CC Minutes 2000 02 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6~40 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Senn,
Councilman Engel, and Councilwoman Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Anita Benson, Tom Scott, Todd Hofknan, and Dale Gregory. Scott
Botcher arrived late to the meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve
the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF CONSULTING ENGINEER'S COUNCIL
HONOR AWARD, 1998 TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, TODD HOFFMAN, PARK AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Mancino, members of the City Council and the audience. If you'll
recall back in 1997 the City held a park, open space and trail referendum, and that passed. In the Spring of
1998 we started construction on 7 miles of trails within the community in six distinct corridors. For the
most part those trails were finished late last year and we have one trail which is halfway done that's the
Bluff Creek trail. The consulting engineers for that project, Howard R. Green nominated the project for
this award for a Consulting Engineer's Council Award and it was 2 weeks ago Friday that we were
presented with the Consulting Engineer's Council of Minnesota Honor Award presented to the City of
Chanhassen for the 1998 Chanhassen Trail Improvements with the engineering services being provided by
Howard R. Green. It was a very nice presentation. A ceremony down at the new Science Museum and
tonight I'd like to present the award to the Mayor and Council and the citizens of Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much for all of us. Thank you Todd. How many people
that are here tonight, just by a show of hands, use the trails. Anybody here? Go on the new trails? Good.
Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution #2000-13: Approve Gambling Permit for St. Hubert's Church for April 29, 2000;
and; Resolution #2000-14: Approve Gambling Permit for St. Hubert's Church for June 4, 2000.
c. Approval of Bills.
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session dated February 14, 2000
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
E. APPROVAL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT COMPENSATION ANALYSIS BY DCA.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to make some modifications starting with page 1. If you'd refer to paragraph 2
under Understanding I'd like to change it to read, we understand the City rather than Department, desires to
compare its existing compensation and benefits program to those of fire departments in, and than rather
than its marketplace, be area and in cities of like size. End of sentence there. And I'd like to add onto the
last sentence of that same paragraph, the final product will serve the Department today and assist expected
growth plans for the future and assist the City Council in the decision making process would be the
addition. Then on page 2 I'd like to go to Step C. Where it says we will prepare and present a final report
to the City Council and all appropriate other parties. And on page 3, under the heading of services where it
says prepare and present a final report, I'd like to add to the City Council under that line item.
Mayor Mancino: I think that's it.
Councilman Senn: I think that was it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions on that?
Councilman Senn: I'd like to move approval with those changes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Jansen: Do we need to amend to 3000?
Mayor Mancino: No, because that's on here.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the Fire Department
Compensation Analysis by DCA as amended by Councilman Senn. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Charles Folch: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Charles Folch. I reside at 1815
Valley Ridge Trail South in Chanhassen. I'm also your former Public Works Director. Madam Mayor,
may I approach to submit for the record a transcript of my presentation tonight? I also have additional
copies for the rest of council members... Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Your council packets
contain a cover memo tonight dated February 23, 2000 from City Manager Scott Botcher. It's regarding a
cover memo for consent item 1 C, approval of bills. This memo specifically pertains to an invoice
submitted by the City's Utility Superintendent for water meters he had purchased. The manager indicates
some uncertainty as to the appropriateness of this expenditure with regard to the budget and infers an
opinion of possible impropriety and uses my name in the memo a couple of times which is why I'm here
tonight. This memo goes on to state that since I have left employment with the city and since the Utility
Superintendent was on vacation last week, the manager was not able to obtain information on the purpose
of the purchase made. Upon learning of this memo, and since I had never seen the invoice in question, I
decided to do my own due diligence and I made a few phone calls and I was able to locate the vacationing
superintendent who informed me that the water meters he had purchased were purchased for the purpose of
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
restocking the inventory of residential and commercial water meters that the city sells to builders when they
pick up their building permits. The budget code for this account is titled Merchandise for Resale. In
essence this is a pass through expenditure which is recovered through the resale of revenue associated with
new development building permits and is not an out of pocket expense or burden to the city budget. Now
my purpose here tonight is not to defend the Utility Superintendent's purchase. My purpose here tonight
rather is to defend my integrity and my reputation which I believe have been defamed by this memo. The
manager's memo infers that the Utility Superintendent's purchase may have been for a program which I
proposed to the Council last fall. A program that was not approved. For clarification accuracy purposes,
the program that I proposed last fall was specifically for retrofitting all of the existing water meters in home
and businesses throughout the city to a radio read capable type meter similar to those being sold to and
installed by builders in the new developments. This massive retrofitting program was estimated to cost
$200,000 per year over 5 years and it would have been a significant out of pocket expense to the City
capital budget. The City Council did not approve the item and accordingly this proposal was deleted from
the City's capital plan and I did not pursue the matter any further. The Utility Superintendent's purchase
in question tonight was in no way, shape or form for the purpose of initiating the retrofitting program that I
had previously proposed. Now what upsets me most about this whole thing is that no attempt was made to
contact me for information before using my name in a memo speculating possible misuse of city funds.
I've dedicated nearly 10 years of my life serving this community with a high standard of character and
integrity and I deserve at least an inquiring phone call before a memo like this is submitted for public
record to the City Council packet. In closing, I am more often than not a forgiving person, particularly in a
first offense situation so I'm going to write off this memo as in my opinion a lack of due diligence and an
error in judgment. However I don't want this to misinterpreted to mean that I would ever again tolerate a
public document potentially defaming my character and integrity and I would respectfully request that the
City Council take some action to institute measures that prevent this type of situation from happening
again. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Charles. Thank you for clearing that up. Appreciate it. Very much.
PUBLIC SAFETY UPDATE.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor Mancino and Council members. Well I've got the first month
under my belt now.
Mayor Mancino: And how was it? And how is it going?
