do that that is our official position. However, we have
been in discussions with Hennepin County, Carver County, Eden Prairie and MnDot on potential
improvements to that roadway. It is the position of all involved that that road does need to be improved.
Most likely that will involve some form of widening at a minimum for safety issues at the intersections, and
also the addition of traffic signals at Pleasant View and Valley View. At this time there is not a consensus
on how much work needs to be done on 101 and that is continued in negotiation. In the meantime MnDot
has proposed a mill and overlay project. That is a temporary solution. We will hopefully get 10 to 15
years out of that project. At that time we would then approach that project to eventually do the
reconstruction after the mill and overlay has left it's, has extended it's life. That project would be done
with, similar to this one was only hopefully with better public involvement to look at what that road is
intended for. To look at how we make that road function as it should and to do it's intended purpose. And
hopefully by giving ourselves the 10 to 15 years we can get the public involvement so that we don't have
the, at the very end, the tail end of the process everyone coming forward and saying we don't want this
project. They've been involved and have actually been participating in the decision making process.
That's all I have for this evening. I did go through and do some quick calculations. I have to apologize, I
do not have hard numbers on this and to be honest it makes me very nervous to even give you the ones I do
have. What I've used is Highway 5 as a comparison. Highway 5 is a completely different project.
However it is a MnDot project and it's the best I have for comparison process at this time. Looking at the
signals that are being installed on Highway 5, they are approximately $394,500 per signal that's being
installed. We're looking at two signals. The city share of each of those signals is approximately $177,000.
So looking at that we would have two of those that we would need to install as a cooperative agreement.
I'm assuming a 25% participation because 1 of the 4 legs on each of those intersections that would need a
signal is a city of Chanhassen intersection. City of Chanhassen roadway. The other 3 would be either
Carver, Hennepin or Eden Prairie roadway sections. The trail itself is estimated at 1.3 million dollars. We
have been designated for the $500,000 grant. That leaves $800,000 for the City of Chanhassen to cover.
So that would be our share of that project, the $800,000 plus, I didn't total it up so excuse me just a
second. Before I say the wrong number. I apologize. $1,155,000 would be the city's share if we were to
27
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
do the safety improvements. I do not have any cost estimates for turn lanes. There were two areas that
turn lanes were proposed. I do not have cost estimates for those. Due to the nature of 101 it's really hard
to do that until we do design. That area does have poor sub-soils in which case we're going to be looking
at substantial work. There's also the potential for either retaining walls or right-of-way acquisition. For
comparison purposes I did pull what we actually paid on the Highway 5 and West 78th Street and trail. I
have eliminated the watermain, and I've also eliminated Phase II of that project. We added a supplemental
to do from Century to Highway 41. We have not received that total amount yet. So the city share of that
project was $686,320. The total project cost for the Highway 5 project and West 78th Street and trail, just
to let you know what our share of that was, $4,110,212. So that's just for comparison purposes. I do
caution you on those numbers, they are very preliminary and they are comparisons of apples to oranges.
But it does give you an idea where we are. Going back to the old SRF report, and I know there's a lot of
sore feelings about this but it is the best we have for cost estimating. The 4 lane undivided section is
estimated to cost a total of $9,310,000 for the Highway 101 widening to 4 lanes plus trail. Of that the city,
county share, which would be both Eden Prairie and Chanhassen and also both Hennepin and Carver, so
the 4 of us sharing it, is $480,000 of that total amount. The turnback funds have been turned back into the
program. They were reallocated to other projects. It looks at this time like the earliest we would be eligible
for turnback funds is 2008. Potentially later because we have not jumped to get the 2008 date locked in.
At this time we are not on the schedule for turnback funds. We have been placed in a position that we are
on the program, but we have not been assigned a date. If there's any questions from the council I'd be
happy to answer those. Also for the public, the public hearing that we'll be holding in 2 weeks is intended
to discuss the grant. It is not intended to discuss the road itself. We are trying to move forward with the
grant and the trail and address both issues as a separate and complete issues.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I had one question as I was reading through this. The $1.3 million
estimate on the trail, that was for that concept design that we had. Correct?
Teresa Burgess: The 1.3 is based on, we had submitted a concept plan to MnDot. We were estimating at
that time $800,000, which is why we have $800,000 in the budget. MnDot's comments when they came
back to us drove that price up. The 1.3 is based on those MnDot comments that came from our concept
plans.
Mayor Jansen: Is there an opportunity, working with MnDot, to get the 1.3 million to come back down
towards that $800,000, realizing that there may have been some ulterior motives to driving that number up
so that this $500,000 maybe addresses more of the project.
Teresa Burgess: Up until today I would have said no. At 3:30 today I did receive a fax from MnDot
stating their support with working with the City of Chanhassen. I have not had an opportunity to discuss
with them what they mean by that, but it does sound like they are willing to at least talk to us about getting
this trail constructed in a more fiscally responsible manner than driving the cost up. And also realizing that
this is a temporary trail. It is not intended for a 30 year life span. It is intended for a 10 to 15 year life
span.
Councilman Boyle: Do we have to match the $500,000?
Teresa Burgess: We have to match the $500,000, but there is not a dollar amount for the match. It's just
that we do have to put money into the project. There's not a percentage that we have to match at.
Councilman Boyle: Okay. But we're looking at a million dollars, is that correct?
28
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Teresa Burgess: We're looking at $1.3 million at this time.
Councilman Boyle: Estimate, but I mean a minimum of 1 million.
Teresa Burgess: I can't answer that. There is not a percent match requirement.
Councilman Boyle: I understand.
Mayor Jansen: So it sounds like it could be less than the grant amount. Which is why I was inquiring as to
whether we could get that number back down closer to what those original estimates were working with
MnDot so that we're costing ourselves maybe a substantially smaller dollar amount, so there is an
opportunity to maybe reduce the scope of the project somewhat working with MnDot from what you're
saying.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. I have voiced that concern to Representative Workman that the 500 is great
and we're very appreciative, but that only brings us back to where we were last year. And we would really
like to bring the cost of the project back to where we were last year plus the $500,000. We were struggling
last year to come to terms with an $800,000 trail. Now to be at a point where we're talking about an
$800,000 contribution is still difficult for the city. It is something that I know the council members have all
struggled with and so I have been, I have talked with him that it would really make it much easier for us to
make a decision and to move forward if we could bring the trail costs down instead of leaving it clear up
there. Or even an assurance that it's not going to climb higher as we work with MnDot.
Mayor Jansen: Exactly, because there were segments within the concept plan, I'm thinking of one in
particular, that it came down to a 3 foot width on the trail so I think there were still some issues even with
the concept plan that are going to need to be addressed and would affect the cost.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. The 3 foot section was intended to address a situation when we are very close
to a home and we are looking at a steep slope and it was our...
Mayor Jansen: ... issues to flush out but it would be encouraging and what you're saying this evening to
know that MnDot might work with us on this. Then conceivably this $500,000 grant is helping to alleviate
some of those environmental impacts that are making this trail so much more significantly costly than the
other trails in the community, because it's my understanding it's because of the topography that this one
right now is costing out about 3 times what the other trails cost us.
Teresa Burgess: It's a combination of the topography and also drainage. Wetland issues. The water
issues do drive the cost of this trail up significantly and the right-of-way is very constrained in this area
because of topography, we cannot make use of the entire right-of-way width.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. One of the other catching points that we had reviewed in the last round of
discussions was the concept that once the road is in 10 to 15 years potentially widened and we lose the trail,
will the city then be responsible for the full cost of rebuilding the trail outside of the road project?
Teresa Burgess: In 10 to 15 years we would be looking at a project similar to the turnback project that
we were discussing before I came to the city. In that discussion they did include a trail. What the limited
use permit that we would be obtaining from MnDot would require, it is standard language. We put them in
29
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
our's when utilities come to us for an LUP. That is that trail needs to be removed for any reason, that we
can required to remove it at no cost to the State, and if we want it back prior to that turnback project we
would have to reconstruct it. If it is because of a turnback project that the trail is being removed, that
would be part of that discussion, who pays for the removal and the reconstruction would be part of the
turnback project. If they were to come through with something other than that, that they needed to relocate
that trail for some reason, it would be our responsibility financially to see that the trail was removed and if
we want it replaced.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Ayotte: Point of clarification. However, if we predictably establish a project for a trail with a
specific life cycle, programmed to be aligned with the future reconstruction, it's a wash.
Teresa Burgess: That's a tough one to answer. We are investing now in a trail. We would be required to
participate in the cost of the turnback project also. So we would be looking at our 10%, assuming we get
federal financing. 10% share of the trail. So it's not a complete wash, but by doing the trail now it's not
asking us to pay the total amount for the trail now and again.
Councilman Ayotte: It'd be like a warrantied roof. If you have a roof with a 15 year cycle and you go
after a warranty claim on the 15th year, it's much less than going on the first year.
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Other than the fact that we would be moving the location of the trail so would you not then
incur the duplicate costs of the engineering and design then when we come back on the second project? It's
not like a re-surfacing or the maintenance of a trail in it's current location.
Teresa Burgess: The second project would include the trail into the tumback and the design would be
completely different because you would be re-locating. There also would be significant grading work being
done with the turnback project. And that is based on the assumption that we will be looking at a significant
widening in 10 to 15 years. That is still MnDot's position. That is still every, the county's position. That
this road does need to be widened to accommodate it's function and as we see traffic continue to increase, it
is more likely that we will have to agree with that situation. That the road does need to be widened. There
is no discussion on how wide that is though.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. As they're doing the mill and overlay, I know some concerns have been raised that
as they come in and they're doing this construction on 101, it just sort of does the creep out a little bit on
us. What sorts of controls would the city have as they come in to do this to avoid some creep and this
becoming a wider roadway?