Sgt. Dave Potts: It's going along very nicely. Getting my feet wet. Getting right out in there and
participating in some of the issues that are going on in this city. And I assume you've all had a chance to
read the memo that I sent to you and if you have any questions regarding that you can certainly let me
know or get a hold of me at a later time. What I would like to do as part of a verbal presentation each
month is update you on some things that I think may be of interest or some ongoing issues. Something like
that. And it's my understanding that in the not too distant future they're going to be broadcasting the City
Council meetings live on cable and so I'd like to pick out maybe one or two cases or interesting things that
have happened in the law enforcement area of the city. Not only for the council's benefit but for the
public's benefit that may be viewing the Council's meetings. And although I don't believe tonight's
meeting is going to be broadcast, what I brought with me tonight was a couple of cases that occurred in
February here and it really shows what real law enforcement is all about. Most people consider real law
enforcement to be, you call the police when a crime occurs and they run out and catch the bad guys or solve
it and investigate and what not. But with these couple of cases it shows more true to life how things occur.
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
On February 6th a citizen that was looking at some lots in the area noticed some suspicious activity. Some
lumber was being loaded into a vehicle at a construction site. This alert and astute citizen took down the
license plate number and some other information about the vehicle and occupants and some lumber was in
fact stolen from that construction site and that case was quickly resolved and charges pressed based on
simply an alert citizen taking some notes and notifying the owner of that construction site who in mm
notified us. In somewhat of a similar alert citizen situation, a woman was loading some groceries into her
car at Festival Food and another car was backing out of it's spot, backed right into her car, quickly left the
scene. She was obviously stunned by what had just occurred. Didn't get down a description of license
plate number, anything like that, but another citizen entering the parking lot at that time saw what
happened. Took down a license plate number and a vehicle description. Stopped and spoke to the woman.
Of course this information made it's way to us and our responding officer was able to quickly solve that
case and charge the suspect. So that's just a couple of incidents where it shows what law enforcement is
really all about. It's a partnership between the citizens in the community and the law enforcement officers
to not only be alert and to see crime as it occurs, but respond to it.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And are we following up by sending those people a letter and thanking them
for helping out?
Sgt. Dave Potts: We don't have a regular practice or protocol for doing that.
Mayor Mancino: That might be a good idea.
Sgt. Dave Potts: But yeah, it's that kind of thing that our new Sheriff Bud Olson is very in tune with to
kind of keep the good things happening so.
Mayor Mancino: Good. That's great. Any questions for Sergeant Potts? Okay, thank you.
John Wolff: Council, Mayor. I've got a quick report I'd like to approach.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
John Wolff: Thought what I would do tonight is just give you a quick overview of the 1999 fire call runs.
We actually get this data and try to break it down into some meaningful data elements and we've kind of
compiled the data into a number of buckets here. But when we look at 1999, we had 711 calls. Emergency
calls. This is about a 7% reduction from the prior year. It's the first year we actually have seen a
reduction and you may recall last fall that we talked about a new protocol for responding to medical calls
which involves using our police resources on certain types of calls instead of sending the fire department
out on all 911 emergency calls. We implemented that program in November and that is the primary driver
on why we saw a slight reduction. As a result of that program, it's been in place about 3 months now. We
expect to see about a 35% to 40% reduction in medical calls that the fire department responds to during the
year 2000 if the past 3 months is any indicator of what we can expect. Which is actually a little more than
we thought the reduction would be and we've, but we've also looked at the data and we're real comfortable
with how the resources are being used right now. So it's still under study but we do anticipate that that will
probably be the future so police and ambulance respond to about 40% of the total medical calls without fire
department resources. 60% with fire department resources.
Mayor Mancino: And are they getting there as quickly as you did?
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
John Wolff: The way the protocol works is if the police resource which is the first responder resource
anticipates that it's going to take more than 4 minutes, which is our standard response time, and they judge
that based on where they are and if they're involved with something else or not. Then they will
automatically have us paged out. So that's a part of the protocol. The protocol also takes into
consideration the type of call it is. If it's an assist only call. A very minor medical emergency then they'll
basically ask for the appropriate resources. So moving down the list, we saw a 7 ½% reduction in
medical. That's primarily driven by that for the last month and a half. Car accidents were down 9%. That
number really flows. If you go back a few years, it was as high as in the 90's. It was lower in '98 than it
was in '97 and it continues to go down this year.
Mayor Mancino: With all the congestion?
John Wolff: Yeah, weather can drive that a lot. We have a lot more traffic going through the city. We
certainly have some areas that are working more efficiently traffic wise because of some of the road
improvements but we have other areas which we have a lot of heavy traffic flow and the roads aren't really
capable of handling the traffic. A good example of that might be the 101 corridor which is really starting
to, you know we're seeing more accidents on that corridor than we did 5 years ago so that's a, it's one that
it's hard to predict but we are making some assumptions for what we expect for next year there. Fire and
water flow alarms are up 3 ½%. I think that's a function of the commercial infrastructure growth that
we're seeing. Fire calls, which are calls for a possible structure fire or possible car fire, or an actual fire
itself are up 8% and once again I think as an infrastructure, both residential and commercial issue there.
Plus traffic. We get, there's just more and more folks driving into town for work and so forth and that
drives car fires. Hazmat calls were up almost 100%. That might be a reporting issue. I need to research
that a little bit.
Mayor Mancino: Is that mutual aid, do you think?
John Wolff: No, we had more mutual aid than we ever had but we only had 5 so it wasn't like that really
drove it up. But we do categorize any kind of outside gas leak or inside gas leak, and with the construction
we're seeing, that's quite frankly half of those calls so where you have somebody doing landscaping work
or even new construction. Someone cuts the gas line. We consider that a hazmat call because of the
approach we have to use with it in terms of evacuation and managing potentially an explosive atmosphere.