Teresa Burgess: The city does not have any way of stopping that from happening. MnDot does own the
roadway. It is their jurisdiction. They have the legal right to come in and do the maintenance as they see
fit as long as they do not ask for our financial backing. It would be similar to Highway 101 at Highway
212. As we were told by MnDot, at this time we have agreed to 212. Unless they ask for our money we
can't stop it. Same thing on Highway 101. Unless they ask us to participate in the cost of the mill and
overlay, we do not have approval authority of the plans.
30
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So the only real restriction to them then would be the cost because they would
obviously have to do a lot more grading in a lot of areas to be able to really widened it at all. Is that a
decent assumption as far a there not being able to fund an expansion at this time with the mill and overlay
plan.
Teresa Burgess: That would not be a restriction for them. The restriction for them is the program they
would like to put this in is the turnback program. To make a significant investment at this time would not
be within their project guidelines and their desire is to do a temporary solution until such time as a turnback
can be done. They do not want to keep this road. They want to turn it back to the county.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. That sounds somewhat promising. On the turn signal issue where you said the 25%
to the city, that really one of the lights would be the city responsibility. And maybe I misunderstood you
but is everyone then held responsible with the other 3 jurisdictions to be participating in the cost of those
signals?
Teresa Burgess: That 25% is based on past practice of MnDot. What it is is we own, what they typically
do is they look at the 4 legs of the intersection. The 4 street pieces coming into it and they look at it and
they say your share is what is your jurisdiction. We would be going through for those signal projects we
would most likely be going through the cooperative agreement program, which means Chanhassen would
go to the State and write an agreement between the State and Chanhassen that we want to do this project
and we're willing to put our money in if you're willing to put your's in. In past practice they have looked
at it for 25%. Unless Eden Prairie and Hennepin County wanted to participate, MnDot, it would be up to
MnDot whether they wanted to force them or not. Carver County would be in the same situation. Unless
they wanted to participate, we would hope that Carver would join us in that application, but there's nothing
that says they have to participate unless MnDot goes back to them. The Highway 5 project that came
through with the signals on that project, we did not ask to participate. MnDot approached us and so that
would be an option for MnDot but we do not have control unless they were to participate in the application
with us. We certainly would invite them all to do that and hope that they would feel, that they could do that
with us.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Obviously the lights are a major safety issue for everyone and all of the neighbors
so I guess I would just want to maybe have a little bit more information on that and the guarantees that we
could get those signals located. Having not seen that agreement from MnDot. I'm sorry, did you say that
now you have seen it?
Teresa Burgess: No. We would need to apply for that. It would be a cooperative agreement application
and in doing that we compete against all of the other applications across the State. There's a pot of money
and the applications are ranked based on impacts to a State route. Support of the adjacent communities,
financially and politically. And once that is done then the projects are funded. We may not receive 75%
funding. We may receive less than that, in which case then we would have to decide if it's something we
want to pursue or not but certainly I would recommend that we put in that application the next round when
they come out again and that was my last discussion with MnDot, that was what I was told was the process
to go through. Was the cooperative agreement program. There's no guarantee we would receive money
but we certainly would make our best effort.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And hopefully with Mr. Workman's efforts, he could help us with that and maybe
we can get the other jurisdictions to get involved because of the safety issue on that. You mentioned the
next round. Do you have any feel for when that would be timing wise?
31
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Teresa Burgess: I remember putting in one for the trail, and that was prior to January but I do not
remember the exact timing. I do remember there was part of the switching to council that we had discussed
that we had put in an application and received the negative answer on the trail for a cooperative agreement.
They do those agreements once, it's either once a year or once every 2 years. We would have to look into
it. There's also the possibility that with significant effort that we could maybe do a project and work with
MnDot outside that program, or outside the normal timeframe of that program. We need to work with
them and have discussions on what can be done. I know that there have been a lot of discussions on
Highway 101 that have taken place at MnDot, between MnDot personnel trying to get this project moving
forward.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. Did council have additional questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: Teresa, if this council moves with efficiency and dispatch and if we assume that we
were to approve this, why don't you kind of walk through the timing as to what's the next steps and what is
the possible timing and when we can start putting blacktop on a trail.
Mayor Jansen: We are probably looking at a trail next year during construction season. There's no way
we can get it done yet this year. It would probably be late next year at the very earliest. It may be delayed
if we ran into snags into the following year. I am assuming that MnDot is as motivated as Chanhassen is to
move this forward when I say that we could do it next year. At this time we need to do the public hearing.
Once we have a public hearing, we need to do a council resolution, and I can complete the application at
that time. We will then receive our grant. We have 36 months to spend the $500,000 or it reverts back to
the DNR. We also need to get our limited use permit from MnDot and I am assuming that the council is
interested in pursuing funding from at least Carver County if possible. And we would be looking at their
budget cycle also. Assuming everything fell into place and just looking at our process for plans and specs
we would be looking at the fall of next year. If any of the other agencies involved were to hold us up, we
would be looking at spring of 2003 at the very earliest.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. Lastly, would it be safe to assume that if we do have to go with the 4 lane
road 15-20 years from now, and we were obligated to replace the trail but the cost of that new trail because
of the new road going in would be substantially less than it would be now. Dollars being the same. Is that
a fair assumption?
Teresa Burgess: It would significantly be lower because the road work, typically when MnDot does the
trails as part of a project, they do all of the grading work and we are only required to participate in the cost
of the trail itself. The sub-grade work would be done as part of the roadway so it's a significant cost
savings, which is why as you look at the costs of the SRF study that the city and county share is so low, is
because they are incorporating all that sub-grade work into the roadway work. In addition, as part of a
tumback or MnDot project, MnDot has the ability to sponsor one of these projects for federal aid funding
under the ISTEA Bill T-21. And that funding then can be used to offset the cost of the trail. That is the
funding we are using on Highway 5 for the trail, and in that case the federal funds are offsetting
approximately 90% of the new trail that is being constructed on Highway 5 and West 78th Street. The city
is required to come up with the remaining 10% of the project.
Councilman Peterson: Thank you.
32
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: Excellent. Any other questions for staff? Okay. So at this point we do have the public
hearing then already scheduled for August 27th and that will be our first step then towards pursuing that
$500,000 grant. Correct?
Teresa Burgess: Right. IfI could stress, just because I am very nervous about these numbers and I want
to make sure everybody understands. These are incredibly preliminary, they're based on looking at
Highway 5 and trying to project from there what it will cost to do 101. Please, nobody hold me to these if
we get there and we find out that we're higher or lower. Hopefully lower but this is the best I could come
up with based on the information we have and I know the council is very concerned about those dollars and
trying to keep track of where we're going. That we're going in a fiscally responsible direction. We will
keep you updated on those dollar amounts as we get better information.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And what would you speculate the timing could be for you to be able to approach
MnDot to see about negotiating back down the cost of this trail?
Teresa Burgess: I am scheduled to be at MnDot next week for a different meeting. Based on the letter I
got today, it's my intention to see if I can meet with the person that sent it to me, Lezlie Vermillion who is
the person that sent it to me. As long as I'm going to be in the building I'm going to see if I can meet with
her for a half an hour and see if she can give me more direction on what the intention of MnDot was, and if
she can also help us with trying to facilitate that negotiation. If there's any room for negotiations, or if we
are looking at, it has to be this price and then we can make a reasonable determination. I'm hoping to have
that discussion next week. If I can't have it next week, I will schedule another meeting hopefully before the
public hearing on the 27th.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. If you could keep us updated on those conversations as you have them.
Obviously as you were to move forward with any of the design options, it will be impacted by what MnDot
decides to require the city with all those drainage issues that they brought up. Very good. Okay. Council
ready for me to open this up for public conversation? Anyone who would like to make comments on this
issue, if you could approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. And if we could
please try to just hold everyone's comments to 5 minutes apiece, we can potentially allow everyone to be
able to speak without going to midnight. Thank you. Good to see you Frank.
Frank Mendez: Good to see you too. Thank you very much City Council and Mayor. Earlier today I was
very, very delighted.
Mayor Jansen: I threw you off. I need you to state your address. Name and address please.
Frank Mendez: I'm sorry. Frank Mendez, 7361 Kurvers Point Road, Chanhassen.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Frank Mendez: Again, I'd like to thank the City Council for taking the direction and initiative which it
seems to have started at the start of this particular meeting. The direction that we're taking and the
immediate implementation of the desires of the people who are here will do a tremendous amount to really
relieve anxiety and stress and worry, and more than that really add to, it addresses our safety concerns and
our connection with the City of Chanhassen. I had written something earlier so I'm just going to kind of
read through it. The past City Council set aside $800,000 for the 101 trail as an amount confirmed as still
set aside by the city manager this past week. In addition now, through Representative Tom Workman's
33
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
pro-active approach to his constituents' desires, Mr. Workman working with neighborhood leaders, sought
and obtained legislative approval for a $500,000 grant towards the 101 trail project. That is a total of $1.3
million. Your constituents would like to continue to challenge the City Council to proceed expeditiously
with the 101 trail project. Let's take advantage of Representative Workman's interest as well as support,
after all he is head of the Transportation Funding Committee, and let's fulfill the promises from the city
and get going with the well needed trail. Quite simply, many of us have been involved in this process over
the course of the years. Some people have wanted trails over 18 years. In the last 2 ½ years I know many
of you here have spent hundreds of hours dedicating yourselves to this, and some over thousands. This trail
simply allows us to be, to unify our community and that's what we're really looking at tonight. We desire
to be connected, not disconnected. Unified, not fragmented or isolated. We would like our children to be
able to bike to the library and elderly to walk into Chanhassen and our families to be able to celebrate a
walk on a trail which welcomes them to our city. Tom Workman over the years has worked untiring for the
citizens of Chanhassen and has once again given the entire City Council an opportunity to shine. We
welcome your expediate follow through on the implementation of the 101 trail. And I'd like to state also
that some of you don't know this but Tom Workman is here tonight. Back up over here, and I'll point him
out. Back over here in that particular comer, so although he hasn't said anything, he was invited to be here
and I'm very thankful that he is and I'd like to encourage you to speak to him afterwards. Thank you very
much.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Steve Frankwitz: Steve Frankwitz, 6770 Brule Circle and I just thank the council members and everybody
for this opportunity, and I'm here on behalf of my 2 year old son who doesn't know how to ride a bike yet,
but this trail is something that we need as a family to be able to get across the street, to go into other
communities and for other communities you know to come on our side of the road. And I do have a
question for Teresa and I would hope that you would be able to give us some type of idea if the stop lights
at Pleasant View and Valley View are going to hold up our project for moving forward, and if there's a
possibility that we don't have money to put those in, will the project move forward? And can we wait until
that tumback money comes at 2008 to put those lights in and maybe do some research and find out, you
know that's obviously going to cost us more money if we put those lights in after our project and the trail
and the 101 construction's started and finished.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, if you'd like me to answer that now.