Technical rescues, it's kind of a catch bucket. It's for a lot of different kinds of things like ice rescue,
water rescue, high level rescue. Someone trapped in a, we've had people trapped in air conditioning vents.
Some strange things but everything kind of ends up in that bucket. Plus miscellaneous and little, because
the numbers are low there, it's a tough one to predict year in and year out. Weather was down significantly
from the year before. We had 4 weather related call outs. Almost 25 the year prior when we had a lot of
activity, but if you look a few years before that, 4 to 5's pretty typical in terms of what we see where we
get severe weather coming through and they need us for spotting or they're anticipating that we could get a
bad front with some damage, then they'll bring the fire departments in across county to anticipate the
emergency. And then CO alarms are down significantly and that is a consistent trend since '97 when we
saw almost 70 of those. Last year we were about 50. I'm sorry, two years ago we were at 50. This year
we're at 12. We think that's probably a number that's good to use for future projecting and the
equipment's better. We're just getting less false, false positives there so. So in a nutshell, 711 calls.
Down 6.7% from '98. 16 responders per call. I'm actually anticipating that to go down because we were
using a different assignment based on, we have 3 main companies in our fire station here in town and we
assign each company a 10 day slot, versus we used to have everyone respond to all calls. And we started
that about halfway through the year so we're trying to make sure we have the resources necessary to
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
manage the calls we get without having basically unneeded people coming into the calls. Response times. I
didn't have comparative data here, but I'll try to get you some if there's some interest in that. For '99, for
all calls, 5 minutes and 12 seconds which is from the time we get the alarm to the time we arrive on scene.
And for medical emergencies it's 4 minutes and 18 seconds which, I mean that's an important number for
us to manage. Both the medical and the all call and we certainly will continue to monitor that. I just also
took a little time to try to project for 2000. We're anticipating runs to be down 18%. 584 calls. Actually
year to date we're significantly below that. If we annualize the last 3 months, we're going to be at about
360 to 400 calls, but the numbers really do ebb and flow so it's, a statistician would have fun with this
stuff. I'm not one so I'll just try to do my best. But the big driver on projecting the calls for next year in
terms of the reduction is the anticipated, almost 40% reduction in medical calls. And then we just use the
combination of 3 year averaging and recognizing some things that we feel we can predict with some
certainty. Like for example the CO calls. We're not anticipating those to go back up to 60 just because
there's better CO monitors in the homes today. And folks are more used to them so they're not nervous
when they start beeping off for no good reason. So you take some of those factors into play. You look at
the increased population. The increased infrastructure and the increased traffic flows and that's kind of
where we get our numbers from. So in terms of how that impacts payroll, we're probably look at a payroll
budget, potentially being $25,000 to the good. Because we didn't use these factors to budget this year's
payroll so, just as an FYI.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Thank you John. How's the rescue truck? The new rescue truck working
out.
John Wolff: It's working out very, very well. We replaced a 1984 light rescue vehicle, which is used for
our medical response and our car accidents response. And the vehicle was brought in service about 30
days ago and we've got the membership trained on how to use all the equipment. It's got some significant
capabilities that we didn't have in terms of some of the extrication equipment for car accidents. It's a safer
truck to drive on the road. The weight of the truck is built for the frame and we were a little, quite frankly
overweight on the old truck so it rocked and it didn't really have quite the braking capabilities that you
would want for a vehicle like that. It has air bags. It has anti-lock brakes so it's got the safety features
that you're looking for in a vehicle that's going to get 350 plus runs a year. So the memberships quite
pleased with it and it's working out fine.
Mayor Mancino: Good, great. Thank you. Any other questions for John?
Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks John.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Nice to get this report. Haven't gotten that before. That's great.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRANDVIEW ROAD AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 97-11.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dean Skallman
Joyce Bish
8155 Grandview Road
8155 Grandview Road
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Steve Kokesh
Linda Anderson
8201 Grandview Road
8210 Grandview Road
Mayor Mancino: First public hearing is on Grandview Road and it says approve feasibility study,
authorize preparation of plans and specifications for Grandview Road area utility improvement project No.
97-11. We'll have a staff report on this first and then take comments from the public and see if we have
more questions as a council and if we want staff to investigate a few more things. One of the concerns that
I have, and I wanted to make sure that those who are speaking up tonight on this is that, that a majority of
the homeowners are here and can speak to this so that if we don't hear from everyone tonight, that we make
sure that we have a meeting time when everyone can come because I know that there are 5 homeowners and
I think it's important in this area to make sure that all 5 are together and we're talking about this. So
anyway with that, let's go ahead and have a staff report please.
Anita Benson: This is a public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Can everyone hear Anita?
Anita Benson: This is a public hearing for the feasibility study for the Grandview Road area and utility
improvement project. A feasibility study was prepared in 1987 by William Engelhardt and Associates in
response to a petition received by a property owner from the area. The utility improvement didn't proceed
at that time as the property owner elected to dig a new well and there wasn't a majority of support for the
project. Since that time that particular property has been sold and through the sale of the property it was
discovered that the septic system was failing. The current property owners have petitioned for the
improvement project and indicated a preference for Option 1 which was outlined in the feasibility report in
1997. The summary and the conclusions reached in the 1997 report remain the same. What I have done,
I've updated the numbers to reflect current costs and prepared an assessment roll that would reflect those
current costs. Each of the five property owners affected by this project has a copy of the feasibility study
and as this has been gone through in depth before, I won't go through it in detail unless there is specific
questions on alignment. The Larson's I'm aware are unable to attend tonight. They did submit a letter
which was included in your packet, and additionally they have submitted an e-mail which I did hand out to
you at your work session tonight. They are not in favor of the project. And if at the close of the public
hearing there is a majority of support, or there are no further questions or comments and if the council does
proceed with approving the feasibility study, please indicate that it is for Option 1 as was indicated
previously. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions for staff at this point? ...the neighborhood, if you'd like to come
up and address the City Council at this time please. Make your remarks known as to whether you favor the
proposal and why.