Mayor Jansen: Please. Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: The signals are typically put in by a different contractor than that would do trail work so
we would propose to do those as two completely separate contracts. It cuts down on the cost for doing that
type of work. Otherwise we see mark-up on either the signals or the trail as we have a prime contractor
that's having to administer our contract he doesn't normally deal with. So it would not impact the time line
of the trail.
Steve Frankwitz: Thank you. I would also like to address the Mayor and let you know that everybody here
is really fired up because we've heard that we've got this $500,000 and we're excited. We can't help it. I
mean if anybody in here would want to, we would probably stand up and give Tom Workman a big round
of applause which he deserves. I'm sorry that I had to bring that up but I'm telling you, you can't shut us
down.
34
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Ayotte: Did Workman put you up to that?
Mayor Jansen: No. No need to apologize. I appreciate your having recognized him.
Steve Frankwitz: We appreciate it and I know you're trying to keep this meeting together and without
excitement and try to move forward and there's lot of things on the agenda, but...
Mayor Jansen: No, I appreciate your having given that recognition.
Steve Frankwitz: And he needs that recognition because that's part of his job. Sometimes he doesn't get
that and we needed to give that to him. So thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Bob Mortenson: Bob Mortenson, 7371 Kurvers Point Road. I too would like to thank Tom Workman. I
think he's done a wonderful job and the City Council, it's refreshing to see everybody kind of pulling
together to make this project come together. A lot of people have worked a long time to get this done. I'd
like to ask the city engineer that as you're working with the plan, remember that again a consensus has
been hammered out with all the homeowners adjacent to 101 and it's been the general consensus that they
wanted a minimum impact trail, hopefully meandering through the trees to the best of our ability. Staying
on the other side of the berms so we're not in people's back yards to the best of our ability. And if we stay
within those confines and the spirit of that arrangement I think we'll have a wonderful trail. I want to thank
all of you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue? You're
certainly welcome to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Okay. One more
speaker.
Terese Krulik: Good evening. I'm Terese Krulik. I live at 6509 Gray Fox Curve in Fox Hollow, and my
home back yard abuts 101. I feel fortunate because our home is set quite a ways back, but there are people
further down the road that I can see would even be much more close. But my appeal is when you consider
the road, I just wanted to make this point, that there is every day you open up the newspaper and there's
concern about the environment and paving over all of these suburbs and people move further and further
out because they want to get closer, or the feeling of being away from the city. And I have that feeling on
101. There are wetlands. Great deal of undeveloped property around Lotus Lake that will never be
developed. All those homes are pretty well established and the lots are plotted out. And the other day I
saw a fox. We have raccoons, pheasants. There's a great amount of wildlife and I would hate to see going
overboard and inviting more traffic because I do believe if you build it, they will come. And I don't, right
now it is so noisy when trucks come along there. My family would love a trail. We feel very disconnected
because our children go to Minnetonka schools, so we also have that feeling of being pulled that way and
my heart just absolutely loves Chanhassen. I grew up in this area. It's my greatest, fondest dream that I
can live here. And I hope you'll consider maintaining the integrity. There are like 30, approximately 30-32
driveways that enter 101 and Crosstown, if you look in comparison, there just is no comparison. That is
not a neighborhood feeling how they've blocked and run the 4 lane road down there. I guess you could put
up big walls and we could feel like we live in Richfield. I have, the previous owners planted 6 evergreens
and have grown for 18 years I believe and it's a natural, wonderful buffer. As I said, my home's further
back but I enjoy all this wildlife and I would like to maintain the integrity of the wetlands and the profusion
of the feeling that I live out in the country and yet I'm 15 minutes from Southdale so please keep that in
35
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
mind. My children would love to go to Chanhassen on a regular basis and so I want the safety but please
try to keep everything minimally invasive. I know Minnetonka has no plans anywhere in the near future to
make their segment of 4 lane from Crosstown to 7. And there's no plans to make the 7 further north and
Gray's Bay bridge is only at 2 lane so I don't want to, I don't think our segment needs to be signaled out.
This is not something we sought the road for. We want the trail. So thank you for listening.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. Actually I think some of the pluses of what I'm hearing here this
evening affirmed by our engineer having spoken with MnDot, is that we're looking at the roadway
remaining in it's current configuration for 10 to 15 years and potentially there are enough constraints
around the project scope to make sure that MnDot in fact doesn't do a creep on us a they're working on
this roadway, so I don't think the roadway size is a consideration. Or a concern. If anything it sounds like
this maybe guarantees us for 10 to 15 years. I'm hearing that we can explore the lights further and I'd
certainly like more of an update on that safety issue because I know that that was just constantly a message
we heard from the neighborhood. Both of those lights and to give us an update on moving that part of the
project forward, and then also those discussions with MnDot to negotiate on some of those issues in
reducing the cost of the trail. As the last speaker was addressing all of those environmental issues, I have
to give Mr. Workman kudo's for having pursued a DNR grant and having acknowledged the environmental
sensitivity of this issue and having been creative enough to switch over to that funding vehicle to address
those issues so much appreciated and admire your creative use of resources there at the State to get that
addressed. You know it would also then be significant to get the cost of the trail down a little bit so that
we're not maybe getting gouged more than is necessary and have it be a more significant part of the total.
So thank you. Council, I'm sure we would all like to acknowledge Mr. Workman and his efforts so much
appreciated. And thank you for being here this evening. I did not see you over in the comer for thanks
Frank for identifying him over there. Those were my concerns that I was hearing and maybe...these two
agreements and then we'll all be back here discussing approving the DNR grant. Submitting for the DNR
grant at our next meeting. Council, any additional information at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No. Save that for the 27th.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you to everyone for being here. We do appreciate all of your input and
council continues to be in support of getting this trail accomplished and providing for the safety issues in
this corridor. So much appreciated and we will take a 5 minute break in order to allow for everyone to be
able to head out tonight. Thank you.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION UPDATE.
Mayor Jansen: Welcome Pat.
Pat Mackey: Thank you. I'm Pat Mackey... architects in Minneapolis. Thank you for waiting around to
hear what we have to say about the library tonight. We have some information that was sent to the council
and I'd like to walk you through where we are at this point. About 2/3 of the way through design
development. We'd better start with the sketches here and show you kind of an aerial perspective rendering
of, this is about a month old but this is about the basic form of the building right now. As you remember...
from June and our earlier meetings where at the southwest comer of the site immediately adjacent to this
building. Just south of this building. You get a good sense of what it would look like from the southwest,
or the southeast in this aerial perspective and it's general relationship to city hall here. Our model as well.
36
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
And some of you may or may not have seen this in some of the community meetings and in the Planning
Commission meetings. We've got the basic formula built in and we're focusing right now, working with,
through the library staff and the engineers certainly and trying to make sure that the plan configuration as
you have it works. My overview. The north is this direction. Here's the existing city hall. The site is
entered by car in any one of three points. The east parking lot which plays off the existing parking lot. The
west parking lot which comes in roughly opposite, actually a little bit south of the Byerly's parking lot.
About where Coulter comes through now, and the north parking lot which is extended with a parking ramp,
or a parking deck that has parking on the upper level of the law enforcement parking lot, and underneath
for library patrons. The entry of the library is lined up with the stair that would take visitors down from
the upper parking deck and I think from there, we've got a line between the library and the city hall, kind of
a major and minor green space plaza. This is a much more open landscape plaza down here and a little
more formal, a little more urban courtyard. Urban's maybe not the right touch word to use...but a little
more intimate, smaller plaza giving a dialogue between the buildings. Playing off of that relationship. I
think to make some sense of the elevations that are in the packet, to point out where the exterior material
palate that we're looking at right now is. A lot of this is under development but we've got kind of the
development, the large direction somewhat nailed down. We've got what we're referring to as Carver
County brick...compliment with what's going on with the existing City Hall building without actually
duplicating it. What we're looking at is a longer bond called a Norman bond that will play up, using some
interesting proportional things. It's an older style of brick bond. We'd like to get some use out of the
texture and the different subtle variation you can see in the color of the brick. Looking in the windows,
underneath the windows a base of either polished or flamed black granite as you can see here, and what
we're trying to do is give the, if not the actuality, then the illusion of these openings that we see on some of
the elevations of being larger than they are and being able to play up the vertical of the brick tiers that wrap
around the building. We're looking at a couple of different trim materials, primarily for windows. We're
looking at either a champagne aluminum or we're starting to play around with a clear anodized aluminum
which is a little more, it's a lot more bright. Little satiny aluminum finish that you've probably seen. And
for the roof, what we'd like to pursue is on these elements. You can see in the elevation but certainly the
curved roof forms here and the parapet is copper. We're pretty confident right now that copper can be
achieved in the budget, and we're also confident that if it became a budget item, copper's one of those
materials that becomes an easy target if bids come in over the detailing and all of the associated work
associated with it is the same as a standard standing seam metal roof. That's the palate we're looking at
that you can reference when we talk about these elevations. The north elevation here is what you would see
coming from the parking deck or from city hall. Again it just helps give you some understanding of the
mass of the building. The amount of... and we've got an entry defined right here that is about 3 iterations
old. It's no longer current on this but we're working with the building committee, the staff and our
engineers to kind of refine what this is doing and how it can bring the most kind of visibility and
prominence to this front entry on the north. We've got, maybe you can kind of, if we get to the plan so we
can understand what's driving some of the massing of the building. I've got the entry right here coming in
on a north/south axis. And really the terminus to that entry is the reference desk right here, roughly center
of the building. That's what we want first kind of point of interaction to be other than dropping off books.
You've got the toilet rooms here. This dashed line represents where the library could be secured off with a
broken grill gate. Still allowing access to the meeting room which right now is shown as seating 117
people. There's, other than toilets and storage and friends of the library and vending, a lounge area up here
with views out to the plaza between the library and city hall. Off to this side we've got the staff work room
and further back the mechanical area, and delivery drop off. As you get to the reference desk, you hit the
other major cross access to the building which is the major east/west higher space. This is about a 20 foot
vaulted ceiling space here with clear story windows on the north to bring in lots of natural light and a scoop
ceiling. From there the ceiling drops again to still a bit of pretty high volume of about 14 feet, which is
37
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
what, where the bulk of the collection is located. Non-fiction and the fiction and then these masses are kind
of punctuated by these porch light areas down here with lower ceilings. This higher vaulted periodical
space would be a bay here and the fireplace, the two sided fireplace. Again more of the little refinements to
the massing up here, or the bump-outs. Similar to the periodicals or children story time in that the end of
either access of the major access. Either side there. We've got a 20 person conference room and a teen
room, which kind of caps the teen/young adult area here. This is the children's area right here. Again just
to remind you this is not... This is how the, kind of a cleaner representation of the general location and
interaction of all these pieces on the site.., relates to parking and the landscape areas around that. And I
guess from there I'd ask if there are any questions.
Mayor Jansen: At this point for council's information, the Planning Commission has reviewed all of this
information, correct? Maybe not the most recent internal but they had done the external as well as the
materials.
Pat Mackey: Correct. And we're working with the library staff too to continuously finesse the interaction
of all the pushing and pull in here. This is the stage of the project at which it's not very exciting going
from one week to the next. You don't see a lot of changes in the plan. It's all a lot of little changes
throughout. There aren't any great leaps and flips of the design. If there were we'd be in worse shape.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. And as far as any of the detail of the site plan, at this point we haven't addressed any
of the landscaping or sidewalks and those sorts of things. Those come in the next phase.
Pat Mackey: Those will come in the next phase. They come in a parallel phase. What we have determined
with our engineers, both structural and civil is the elevation of the building which unlike the flat paper here
we've got quite an active site here with the high portion, the upper level of city hall sits on. What happens
to all that water as it comes down and you're trying to park cars underneath the deck and so forth. We've
come to what we're very happy with is a general site grading scheme that solves many, many more
problems than it creates so considering where we could have gone with that, there's some challenges to the
water on the site. I think we've got those fairly licked.
Mayor Jansen: Great. Any questions or comments from council?
Councilman Peterson: A couple. One easy and one more difficult and lengthy perhaps. What are we up to
current square footage?
Pat Mackey: It's probably around 32,400. Again that changes from day to day but not substantially.
Councilman Peterson: Realizing that most of weren't involved in the initial thoughts of the building and
size and structure, just for my own edification perhaps some of my other council people, two story versus
one story. Walk me through why we're at one story. The costs of the two and just to give me a sense of.
Pat Mackey: It's about what we were figuring. Well first of all, again we're at 32,000 square feet. That's
kind of a controlling number there. That's the point at which, above there you can make the rationalization
sometimes pretty easily for going to two stories of a 16,000 square foot footprint. What you, what it boils
down to is not so much building cost. It's slightly, there's some premiums obviously to go to two story
building. You've got elevators. You've got vertical circulation but where the real hit occurs on a long term
basis is the cost of staffing. It's essentially almost, it boils down to adding about 3/5 the number of staff to
have a presence of both floors to kind of have a, an additional 3/5 to have enough of a staff density to one,
38
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
address patron needs and two, just the rest of complexities of moving materials up and down. We hit that
one fairly early on but it is kind of a nagging question because there are obvious benefits to going to two
stories. You free up quite a bit of land area but I think we hit that one pretty.
Mayor Jansen: That one extensively debated going through both building committee, Planning Commission
and council. Sure.
Pat Mackey: What we're trying to do is get some of the, rather than making this a pancake, on the other
hand, a one story building at 32,000 square feet, if not done carefully can really appear to be just a big,
flat, a slice of bread on a fairly nice site. We wanted to avoid that. What we're going for is these higher
vaulted area here. The meeting room, the periodicals, the spine here and the entry spine, as well as kind of
taking advantage of what doesn't seem to be a sloping site, but from this point at the entry to this point here
is, depending which line you take, 5 to 6 feet of drop-off. That's an old number I'm pulling out of my hat
here. We may be looking at from further out at the end of the canopy here but still, when you get further
down the sidewalk, the southern end of the site, you really do see a kind of significant drop. And it happens
actually if you stand outside the senior center, you can really see how this works into the slope, really drops
away in this direction. So my point being with that is that the building actually kind of comes out at around
4, it's about 7 feet above ground level there giving, with the size of the space, giving a good presence on the
street just in the landscaping, rather than being on a 12 foot tall...
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: The two types of roofing material you're using. Copper for the one level, is that just
a typical, are you specking out just a simple BUR roof or?
Pat Mackey: Yeah, it would be built up. We don't, have had enough experience with membrane roofs that
we, it'd be a shame to put a 100 year roof on the copper area and 5 year or 15 year roof everywhere else.
We're going to use the built up there.
Councilman Ayotte: So the life of the copper roof would be about?
Pat Mackey: Again if done properly, which we aim to do, 100 years.
Councilman Ayotte: So there's no concern about working on a BUR to take care of the copper and vice
versa?
Pat Mackey: As far as?
Councilman Ayotte: Well if you're got a 100 year life for the copper, it's not going to fail before the BUR.
Pat Mackey: Oh no. No. No, and the BUR is just more of a regular maintenance issue but when a built
up roof, BUR fails it's easy to find the failure point and it's often self correcting.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there any big PM requirement for the copper? I don't know.
Pat Mackey: As far as?
Councilman Ayotte: Preventative maintenance and servicing.
39
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Pat Mackey: It's just the flashings. You know any good metal siding...can be applied. Just straight metal
flashing or copper. The copper, you just make sure to isolate the copper and any other structural metals...
and blow right through the copper but again, any of those situations would be within the first year and
would be under the building warranty. Like a weld spot coming right through the copper.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Councilman Boyle: I have no questions.
Mayor Jansen: And Gary, we'll need to make sure that we get you a copy of the needs assessment that was
done for the library so that you have that detail. Mr. Gerhardt, if you could maybe make a note to get Mr.
Boyle a copy of the needs assessment on the library so he does have some of that documentation, I'd
appreciate it. Thanks. Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I just wanted to go over the interior layout again. So on the southeast comer is
the non-fiction area?
Pat Mackey: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: And what's directly west of this area?
Pat Mackey: This is an extension of the reference area. This is kind of the core, the heart down here. And
this actually may expand. This is where you find things such as the small business section. The do it
yourself section. Consumer reference. All these things. Kind of as far as reference would go, this is kind
of, if people have a specific deal they come right to this area.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then left of that is?
Pat Mackey: Left of that is kind of some spill over of the fiction area. Split between the collections but
more prominently this higher.., which we perceive is kind of the place to kind of come.
Councilman Labatt: Where is the fireplace? Is it that dog bone?
Pat Mackey: The fireplace is this, yeah the dog bone shape.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So the north of that is fiction up here. North of the fireplace.
Pat Mackey: Oh, north of the fireplace?
Councilman Labatt: Still up here, that's all fiction?
Pat Mackey: Is fiction. A/V's, CD's, videotapes and DVD's. A couple listening stations there, and then
these bags of interaction computers right here. There's a staff kind of, we kind of got lucky in this one the
way things played out. I'm sure you've all heard in recent years kind of the, some of the monitoring
complications needed for intemet use at public libraries and we think we've executed that. Kind of again
by a good stroke of luck by, this is a staff opening right here that pretty much is going to be kind of like the
entry to a beehive. They're going to be in and out of here all day. And kind of prevents just by a simple
40
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
policing of somebody who may be watching you.
placement to each other. They work well together.
but I think they know it's there.
There are a couple things that would influence the
We're fairly happy and I believe I can't speak for staff
Councilman Labatt: Then to the east of the reference desk, along that curved wall.
Pat Mackey: Along here, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: What's that there?