Dean Skallman: I'm Dean Skallman. I'm the petitioner. I live at 8155 Grandview Road. I'd like to thank
city staff for being helpful. They answered our questions before we purchased the home and they've been
available and answered our questions as this issue has proceeded. I guess basically we need to get sewer.
Exactly how it occurs, I guess I'm not real opinionated on how it should happen. But we need to get sewer
and I believe that the existing septic system option is not going to work. What we have now fails and we
weren't able to locate a site for another one so. I guess that's about all I've got.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions? At this point. So Dean you did soil borings all over the one acres
that you have?
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Dean Skallman: The borings were performed prior to our purchasing the home and they were performed, I
don't remember who the individual was that did it but they were done for the previous owner.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And do you have a copy of that report?
Dean Skallman: I do not have one, no.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So there is no, so at this time you have nothing from an engineering firm to show
that you can't have, there is not another site. Anita, thank you.
Anita Benson: Mayor, the building inspections department does have a copy of the compliance report and
the soil boring report.
Mayor Mancino: The one that was done previously?
Anita Benson: Correct. The previous property owner had to have those borings done in order to sell the
property.
Mayor Mancino: So previous report is with staff. And is that the report that also says that they would
need to just, the drain field is fine but it's the septic tank that needs to be, they need a new tank. An actual
tank itself?
Anita Benson: I have not reviewed the report myself. However the building official did state, so I don't
know if the report contains that. That replacing the current septic tank, replacing that is an option.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you're aware that the building official for our city has said that the drain field
is fine. It is the septic, the actual cement tank that is the problem and that you can go in and put in a new
septic tank.
Dean Skallman: That was not my understanding. The understanding I had is the drain field did not meet
current code and the septic tank did not meet the current code.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. We will have to get that figured out, thank you. Because I think there's a
misunderstanding or two facts going on right now about that so.
Dean Skallman: If it's just putting in a new tank, I would be more than happy to do that. It would solve
everybody's problem.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Good. That's good to know. Building inspector.
Steve Kokesh: Hi, I'm Steve Kokesh. I live at 8201 Grandview Road and I would just like to say I would
not like to see sewer, water and sewer run down this street, but I do believe it is important that they get
their septic system fix, or I think if it is at all possible and would be cheaper, I think it would be better for
them to be able to connect to a city system instead of having to go through a septic system. I had talked to
some other city managers in other cities and I was told that if there is an easement, that they can do the bore
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
system now and they do not have to dig between the foundations like what previously stated in one of the
other city implements that was sent out. And that is a safe way to do it. It does not jack hammer. It does
not affect the foundations of other buildings. Can be directed better and that's all I have to say. I'm
against. I would like to see it done a different way instead of having to dig up the road, but yet if it is at all
possible or as cheap as putting in a used septic system, it would probably be better to also be able to hook
up to city sewer.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Steve Kokesh: That's all I have to say.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Steve. So we have two options right now from what I'm hearing from Mr.
Kokesh is directional boring. And I'm assuming you're saying from Sinnen Circle? Or wherever that
would, wherever they could take it from.
Steve Kokesh: I don't know exactly where it runs through at. I know they can bore up to 1,000 feet.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay. And obviously just being able to replace a septic tank would be the best.
That would solve a lot of things. Anyone else from the neighborhood?
Linda Anderson: Hi. I'm Linda Anderson. I live at 8210 Grandview. Just wanted to add that I am also
opposed to the project. I did send an e-mail earlier because we weren't able to attend the previous meeting
but I am able to attend this one. We very much would like to see Dean and Joyce solve the septic problem.
We understand that it is a difficult issue for them. We don't want to see an entire utility project put on all
the rest of us to do that. I think there's got to be an easier way to do it. And as Steve said, to do a sewer
line down to Sinnen Circle I guess it is or to replace the septic system would be much more preferable for
all of us. And as for the rest of us, you know we have other options for getting sewer stubs from the
Villages on the Pond side. It's just there are options for I think all of us to be able to get sewer and water
service eventually if we need it without having to run a separate line through Grandview Road. So that's
all I have to say, thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you and thank you for your e-mail. Anyone else wishing to address the council on
this? Okay, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to Council. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Sounds like we should just move to table this on the basis that when we find out, or
clarify the issue on the drain field because I also understood it, the drain field was fine. If that's the case,
the tank can just be replaced. And if that is found not to be the case, or I should say, if that's found to be
the case, then it sounds like the property owner already said that's the preferable option.
Mayor Mancino: And if it isn't?
Councilman Senn: If that's found not to be the case, then I would look at an item 2 or a condition
effectively to obtain a cost of boring a line from the residence down to Sinnen Circle and come back with
that information to the council so we have effectively all the property information in front of us. That's a
motion I guess.
Mayor Mancino: That's a motion? Anybody else want to add their comments because I'm not sure we
need to take any more time on this? Is there a second to the motion?
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council table action on the
Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement Project No. 97-11. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: So let's find out those two things. Those two options and if you could work with city
staff on that, to do that. Appreciate it. And then it will come back to the City Council and everyone will be
notified about the meeting when it comes back and we can find out what the options are and if they work or
not. So we'll all get back together and get to discuss this another time. And hopefully it will be so that
everybody's in town and can make the meeting from the neighborhood.
Councilman Senn: Could I offer one correction to that? If they find out the tank can be replaced, then it
won't come back?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's fine. I think everybody's in agreement on that.