Pat Mackey: This is the separated teen/young adult section. Kind of all the pieces of a larger public
collection are kind of distilled out into a mini-kind of a mini-library onto itself there. Again finding that
teenagers, young adults, people in that kind of 12 to 16 range before they stop going to libraries altogether,
12 to 18 I should say, tend to use the space a lot better, and they come a lot more if you kind of tailor it to
their patterns which is they tend to cling in small groups or cliques a lot more. And we're trying to give
them somewhat of their own space without it being private and unmanaged. There are partial height walls
here but to this height, something that doesn't screen off acoustics, doesn't screen off a lot of any kind of
bad behavior that you wouldn't what happening. And then there's...room here which is heavily laced
through here and that's one of the challenges remaining is to make sure that this teen room can be
monitored effectively.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. The children's section is just north of the teen adult area. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Pat, can you tell them the idea of the teen area, the tables, what you're planning for in that
area?
Pat Mackey: What we're looking at here is, we're kind of in a round about way looking at some defining a
way of making it so that the kids can all sit together and somebody said well what about like a booth at a
restaurant and it just, it seemed almost too simple at the time but it's really working out well. That's what
we're looking at here is more like study booths. Large oversized booths that you can get anywhere from 2
to 4 to 6 young people at at a time. Because that's kind of the critical mass at which they operate together.
I've learned a lot from kind of talking to other teens in other communities, other libraries and this is kind of
the trend that's really coming out. It's kind of, if we want teens and young adults of this age to use the
library, you kind of have to build it to them a little bit...
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then you said that meeting room is 117 people?
Pat Mackey: 117 right now, and it can be used, I should point out, by children's story time for events.
When you get large crowds. Jim the Juggler apparently is quite a big draw. And that can be used there.
The meeting room I should point out again has a vertical open ceiling scooping up to the north. You get
lots of light in through the, considerable amount of light in through here and we've broken these up with
some French doors to the.., kind of cross over there. Without worrying about the...
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then those tables out in the library area? Those that are just to the east of
the door.
Pat Mackey: Right. Those are, again we've got a meeting with the building committee, friends and I think
some more community involvement on this because they're leftover from what was being called a coffee
41
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
lounge. And what we've, you know the idea was that in some libraries and in a lot of bookstores you get a
really good kind of interplay between someplace that serves sandwiches and coffee and then all the
resources of the library. But we're in the shadow of Byerly's which is the 800 pound gorilla of coffee and
sandwiches so there's really no point in, we're realizing trying to provide a competing enterprise there. So
the use of that lounge area, other than simply a place to enjoy what you got from the vending machines or
just simply take your material without leaving the library is something that's going to be developing over
time. We've got the envelope. I should point out that we're looking at a couple of options on this
envelope. Maybe bringing this...we have structure engineers looking at a couple options on just what
that...
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thanks.
Councilman Peterson: My first reaction to the idea of competing with Byerly's is I don't necessarily agree
with that. I mean that means we should pull the pop machine out of here then. I mean there's a point
where reasonableness and people aren't going to walk over to Byerly's and bring back coffee necessarily
here.
Pat Mackey: What we were talking about is a viable commercial enterprise that would be responsible for
itself, for it's own profits and leasing the space here. Certainly, in fact we've talked about talking to
Byerly's about kind of a cooperative here where there's runners back and forth bringing the coffee over
here. Enjoy the closeness without having to exactly trek over 300 yards...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, excellent. Appreciate your giving us the latest update on the project and appreciate
your continuing to work with the building committee and community so thank you very much.
Pat Mackey: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Exciting project. It's looking great.
Councilman Ayotte: Nice job.
Councilman Peterson: Pat, as you're leaving. I have to ask the question on the south elevation. The
balloons hanging from, or going up from the.
Pat Mackey: 4th of July. Just for our own reference. Those are structural grid lines, 30 feet 8 inches on
center so we can.
Councilman Peterson: I should have known that.
Pat Mackey: A lot of people ask that question. Unless you look at the numbers, people don't know. I
guess I'd also like to point out briefly, since I know there are some questions about the schedule. We're
still on the schedule. Like I said, we're 2/3 of the way through design development. We plan on, and don't
see any reason why we won't be ready to start CD's or construction documents September 1st. Be able to
bid, put the building out to bid middle of January, January 15th and begin construction as soon as weather
permits. Could be early March. Could be early April. That depends on basically what the winter's like.
And there's another question which I was asked, which concerns the vacation of the bank building on the
site and how late that rental property could be maintained. It's not really foreseen as a problem until about
May. I think after May you get to a point obviously without talking to the contractors, it's our opinion, but
42
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
you can get to about May. A couple months under construction without causing significant delays.., get
around the bank building so if anybody has questions about that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCE TO DEVELOP WITHIN
THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO OPERATE A CONTRACTOR'S YARD;
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,139 SO. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (PHASE
B ON A 6.3 ACRE PARCEL; LOCATED AT 1850 LAKE DRIVE WEST; LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 3m~ ADDITION, DAYCO HEADOUARTERS, DAYCO
CONCRETE COMPANY.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, City Council members. This property is located within Chan
Business Center, which is an office industrial planned unit development in this city. It's also located within
the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Chan Business Center was begun in 1992. This is the 3rd Addition
of which this lot is located was approved in 1995. The Bluff Creek Overlay District was adopted in 1998.
The site grading for this property is approximately to the line where staff has estimated that the primary
zone boundaries are. The Bluff Creek Overlay District requires a 40 foot setback from that for the
building. After the developer had originally submitted the plans, on investing the site we determined that
the zoning map had been shown incorrectly. Showed the line and their building was too close to this. We
worked with the developer to provide, to determine some compromise to change the site. They were...
standards in the city ordinance so we were able to move the building so that it is 15 feet away from the
primary zone boundary. We thought that the developer was very willing to look at this compromise. They
were also able to shift the retaining wall from outside of the primary zone into the secondary zone.
However to do this project they still need a variance from the overlay district setback standards and so staff
is recommending approval of that as part of their conditional use permit for developing within the overlay
district. The site plan itself is fairly straight forward. It's a two story building in the office component of
the structure which is located in the southeast comer of the building. It's highly articulated. They use
block material to give it a sense of entrance. The entrance is oriented towards Lake Drive West. We
believe they did a great job of meeting our design standards within the Chan Business Center. Again they
worked with staff to meet some of our concerns. They looked at providing additional landscaping on the
east elevation to give some more horizontal elements to that. The building itself is 25,139 square feet.
There is room on the site for a second building. That would be located to the south. As part of...they're
not concerned that the overhead doors will be too conspicuous because the second building will help to
screen that area in the future. The Planning Commission reviewed this and recommended approval of the
conditional use permit for the development within the overlay district as well as the contractors yard and
approval of the site plan. With that staff is recommending approval and we'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff council? Otherwise if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
43
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit
#2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration
within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and to permit a
contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition based on the findings
of fact and subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
2. No outside storage of material or equipment shall be permitted.
3. The boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary and secondary corridors shall be
shown on the grading plan.
4. The retaining wall must be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve Site Plan #2001-5, plans
prepared by Lampert Architects, dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the
following conditions:
1. A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is
permitted on only one elevation.
2. The retaining wall shall be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone.
3. A minimum 25 foot building setback shall be maintained from the Bluff Creek Overlay District
Primary Zone.
4. The applicant shall increase understory plantings along the north property line by 4 trees for a total
of 20 and increase the number of understory plantings along the west property line by 1 tree for a
total of 13 trees.
5. A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements be submitted to the city prior to
building permit approval. The applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the south
property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable.
6. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed.
7. All new landscaped areas shall have an irrigation system installed.
8. The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the north half of the
eastern building elevation. Tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution.
9. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to demonstrate that the existing pond has
adequate capacity to accommodate storm water from this site.
44
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
10.
11
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21
22.
23.
24.
25.
The developer shall revise the storm sewer design to tie into the existing storm manhole and pond
inlet of the existing 48 inch storm sewer that runs along the eastern property line in order to
minimize the number of pipes draining into the storm water pond.
Park fees in the amount of $18,926 shall be paid at the time of building permit approval.
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.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event prior to building permit approval.
Silt fence adjacent to the existing pond and wetland on the north and west sides of the site must be
Type 3 heavy-duty.
Specify what kind of material is being used at the north and south parts of the proposed building.
On the grading plan, add City Detail Plate Nos. 5215 and 5302. Also, show the benchmark used
for the site survey.
Revise the rock construction entrance to be 75 feet in length as per city detail plate #5301.
Add a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac.
Bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6
foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de-sac to be built
within 2 years.
Show the most current version of City Detail Plate Nos. 1004 and 5207 on the utility plan.
Remove the northerly 35 feet of the proposed retaining wall from the public drainage and utility
easement.
Add straw bale inlet filters around the two existing catch basins in Lake Drive West.
Utilize the existing 8 inch sanitary stub on the south side of the site.
Temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shall escrow funds to install curb
and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the building
permit approval.
Replace the casting on the western most catch basin in Lake Drive West with a drive over type
grate.
Revise the plans to show the following:
a. The existing pond along with the NWL and HWL.
b. Existing street light locations in Lake Drive West.
45
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
26. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
27.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
28. Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required for the 62 spaces provided.
29. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements will not be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
30.
Utility Plan: The HDPE pipe specified for the storm sewer requires an air test and must have
watertight fittings. The sanitary sewer service into the building must be schedule 40 pipe.
31.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
32.
The 6 inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA 13
Section 5-14.1.1.8.
33.
In accordance with city policy please ensure that there is a 10 foot clear space around all fire
hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW DRIVE THRU WINDOWS, LOTUS REALTY.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. The applicant is requesting an amendment
to the design standards for Villages on the Ponds. As the City developed and established the criteria for
this, we were looking at standards that were non-typical for us within the community. We wanted to create
a more pedestrian oriented environment. To do that we created build to lines within the project, required
pedestrian connections within parking areas, and also requested that parking be located to the side and rear
of the projects. Additionally through the park and sharing that we envisioned with this project because of
the non-competing hours of uses, we reduced the number of overall parking stalls by approximately 2,000.
However, as part of that the design standards prohibited the drive thru windows that are typical in
suburban development with your fast food restaurants or with some other uses. The applicant is looking
specifically at amending the design standards to permit a drive thru on this site. Staff is recommending
approval, or denial of that amendment. However we provided, if council desires to recommend approval
we've prepared a draft ordinance that provides some criteria that would point out that would require the
screening of the drive thru area, shielding of any loudspeakers on this site, and assurances that any back-up
from the drive thru would not go into the common parking area. Again staff is recommending denial of the
PUD amendment. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: I had a question on page 3. Your calculations on the trip generation levels. Am I reading
this correctly under the prototype hybrid, is that what we're looking at potentially being on this site on the
traffic generation from this particular amendment?
Bob Generous: That's correct.
46
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because I'm not clear if in the draft ordinance with the conditions attached, would
we still be restricting fast food from this site?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: It would still be restricted. Okay. So this is showing average daily trip generation in the
development going up about 24%, correct? I mean currently you're saying the EAW was saying at a rate
of 130 vehicles average daily. This could potentially take it up by another 32 trips.
Bob Generous: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Versus with fast food that would take it up by 330 trips. Okay. So it is a significantly
different establishment than we might have foreseen when we were initially doing the PUD and restricting
the fast food. Okay. That was my main question as I was reading through this. Do other council people
have questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah I was, and maybe this is premature to ask this. Where on this map are we
looking at going?
Bob Generous: Lot 1, Block 1 of the 2nd Addition is located right here. This is Highway 5 over here.
Great Plains Boulevard. Lake Drive is here.
Councilman Labatt: So they're going to go in that little red building right there?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Bob Generous: Yes. To the east, this is where the Quizno's is. The coffee shop and then Bell Mortgage.
And Houlihan's across the Village Pond.
Councilman Labatt: So now the Planning Commission denied this, correct?
Bob Generous: They recommended denial.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: The one public comment that was really addressed at the Planning Commission was
concern with the traffic levels potentially being generated through the development, which led to.
Bob Generous: Preparation of this table and analysis of the difference.
Mayor Jansen: The Planning Commission, if I'm not mistaken, didn't have this analysis as far as the
actual increase in traffic generated or the figures, correct?
Kate Aanenson: I think the other thing we tried to do with this report was to show you, there's a bigger
depth and breadth of types of drive thru windows. You're probably be seeing one shortly of a drive thru
pharmacy dry cleaners so we tried to do some analysis. They do generate different trips. Again what we
47
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
were looking at in this type of development was more traditional pedestrian. What we tried to do is look at
what other potential uses and how, if you were inclined to allow one type of thing and how do you preclude
something else? Whether you look at it for criteria. Whether it's trips or type of use, that sort of thing.
There is opportunities for other drive thru's. It doesn't have to be a restaurant. We're saying somebody
can still put a drive thru, dry cleaning in for example on the end of a building so that's some of the
concerns that we had.
Councilman Boyle: Is the concern that you're setting a precedent that you might have to live with in the
future? Was that the concern?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, I think what we tried to establish is some criteria that allowed a specific, if you
wanted to put a specific use in there, right.
Councilman Peterson: I think that along with following the standards that have already been set forth
within that project. Which they are the strictest of any that we have in Chanhassen.
Mayor Jansen: And with your suggested conditions, realizing you're not suggesting we do this but with the
conditions that you would attach if we did, you've restricted it to this particular parcel in this development.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So we would not be giving a blanket approval for all of the open property within the
Villages, correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. But I guess what we're saying is someone always has the opportunity to
come back.
Mayor Jansen: And if you've done it once, will you do it again?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Councilman Labatt: I'm struggling with this one. How would they run a drive thru.., situated? Can you
answer that?
Kate Aanenson: Well, in looking at the dynamics of use, which we have. We've looked at it. I've gone up
there during the day to look at what the circulation is. It is a busy place right there right now in front of
that, which is great. That's what we wanted. But this type of fast food, you can see the typical hybrid,
which we're calling this, is not the same volume as a typical fast food which generates the highest. Would
it be similar to a dry cleaner?
Councilman Labatt: It's not like a McDonald's?
Kate Aanenson: It's not a typical fast food. The volume isn't nearly the same. It's like a third of that.
Councilman Peterson: A third of McDonald's is still quite a bit of traffic. I mean.
48
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Labatt: But did you...the trip generation of that?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Well I guess the other concern is what is the dynamics of the center when you've
got cross over traffic and you're trying to make it pedestrian friendly. That was the other component and I
think that's what Craig was alluding to. Is what does that do to the dynamic of what we were trying to
create there. Something different. We don't have the stacking of cars. Or the queuing of people going
through. Now again that's a third less but you're still going to have times when it's, people are queuing.
Councilman Boyle: Well an increase of 130 to 162 doesn't seem like that much increase to me. Maybe, I
mean ifI look at the 130 to 496 for a fast food, then it's wow. That's a heck of an increase. But this is, I
don't know what that means.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's what we struggled with. How does that interplay with what we were trying to
originally create. Now remember what, the city had certain goals in creating this district. There was a lot
of flexibility given and certainly, I mean the Planning Commission struggled with, nobody wanted to say
no to ice cream and some of those sort of, some of the other types of things that we want to go in there, but
traffic is a concern.
Councilman Boyle: Is one of the concerns.
Kate Aanenson: One of the concerns, sure.
Councilman Boyle: The primary is staying with what we established at the beginning?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Just a little bit of additional background. The vision really for that, of that whole
area was having apartments. Having apartments above retail. Walking that main area. Walking from
your apartment to go eat was less of a concern for traffic. And so philosophically, I spent it seemed like a
couple of years on this project so, it actually was a couple years on this project. But the intent that we
really tried to focus staff on is to maintain that theme and to maintain the standards. So not even knowing
the detail of what's going in here, a drive thru just doesn't fit philosophically to what our intent was. Now
do we need to change that intent? I don't know but this certainly does change the intent.
Councilman Boyle: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: I know one of the criteria that I looked at as I was considering this was the location of this
particular site because it is so close to Highway 5 and this other entrance going on Lake Drive. And again,
I'm feeling somewhat tortured over trying to figure out whether amending this PUD is the right thing to do.
I certainly embrace the concept that this was planned with and the intention of the city, and I think I of
course go to the convenience aspect of it for our residents. Now how much are we holding to the principle
that we planned this development around without taking into account this particular site. Getting down to
something that isn't fast food. Looking at a trip generation that to Gary's point, doesn't seem that much
more significant. Is there a little wiggle room if only because of those considerations? Location to the
major access points. The additional guidelines that staff has drafted as far as being able to buffer the sight
lines, protect from the noise, have it actually not look like a drive thru. I'm looking at this is how do you
almost hide the fact that it's a drive thru. Yes I'm hearing the precedent. How do you now deny the next
request potentially in this development to put another drive thru in here, and I guess I go back to my
49
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
argument the location of the site seems to make it more conducive, rather than if it was located in the center
of the development. Now you're taking all of that traffic and taking up the entire way through. Not to say
that people won't do that anyway, but at least they've got a quicker access off of 5. I guess that's one of
the things I'm weighing into trying to make this decision. Just to throw that out.
Kate Aanenson: If I could just add to the wiggle room. This PUD didn't exclude bank drive thru's which
we kind of were looking at that and we did, a bank drive thru, which they had proposed which we were very
concerned about. This amendment would then prohibit any other drive thru's. So it fixes a bigger problem
that we wouldn't allow any other. Now certainly they can come back and ask for an amendment to that but
that was in place. A bank could have come in, which we did have concerns about too. Again for certainly
stacking. Significant stacking certain days of the week at a bank. So by doing this PUD amendment it
would solve that problem too because that would prohibit any other drive thru's unless you specifically sat
them in this location it seems to work. So that would solve that problem.
Councilman Peterson: We could do that without approving this one.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Or they can come back and ask for an amendment too, that's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate your mentioning that. Do we need to continue discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, if we're looking for general comments. I really have been swayed. I just
don't think it's appropriate for the intent of the PUD. It's pretty simple to, I don't see a compelling reason
to change it. It's really whenever I look at a PUD change, is there a compelling reason to change it? You
don't change it because you want a certain business to come in. That's the wrong reason to do it.
Mayor Jansen: And that is why we had requested that staff separate this PUD amendment from any
proposal on a particular issue and bring it before us, at least in as general a concept as possible so that
we're more so looking at it in concept versus looking at it as a specific business decision. And again, oh
Kate another question. Where else in the community would we be able to put a drive thru? Are there other
locations currently?
Kate Aanenson: The piece behind the Richfield Bank would allow for a drive thru. The other property that
the city owns has a PUD excluding drive thru's.
Todd Gerhardt: And it excludes fast food restaurants.
Kate Aanenson: The piece that the city owns by Applebee's. So probably there and, there's not a lot of
commercial pieces left in the city.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, exactly. And I guess where, and I think the compelling reason, as a good issue and a
good benchmark to challenge myself also, so as I'm looking at this being so close and adjacent to the
downtown and trying to draw more people into this whole area, I guess convenience still comes to mind,
and especially with all of our young families.