Councilman Senn: So we're fine then?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. So everybody heard that, Linda and Steve? That if they can replace the tank, it
doesn't need to come back because the Skallman's will replace the tank. If that doesn't work though, then
come back and we'll have also a cost on directional boring too. Okay, thank you. You know this may
come back and keep coming back to us and we'll get it right you know. We just keep dealing with
Grandview Road so, we'd kind of miss you if you didn't come back every couple years.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE LAYOUT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TH 41
AND TH 7 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS~ PW67D-4.
Anita Benson: The City of Shorewood has entered into a cooperative agreement with Minnesota
Department of Transportation to construct roadway improvements in the area of Trunk Highway 7 and
Trunk Highway 41 intersection. We have with us tonight Mr. Jeff Stewart with WSB and Associates. A
new face at this time. Chuck couldn't make it this time and he's going to give a presentation on the project.
Mayor Mancino: Great. For anyone who lives in the northern part of Chanhassen, this is Highway 7 and
the 41 intersection that goes into 41 Crossing. That area and Driskalls and etc. So I'm sure that we have
some people that live off of Highway 7 that go this way all the time here in attendance so, just thought I'd
prep everyone to that.
Jeff Stewart: Right. The majority of the project here is actually on Trunk Highway 41. MnDot is
planning on doing some improvements along Highway 7 at a different time. A different time than what this
project is being involved with. Again my name is Jeff Stewart. I'm with WSB and Associates and we were
retained by the City of Shorewood to design this project and I believe Chuck Richter has been here to
present this project once before. There has been some modifications to the layout since it was probably
presented this last time. I'm not sure exactly what the council has seen. The basic change from the layout
that was presented before was to add protected left turn lane from northbound Trunk Highway 41 to
westbound Trunk Highway 7. And we also added some protective left turn lanes going into the shopping
center, the 7 and 41 Crossing. There's also a protected left turn lane at Chaska Road. In addition to that
10
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
we also added a right mm lane from northbound 41 into the school entrance and there's a left hand, left
mm lane added going southbound on Trunk Highway 41 also to that school. That's not a protected left
turn lane. What I mean by that is a raised median to protect a car that is in that turn lane.
Mayor Mancino: So that just means it's striped with paint?
Jeff Stewart: Yes, it's just striped with paint. And you can see on the layout here, we've actually colorized
the median and in that area that there is just a striped left mm lane. It's just shown as the chevron.
Councilman Senn: Isn't that the same as what's there now?
Jeff Stewart: Basically there's more width to the roadway. We've added.
Councilman Senn: But I mean the left turn lane is there now. You're not adding one.
Jeff Stewart: Right.
Councilman Senn: There's also a right turn lane into the school so you're not adding one.
Jeff Stewart: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Jeff Stewart: There is however more width on the roadway so that the thru lane is continued through that
intersection. There's actually, we added enough width to add a left turn going northbound on 41 to the
home located on the west side there. Just across from the school entrance.
Mayor Mancino: To the Gowen's property. There's a left turn lane now into where everybody goes and
buys hostas and perennials.
Jeff Stewart: So basically the roadway was widened to the east about the width of one turn lane on that
whole stretch through. Through this, to the intersection of Trunk Highway 7.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions from council members at this point for Jeff?
Councilman Labatt: Why not just, between Chaska Road and the school, why not make that a raised
median?
Jeff Stewart: It basically had to do with geometrics. Trying to match the existing roadway. Right now
you have basically a four lane roadway at the intersection of Trunk Highway 7 and as you go further to the
south, it narrows up to a two lane road. And when we put together this layout, to put a raised median there
at this time when there could be some possible future improvements to Trunk Highway 41 to the south,
that's when that would be taken care of. But right now we have to narrow up to the two lanes and that's
why it was used as a striped median. This whole layout here was developed and looked at by the MnDot
Department of Transportation and they go through their layout review process and this is what the layout
that they formulated. That was formulated and approved by them.
Councilman Labatt: So if there's future work done on 41, it's going to occur south of the park entrance?
11
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Jeff Stewart: Yes. Yes.
Councilman Labatt: So why would you then go back roughly half a mile or so and put a median up there?
Then why not do it now?
Jeff Stewart: Well, this project here was developed to improve the turning movements at Highway 7 and so
basically we reconfigured the intersection for Trunk Highway 7 and what we're doing going further to the
south is just trying to match into what was there existing. So the actual project is the improvement to the
intersection at Trunk Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 41.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions? Jeff, if you could kind of still stick around on the side in case
anyone from the public has a question. I'll direct them to you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to
address the council, or you have any questions on these improvements on 7 or 41 ? None of you are here
for that? Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: I guessed the pole myself.
Mayor Mancino: Any comments from council members?
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn is the only one that's old enough that has a
middle schooler at the middle school here so.
Councilman Senn: If you go by age I hate to admit this but I'm way too old for a middle schooler. I would
like to see a study be done as far as signalization goes at the school entrance there. I think what's been
designed here is going to create a very unsafe condition. Right now it's, with the situation that's there it's
very difficult to safely turn in and out of that school. Especially during certain times of the day because
any time traffic stacks up in the southbound, left turn lane, you lose all visibility to traffic effectively going
south in the area beyond that. This plan effectively widens the road width. Leaves everything pretty much
the same situation and makes it effectively easier for the traffic to go through that intersection at higher
speeds unimpeded. So I'd like to see a study or warrant study or whatever is required done for
signalization there. I just can't imagine that if a signal was required at Clear Springs Elementary School
over on 101, which was installed that would not meet the requirements here. Secondly I would like to look
at the issue of reducing the speed. Right now it's a pure 50 mph speed limit right up to that intersection at
7 and 41 which I think is ridiculous, especially once you get into this area where you've got a school, a lot
of turn offs for residential and commercial areas, etc. That speed should effectively be reduced probably
back around that neighborhood entrance even to the south of the school for traffic coming north and also
reduce coming off of 7 going south til you get past all that more to the open area. The other reason why I
think it's really unsafe is right at the point of the school entrances where under this new design you're now
putting in two lanes of unrestricted traffic going north with a right turn lane in addition to that. So now
you're also even making it easier, faster and I mean you've got a lot, in my mind a lot of conflicting traffic
movements right at that first, right at that place. A person who's trying to get in or out of the school, not
only has to deal with cars stacked up in the left turn lane and not being able to see cars coming beyond that,
but looking to the left. You now have at that exact point one lane expanded to two lanes and a right turn
lane so you have three lanes of traffic to watch coming at you from the south.
12
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, you have one turning into you. You have one turning over to Gowen's and then
you have one going straight.
Councilman Senn: My understanding of what I saw in the plans is you have two going straight.
Mayor Mancino: No. No, you just have one.
Councilman Senn: Not, if you'll refer, unless they've changed it but if you refer to.
Mayor Mancino: I'm looking at the colored ones in front of me.
Councilman Senn: Okay. If you go to, I'm going off of this right here.
Mayor Mancino: By this one. Right at where the school crossing is.
Councilman Senn: Off this one here?
Mayor Mancino: Right where the school is just to the south there as you're approaching the school
intersection. You're going north from Lake Lucy Road.
Councilman Senn: Okay, that's changed from the other one then. I'm sorry, I didn't look at this one. The
other one had two 3.6 lanes going through traffic. But still you have 3 lanes of traffic effectively
broadening out and coming at you at that exact point you know, that you're also hitting that intersection,
which again to me is just like I say a real conflict. So I think all of those things should be considered in
relationship to a stop light there even if it's a stop light that functions during peak periods or whatever.
Might be a consideration too. Because the primary problem there is just you know probably in a couple
hour spans in the morning and a couple hour spans in the afternoon. But I really think that would need to
be addressed and should be addressed at this time as long as it's an active or ongoing MnDot project that's
going to, in my mind, increase the problem.
Mayor Mancino: We can make a recommendation that they investigate both of those. Either the reduced
speed and the traffic study. The light study.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I guess I'd, I mean I'm just saying personally before I vote for it I'd like the
answers to that versus just a recommendation if they do it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: I would support both of those studies being done. I'm not sure how much we hold
up this project. Would it be part of this project? Is that what we're suggesting as far as the signal being
added or is that separate?
Mayor Mancino: Well for me, I feel a little differently than Councilman Senn. I will go ahead with the
project as it is because I think it's better but I do think that MnDot should investigate one, the light. And
two, the reduction of speeds as you turn south off of 7. That they should look at that for safety concerns
that we have in addition to, but yes. I think that this new layout is a lot better than what it is so I would go
along with it as long as they do the due diligence and investigate personally.
13
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, I agree.
Councilman Senn: But I am disagreeing with that because I really think that it's adding problems or
creating a more unsafe condition rather than the existing condition.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I like it. The only two concerns I had were the.., of the speed to the southern
portion of the school property and adding a signal light. Or at least investigating it and telling us why we
didn't meet them.
Councilman Labatt: ...those same conditions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I please have a motion? Then I'll make the motion that, go ahead.
Councilwoman Jansen: Go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: I'll make the motion that we approve the plans and specifications that we have in front of
us for Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 7 intersection improvements, SP 1008-58, PW-067D-4. We
approve the plans as is. We would also like to have MnDot investigate number one, do a study on whether
a light is warranted at the, where the middle school comes out into 41. And also on 41, between Highway
and let's say the middle school, that there is a reduction in speed there. That it is not the 50 mph but it is
less than and we'd take MnDot's recommendation on that.
Councilman Senn: You should go to the intersection south of the school. Not at the school entrance.
Councilman Labatt: I just want to make one more point here. For the driveway.
Mayor Mancino: Are you adding a friendly amendment?
Councilman Labatt: Well sort of a friendly discussion point maybe.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: To get back to my original point on the lack of a median. For this residence that's
north of the Gowen's. What's to prevent them from turning left from this one thru lane and backing up
traffic to get into their driveway without this being a median? That could create a problem there .... yeah,
to this driveway here.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, you're saying the people who have to turn left and go here?
Councilman Labatt: Turn left here or go, cut across here from going northbound to turn in there. That's
only one lane there.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, they have to cut across three things of traffic now.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. So without a median there, it's going to happen. If we can put a median there,
it's going to make it safer.
14
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino: But we want them to be able to go left into their driveway.
Councilman Labatt: But then they're going to stop here and with only one lane of traffic.
Mayor Mancino: But they go in and out so frequently.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, well. Maybe we could add one more point of looking at a median there from
Chaska Road to the school instead of painted lines and making it a median. That could be a friendly
amendment.
Mayor Mancino: I don't accept it.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So can I have a second to my motion, if anybody wants to second my motion.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution/t2000-15: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the layout and
plans and specifications for the Trunk Highway 41/Trunk Highway 7 Intersection Improvements,
S.P. 1008-58, PW-067D-4 subject to the following conditions:
1. Asking MnDot to investigate if a stop light is warranted at the intersection of Trunk Highway 41
and the entrance to Minnetonka Middle School West.
2. Ask MnDot to investigate about reducing the speed limit on Trunk Highway 41 from Highway 7 to
the entrance of Minnetonka Middle School West.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING~ 105
FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR US WEST
WIRELESS TO BE LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Garrett Lysiak
David Fischer
Steve Mangold
John Beattie
Deb Reiff
John Landon
Mary & Robert Blue
Pete Keller
Owl Engineering
426 No. Fairview #101, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview #101, St. Paul
1509 Fifth Street 1800
6750 Country Oaks Road
6780 Country Oaks Road
6770 Country Oaks Road
6760 Country Oaks Road
15
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mike & Jennifer Dalton
Pat Yantes
4153 Hallgren Lane
4156 Hallgren Lane
Kate Aanenson: This item has a lengthy history.