Councilman Peterson: But you're drawing vehicles than you are drawing pedestrian. Pedestrians is what,
we're not trying to draw vehicles into the Villages on the Ponds. We're trying to draw people so your point
doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense if you want to draw people. I don't know.
50
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: If it's a destination point, and they're just coming for that, and they're not coming to
mingle, I almost look at the pedestrian aspect as the draw for the apartments that are across the street.
They now have the pedestrian access into Villages to be able to shop that area. As the apartments that will
potentially exist right on that development versus across the street on 101. I'm looking at the pedestrian
friendly is can you park once and walk.
Councilman Peterson: So how does that, I still don't see the correlation between needing a drive thru. To
your point then, you wouldn't have a drive thru. You'd make them park. Go in and be serviced, and then
walk around the rest of the development.
Mayor Jansen: If it's a convenience service though, you're going to the destination, like a drive thru
windows on a cleaners or what were some of the others that you gave?
Kate Aanenson: Photomat, coffee shop, bank.
Mayor Jansen: I mean if you're going to that destination and you're looking for the quick trip through,
you're not necessarily looking to then wander the other shops and.
Councilman Peterson: Well that's my whole point. Is that what we're trying to get there is pedestrian
friendly businesses that are located there to keep the cars away. I'd be much more amenable to taking the
property by Applebee's and changing that PUD because we're not as, I'm just trying to make a point. I
think that is much less sensitive an area to make a PUD change than this one would be.
Todd Gerhardt: It's not a PUD down there. It's a covenant so you have to.
Councilman Peterson: Well you can still change covenants so.
Todd Gerhardt: You've got to get Applebee's and Tires Plus to sign on the line.
Councilman Labatt: Cold day there.
Mayor Jansen: There you go. There's a jump.
Kate Aanenson: Just to add again to, looking back, focusing back on the traffic study. There are some
higher turnover, Starbuck's. Quizno's, some of those as we looked at the traffic study, the higher turnover.
Again going back to what you're saying. We were looking not only the drive thru but what it does to
circulation patterns. But just to be clear, some of those other uses, people go in for a 40 minute lunch.
Cup of coffee, visit with somebody so some of those also are creating, what do I want to say, shorter stays
or that sort of thing too. Just to be fair in how we're evaluating this. Some of our concern is, does it
change the dynamics? Are we moving away from kind of the plan? Is it okay just to let one go in if there's
something else coming in and what does it do to the dynamics? Because I just want to be sure in saying,
some of the other uses in there do have quicker stays. Shorter stays I guess.
Mayor Jansen: And right within that comer too.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: That you pointed out, okay. Thank you.
51
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Councilman Labatt: Kate let me, say for instance this amendment gets approved. And 2 months from now
we see a project come on board and the drive up window's in a position where we don't like it. Too visible
from Highway 5. Cars stacked up along there. Do we still have the position to say no at that point?
Kate Aanenson: I guess I would make it a conditional use then if you wanted to add something to mitigate
the impacts. Make it a conditional use, the drive thru. Then you could add a condition to mitigate that.
Councilman Labatt: I'm just trying to envision where the drive up window would be in this property.
Kate Aanenson: We've looked at that. The opportunities. Again we did see a bank on this site. We did
see some other you know. It's been in the works. I mean as Craig alluded to, when we put this PUD
together we all had certain vision and the one thing we have learned is we had to be a little bit flexible as
we've seen with the apartments and some of that. Things that we try to, some flexibility built into what we
put in place a number of years ago. But certainly we had that concern too that we would want to put the
drive thru in a spot that has the least impact. Again, we hear from the neighbors at the Planning
Commission regarding noise and traffic and they came up with a concern when we had the two restaurants
there too. People sitting outside. What would that, it's whatever comes in there we would want an outdoor
patio. Whether it's fast food or where people can sit outside and enjoy that atmosphere. I was out there
today just to see what the traffic was like at noon. I sat outside. It's a nice experience. So we would want
that no matter what it is so I would double check with the city attorney but that would be my
recommendation if you want to put a conditional use or something. How amended that, I don't know what
language you'd put on there to restrict or control of the location.
Mayor Jansen: Would you like to hear a comment from Roger please?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: A conditional use for.
Kate Aanenson: Just the drive up portion. How would you restrict it so they would have the comfort of
where they can, if their concern is the location of the window.
Roger Knutson: You could make it a conditional use within the PUD.
Kate Aanenson: Right, that's what I had said. My suggestion.
Roger Knutson: You could do that.
Kate Aanenson: Then we could mitigate that.
Mayor Jansen: And it could be a conditional use within the PUD for that site.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We did put some standards in there. I think as Bob has pointed out, in Section 3.
If you're comfortable with that or you want something stronger but what we put in there is that provides
sufficient stacking to insure traffic is not backed up into the parking lot aisles and loud speakers used for
ordering food shall be shielded so that noise is not heard from off-site. And that the drive thru shall be
52
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
screened from off-site views. So if you wanted something stronger than that but that was our attempt to try
to mitigate that.
Councilman Labatt: I still don't want to say no but I...
Kate Aanenson: I guess our position on that would be, we would put it in the, what we believe to be the
least visible place to put it. And that was the concern when we looked at the design standards from the
beginning. Is what would your view be from Highway 5? That we're not going to see, when we looked at
that originally that we did strip commercial on that segment of Highway 5 so that would be the attempt to
screen.
Councilman Peterson: There's no way, actually I shouldn't say, it's very difficult to prevent sight line of
cars being backed up 2 or 3 in a row. I've said enough.
Councilman Boyle: It is always very difficult to say no to any type of business that's trying to come into
town just because of a drive in or a drive thru or whatever you want to call it but my personal opinion now
from what I've heard and read up to this point is that we probably should stay with the concept that was
intended. And do we further move away from the dynamics? So I'm kind of, as difficult as it is, I'm
leaning more towards denial.
Mayor Jansen: And I guess where I have been on the fence, having now heard that we could make the drive
thru a conditional use, I feel as it would give staff even more control over how to guide how this is actually
placed. And again, I'm trying to not be so restrictive of what the original intent was of this PUD. I can
certainly appreciate the concept and all the effort that went into the planning in this area, but I keep coming
back to what are the concerns of our residents? Are our residents so hung up over our increasing the traffic
in this area by 31 vehicles a day that they would want to see us being inflexible on this PUD. I feel as
though we have enough control over the location within the development, how it's screened, what it is,
because I mean we're not adding one of these high traffic businesses or opening it up for that. I'm having a
tendency to lean towards changing this and I've had more of a tendency to not change PUD's. But this one,
because of the location to our downtown, the insignificant and I realize traffic is an issue whatever the
increase as far as our residents are concerned. But I am looking at that as insignificant for the service and
convenience that would be provided at that comer.
Councilman Ayotte: I agree with you. I'm thinking, based not only on the survey, but the challenge to, and
I know we're not supposed to be affecting the plan to draw business in, especially after I just passed one
business going out, one establishment out of business this past week and it bothered the heck out of me.
Whatever we can do to enhance success is something I'd like to go towards so Mayor, I'd tend to agree
with you on this one. And I love Butter Burgers.
Kate Aanenson: That would be a hybrid burger.
Mayor Jansen: You love hybrids. Okay, are we doing further discussion or would council like me to call
for a motion? I'm not meaning to rush you Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: No, I'm just boy. Well I think we know where the vote could go here. I'm just trying
to think how to word one to tell you the truth.
Councilman Ayotte: And it's 4 to 1 that has to go, right?
53
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Roger Knutson: Not anymore. As of May 30th it is, you need 3 votes to pass it.
Councilman Ayotte: Oh, then you've got a mistake in your write-up there.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Sorry.
Mayor Jansen: It's been a change in the legislation. Mr Gerhardt, did you want to make comment on this
issue? I don't mean to put you on the spot. You looked like you wanted to speak.
Todd Gerhardt: No. I have been thinking about this as the discussions have gone on and as I drive through
the community and talk to businesses in the community I see the Taco Bell's, the Leeann Chin's, the
Perkins, the restaurants during the noon hour, their parking lots are full and we're approximately halfway
built out in this community. And the need for those type of restaurants for our business community, the
employees that work here, tend to go to those type of places. They're on a short work hour and we stopped
at Subway the other day and we were outside the door. To think that you don't have a drive thru there and
so I would think that this would help alleviate some of our other problems with...to take off. Every real
estate deal that Vernelle and Brad bring to us are very important to that project to continue to move ahead.
I think this is a key element to the future of the Village on the Ponds. I know it doesn't originally meet the
intent of the pedestrian orientation for the development but I believe Starbucks closes 5:00 or 6:00. 7:00?
And so you know there's not an evening activity on that end cap down there. So I have, I think that more
restaurants of this sort in that area would be helpful. So I would encourage it. I think you have somebody
here that wants to be in the community and it's not your traditional fast food. I've been to the.
Mayor Jansen: Keep in mind we're evaluating a hybrid.
Todd Gerhardt: It's a hybrid. I didn't say the C word. And I've been to similar restaurants over in Navarre
like this and that drive thru isn't even similar to the one at McDonald's. You don't see the long lines there
and I've heard that comment from other individuals that have seen these hybrids.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, appreciate your comments. Councilman Labatt, did you want to?
Councilman Labatt: Okay, I'm going to take a stab at it.
Councilman Boyle: Can I have one more question? Just one more.
Councilman Labatt: Sure, go ahead.
Councilman Boyle: What's the seating capacity inside?
Kate Aanenson: We're not at site plan yet.
Councilman Boyle: Well how about square foot?
Councilman Labatt: 4768.
54
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: That's allowed on this site in general.
Kate Aanenson: Based on any of the restaurant it's approximate square foot, around 5,000 would be the
maximum based on the pad area.