Mayor Mancino: It keeps cropping up.
Kate Aanenson: The council reviewed this item on January l0th and voted to deny that. At their January
24th meeting they voted to reconsider and asked for some additional information. Owl Engineering was
hired to complete a coverage study for US West and that has been included in your packet. Based on the
information, staff reviewed with Owl Engineering and the applicant, we felt that they did meet the intent of
the ordinance. Though a variance will still be required based on possible interpretation of the architectural
feature and staff has looked at, based on some comments from the neighbors. The original site of the pole
was closer to the church. It's the staffs opinion that maybe putting it into the trees might add additional
screening based again based on some of the comments we've heard from the neighbors. With that a
variance may be required for additional feet based on topography. So the ordinance does allow the 80 with
a co-location and 25 for 105 feet so what staff is recommending is that we stay between 105 and 110 feet.
Again we'd ask them to demonstrate exactly what they need just to make sure. The other thing that we
would recommend is that if it be placed in the trees, that the structure also be landscaped and screened.
The structure that goes with it. So we would also recommend on item number 4 that instead of being
white, that it be colored similar to the water tower that we've got out on 41 and I believe that color's
specifically called out. So we would use that blue application also. So the staff is recommending approval
of the conditional use and the variance, but if I could just read the original language again. We put the
original motion states a cross design. At this point I think maybe a monopole if you put it in the trees
would be less obtrusive and that's what we would recommend. And again the site plan would be amended
as shown, or represented here tonight to push it towards the trees further into the property. Again staying
outside of the front setback. And again allowing to the height of between 105 and 110 based on the
engineer's study. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions and there is a representative from Owl
Engineering here to answer your questions.
Mayor Mancino: Oh good. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay, is the
representative from Owl here? The colors are great. What do they mean?
Garrett Lysiak: I'm Gary Lysiak from Owl Engineering and I also represent your neighboring city of
Shorewood. And what I tried to do here, to give you a brief explanation so you don't go fuzzy on me. I
tried to keep the colors down so we could study it in some kind of sequence so what I did was, Figure 1 I
basically looked at the present coverage of the PCS system as it is right now and as you can see there is a
projected lack of good coverage right in the center there. I then, what I then did was I, Figure 2, I simply
added the 105 foot antenna that US West is proposing into the equation. And in discussions with US West
I took particular attention to look at, there's a bend in Highway 7 right in this area here. That's one of their
areas of difficulty. They took site measurements and that bend of the highway is a pretty good loss of
signal so they want that bend to be taken care of with some good signal because this is a vehicle service.
Figure 3, what I did was I removed the US West proposal and I simply inserted a 40 foot monopole at the
fire station. So that's the three figures and what I'm going to try to show is, when you get all done looking
at this, is the area of the, you look at that Figure 3. The area in the bend in Highway 7 doesn't have a very
strong signal there and that's one of the main areas of concern. I also looked at reducing the tower height
of the proposal down to 40 feet and that showed that at 40 feet it just didn't give their adequate coverage to
the US West system. The trouble with 40 feet, just to let you from more insight. This particular radio
16
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
system that they're using is very high frequency and is very, very affected by foliage and topography. So
the difference between 40 feet and 100 feet is usually, and in cities like Chanhassen, pretty dramatic
because you have trees that are 60 to 80 feet tall in the area. For example Shorewood had the same
problem when we did a study there. Some of the trees were just, when we actually did on site
measurements attenuate the signal so poorly that it almost made the site ineffective. And looking at 40 feet
really doesn't make the system work very well with all the data that I have.
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Go back to Figure 1. And then 252 and then 129. How tall are those towers?
Garrett Lysiak: MN 252 is 190 feet. Andthen 129 is 118 feet.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And is, I mean is the fact that one of those towers is sized the way that it is
what's causing the gap and more or less I'm assuming the 190 foot one is not, except let's see. I'm
guessing as you go west the topography's dropping, right?
Garrett Lysiak: I believe it does, yeah.
Councilman Senn: But you've got the 118 footer to the east, right? By increasing the height on that 118
footer, or 190 footer or whatever, can you take up the void that's there now in the service area?
Garrett Lysiak: Let me explain one thing. There's not a void there. It's a poor, it's predicted to be poor
coverage and the trouble with the system is, when you look at it, you've got to be careful. You cannot
microscopically look at one site and say, lift this up by 50 feet and will that improve? It might improve the
signal but the trouble is you have to look at probably 3 or 4 surrounding existing sites because these sites
can interfere with each other so you can't go too high because as you go higher up you can cause a problem
with a site that might be a mile or two away. Cause interference to it so you have to look at the whole
system and that;s where the balance comes in.
Councilman Senn: But to me that answer that you just gave though says because we design a poorly laid
out system in the first place, we simply exacerbate the problem and solve it by having more towers rather
than fixing the design on the initial part of the system.
Garrett Lysiak: That could be an observation. However.
Councilman Senn: Well tell me what's wrong with it.