Councilman Boyle: Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: Ready?
Mayor Jansen: Ready. Give it a shot.
Councilman Labatt: I move the City Council approve an amendment to the planned unit development
standards permitting a conditional use permit for a drive up window, drive thru window based upon the
ordinance supplied by Mr. Generous.
Roger Knutson: Just so we're clear, that's on Lot 1, Block 1.
Councilman Labatt: Lot 1, Block 1.
Mayor Jansen: Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition.
Councilman Labatt: Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition.
Mayor Jansen: Does that cover us appropriately?
Roger Knutson: Yes it does.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Without doing it as an amendment. Okay. Do I have a second for the motion?
Councilman Ayotte: Fine, I second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve an amendment to the Planned
Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window as a conditional use as outlined in the
following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by
amending the PUD, Planned Unit Development, for all property within the following:
Villages on the Ponds
Section 2. The Development Design Standards, b. Permitted Uses, Commercial/Retail, shall be amended
by deleting: restaurant-no drive through.
55
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Section 3. The Development Design Standards, b. Permitted Uses, Commercial/Retail, shall be amended
by adding: restaurant-no drive through, except by Conditional Use Permit on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on
the Ponds 2nd Addition and compliance with the following standards - the drive through shall provide
sufficient stacking to assure that traffic is not backed into the parking lot drive aisles; loud speakers used
for ordering shall be shielded so that noise is not heard off-site, and the drive through shall be screened
from off-site views.
Section 4. The Development Design Standards, b. Prohibited Uses shall be amended by adding: Drive
through/drive in windows and facilities, except as part of a restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the
Ponds 2nd Addition.
Section 5. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid
zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose
of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references,
and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this
ordinance.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4to 1.
Vernelle Clayton: Thank you very much and I think we won't disappoint you. We will have the pedestrian
orientation in the core. This is a little bit outside the core. It will work.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you Vernelle.
APPOINTMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: Sure. The first item, the two candidates are gift horses. I'm really excited for us so
with excitement I will move that we appoint Steve Nalefski and Deborah Yungner to the Environmental
Commission filling the remaining term of the two vacant terms, and those will expire on 3/31/02. In
addition to appointing them to the 3 year term running 3/31/2002 to 3/31/2005.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Do I have a second please?
Councilman Boyle: I will second that motion.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to appoint Steve Nalefski and Deborah
Yungner to the Environmental Commission filling the remaining term of the two vacant terms, and
those will expire on 3/31/02. In addition to appointing them to the 3 year term running 3/31/2002 to
3/31/2005. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
56
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: And I will agree with Councilman Labatt, our appreciation for such strong candidates
stepping forward to serve on one of our commissions and they certainly have the credentials to bring some
talent to our environmental commission so welcome aboard.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE.
Mayor Jansen: Any comments from council from your commissions?
Councilman Ayotte: The Environmental Commission is off the month of August. There has been no
activity with the exception of the appointments tonight.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great.
Councilman Labatt: I was out of town for the Park and Rec.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I want to compliment the Planning Commission on their decision to not take on a
policy issue. In fact there was a little bit of a feeling on the commission that they really wanted to change
a policy and there was a direction that that was certainly something that should come to council and we just
mistakenly did not catch that as it hit their agenda. We have been trying very hard all year to be sure that
council addresses policy issues prior to their going to the commission so they're not put in that position, but
I was pleased to see them make the decision to not change policy, but more it onto council and let council
take that position so I thought they made an excellent call on that one and it was appreciated. The other
conversation that we started in our last meeting was the discussion of whether council members are looking
for rotation at this point off of their current assignments on a commission. And of course Councilman
Peterson sat out the first round and we have Mr. Boyle, Councilman Boyle joining us at this point, and we
have the commission position with the Seniors open at this point so I'd like to see about any discussion
council would care to have on that rotation. I would be in fact happy to continue to serve what is the
higher time commitment on the Planning Commission. I have skipped the meetings where they're in fact
mainly reviewing ordinances and issues that I really should not be commenting on with council's
perspective so that they can in fact delve through those issues and bring their recommendations forward.
So there have been a few that I have skipped knowing that they would not need council direction on issues.
Councilman Ayotte: I'd kind of like to stay with the Environmental Commission a little longer because of
the new commissioners on board and because of some initiatives started there and the fact that there's been
a break so I'd like to continue. But I really think and I've sat in with the Senior Commission a couple of
times and I think it would be very good idea for us to liaison with them if there's someway we could work it
out. In some fashion.
Mayor Jansen: We just had that break as we had the position on the council vacated and with Mr. Boyle
coming on board we can certainly address that at this point, sure.
Councilman Boyle: Sounds like a hint to me. I don't want to jump in Craig, I mean you would have first
pick I know.
Councilman Peterson: Well I mean philosophically I don't agree with the liaison in the first place so it's
part of the issue I have to deal with internally. I just don't see the necessity or the gaining of value of it so
I'm more than willing to let you guys do that. I don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the council in
any fashion as it relate to that so.
57
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: And that was one of the issues that we covered when we were reviewing serving as liaisons.
That in fact if there isn't a council position on an issue, certainly as a liaison you can't express the
council's position but you can certainly bring that issue to council and get that worked out and get that
information back to the commissions so that they're more in the loop and there's better communication
between council and commissions and they can continue to do their work and feel more connection with the
council. It was more as a communication connection between the two and avoiding any issues. More so on
Planning Commission there have been times when they've needed direction on you know should we table
and work it through some more? Should we move it onto council and I've at least been able to help with
some of those.
Councilman Boyle: Do we need that on with the Senior Commission do you think?
Mayor Jansen: I think it's, you know Mr. Ayotte, Councilman Ayotte has commented that in attending the
Senior Commission he's seeming to suggest that.
Councilman Boyle: You feel that there should be a liaison there?
Councilman Ayotte: I find a lot of worth to it because they'll ask for pieces of information I'll bring back
to council. It's not often but it really does, I think it solidifies but you've really got to watch the approach.
So often you want to go but, you know as long as you control that. And selfishly, I learn a heck of a lot on
the environmental issues so I use it as an educational arm for me.
Councilman Boyle: Why don't I try it for a while and we'll determine.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. You'd like to be the Senior liaison?
Councilman Boyle: Well I'll give it a whirl.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt, you have the Parks and Rec.
Councilman Labatt: Well quite frankly, my winters get real busy with hockey and my family so if I could
take a vacancy Craig I would appreciate that. If you want to take the Parks and Rec.
Councilman Peterson: Well I have a philosophical problem with it. I can go to the meetings but I really
don't feel comfortable. You know I think that we have staff that can bring the issues back to council as
effectively as we could. I've got to think about it.
Councilman Labatt: ... a job share.
Councilman Peterson: We can chat about it.
Councilman Labatt: We'll chat. Craig and I will figure something out.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And to that point, the other reason for the liaison was to eliminate staff's need,
which in fact isn't their job, to communicate between council and commission. The commissions are there
to advise us and staff had been put in a position of being more the communication vehicle and that was one
of the issues that Mr. Botcher addressed with me very early on in the year and he had encouraged us to put
58
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
the council liaisons in place for that communication capability. And to take that responsibility off of staff.
He thought it was a significant move on our behalf. How would we like to go about taking care of the, and
maybe we shouldn't talk about it tonight because it's getting late, but we had mentioned that with
Councilman Boyle joining us we have the opening on the EDA. The EDA. The Economic Development
Authority. And at one point we had started the discussion of changing that membership and the
consistency so that instead of having the entire council be on the EDA, we have more community or
business members present and only 2 council people. So that it's less of a representation of the council so
you don't have that appearance of council making the decision at the EDA and then having the blessing of
the council. There's always been that issue. There are communities where the council does not serve in it's
entirety on the EDA.
Councilman Boyle: We were that way at one time.
Todd Gerhardt: Gary do you want to, Gary and I have scars over that item.
Councilman Boyle: Yes, many.
Councilman Labatt: Let's see what we get for applicants.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm a little fried. I want to think about it. I'm a little fried.
Councilman Peterson: I mean that's a pretty strategic decision that I've got some strong opinions on. I'd
be happy to articulate tonight but I'm losing Bob so.
Councilman Labatt: When we lose Bob man, I'm done then...
Mayor Jansen: That's why I prefaced with that.
Todd Gerhardt: Just so you're aware, the ad was in the paper last Villager. To solicit EDA members to
fill the vacancy. I was directed at the last meeting to do that.
Mayor Jansen: Whoever's speaking with the applicants, you might want to be a little open about how
many positions we might be looking for so that we're not restricting the number of applicants because they
only see one seat. That council needs to have that discussion. If you might put it on, oh gosh. I don't
know if it's a work session discussion. Would we be more comfortable, yeah. And maybe for some open
dialogue at one of the work sessions. Mr. Gerhardt, if you could put it on an agenda.
Councilman Peterson: I don't foresee it taking a half an hour. It may take 10-15 minutes.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. Okay.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Jansen: Mr. Gerhardt, anything?
Todd Gerhardt: Just if you have any comments on the correspondence that I put in the administrative
section. That's one of the ways I'd like to communicate with council is any documentation that comes
59
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
across my desk I try to put in the Administrative Section so you're updated on that. Other than that, that's
it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. The only other issue that council is handling is tomorrow we are doing
the interviews of the city manager candidates. With conversation then at the end of the evening. There's
no expectation of there necessarily being a decision made tomorrow evening but maybe more a discussion
of what the next step is on applicants so we'll be doing that tomorrow.
Councilman Boyle: I would hope that all the applicants get a good night sleep tonight.
Mayor Jansen: Hopefully so. With that, do we have a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
60