Garrett Lysiak: Here's the problem. The problem is that in my analysis I always get involved back end
of the horse and typically when you do these systems they're designed, they build them outwards and what
happens is, they might design a system where they put a site 2 miles away and they raise a tower up and
then that's good enough coverage for the traffic flow or whatever that's in that area at that time. Then
what happens, as the system gets more mature, as the ridership so to speak goes up, they have no other
choice but to either add another site somewhere to increase the capacity because they cannot just raise
towers up. See when cellular radio first came out in like the 80's, as you know they tried to pick very high
sites. They tried 300-400 foot towers. Like Burnsville. I represent Burnsville and that Burnsville water
17
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
tower on 35 was a gold mine because it happened to pass through a large area. Nice and tall. It had a
good look at the horizon. As you go further west and east the towers were high, and then as the system
matured, the towers started getting lower and lower because of the interference issue from one site to
another. These sites work in concert together. They do not work independently. They go even as far as to
shake their antennas according to what they're trying to achieve. Like down a highway they might put an
antenna that just serves the highway because that's where they want the signal to go. And it's not that they
designed it this way on purpose. It's when they built it they built it to get the most amount of coverage on
the system they could initially because they were under a time stretch with the FCC to get X amount of
percentage of the system covered. And then as they get more people on the system, they have a dilemma on
their hands where they've got to come back and say well we need another tower. Or two. And you are,
just happen to be in the zone where we're putting in fill in sites and that's the problem. To get more
capacity and you get better service, they have to put more sites in.
Mayor Mancino: So we need to tell everybody to get off their cell phones, then we won't have so many
towers.
Councilman Senn: Or you need to redesign the system.
Mayor Mancino: Or yes, new technology for the system.
Garrett Lysiak: And that's happening. As you notice the sites are getting smaller because they have to
put more sites to get more capacity. They have no, at this point they're not looking to get more range.
They have the coverage typically. What they're doing in now is putting in more cell sites to get more
capacity to cover you know more people that are using it because a lot more people are getting on the
system and it's not an issue of can they go higher. Because if they go higher, that just exacerbates the
problem of interfering with another site that might be two miles down the road that isn't in our discussion
so it's difficult for me because I have to look at a singular site but I usually look at the whole semi circle
around the site because that's how complicated it gets. And all these sites work together.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but I mean, you know the fundamental or call it the fundamental
or fundamental, philosophical problem with that is everything else we all do is 180 degrees from that. We
try to get everybody to bury power lines so we don't have all these ugly power poles sticking around.
We've legislated billboards out of existence. We tried to get...
Mayor Mancino: Except for St. Paul.
Councilman Senn: ... radio antennas that we can and now here you guys coming in and whop, it's just
tower after tower through every area in town and it's exactly contrary to everything we've been working to
do for many, many years.
Garrett Lysiak: You can also blame the federal government for that.
Councilman Senn: Well I won't buy that. The federal government's enabling you to do it. But you can't
blame it on the federal government. You guys are the ones doing it. To meet a customer need and also
living off an existing system that you've designed. The federal government is not legislating where these
towers go.
Mayor Mancino: Remember he's working for us, not US West. Well don't shoot the messenger.
18
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Senn: ... but I'm talking about an industry that just effectively is ignoring everything that
we've been doing.
Mayor Mancino: We'll get the US West person up here and Gary we'll let you leave.
Garrett Lysiak: ... you see and not that I have to defend US West. They're not my provider. Mine's
AT&T so, honestly. I've seen systems that are like 2-3 years down the road and I've got to say one thing.
What I've seen is, antennas that are on houses now and if you have the capacity. I live in Shoreview where
we have these really short towers.
Mayor Mancino: You know the tower capital of.
Garrett Lysiak: Yeah I know, and so when I try to put a 100 foot antenna in my back yard, it's kind of
hard for the City Council to say we don't allow towers in this city, which is kind of ironic. But what's
going to happen is, if you look at a crystal ball for a minute, that I think is going to happen, as I see it
happening is the towers are getting down to a point where when, if US West has it's way, you have little
cells all over the place on existing light poles and on people's homes because they're trying to sell you,
they're trying to wean you from a wire phone to a wireless phone and that's where they're going. They
have systems now that are working in bigger cities where they have the population where they're not
putting up towers. I'm doing towers now that are honestly, the average height of my towers I'm looking at
now are 60 to 80 feet. So when you start getting 100 foot, that's at the edge right now. Most of these
people are designing smaller towers because like you said, they're doing fill in sites but you're right. This
is a technology. Here's where it is and when I look at it, I'm trying to make it work with 40 foot towers
and the numbers come back saying it doesn't work at this point. Now 3 years down the road it might work.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much.
Councilwoman Jansen: Oh, I'm sorry. Were you through? I thought you were still going to number 4.
Did we do the 40 foot? At the church site. I guess my question.
Garrett Lysiak: Oh I'm sorry, okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: That's where my question was. On the bend that you were referring to on
Highway 7 where the system is inadequate. Of the received power remote or the colors that are on your
chart, what level is considered adequate?
Garrett Lysiak: See their problem is their degradation of colors is, and our signal strength is they like to
have in vehicle coverage and I would say that is, it's really the outer blue is not good. I'd say the red.
Green, sorry. The green is in the in band. The in vehicle desired coverage. The green. They'll take, you
know they'd like to have the green coverage in that vehicle area. Because if you look at Figure 2, you see
that bend is covered in green. When you look at 4, it's not so much the green but when you compare them
it's the red that goes below.
Councilwoman Jansen: By one box. It's just a small difference, correct?
Garrett Lysiak: It looks like a small difference but the trouble comes in when you look at this model and
it's an area, it's not just a one color. It's a pretty large difference in signal strength. That little red there
19
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
between those two sites is significant enough for US West to give them a problem. That's lack of coverage
or poorer coverage. When you look at Figure 2, the little red is right on the bottom there. When you look
at the other one, the red is a little different. And also another thing, excuse me. A little better, look at
Figure 4 and look at the diameter of the coverage area versus number 2. It's significantly larger area. It
goes much further to the north.
Councilwoman Jansen: You know I actually was trying to overlay them so I did draw it on here and it just,
it seems so minor. If my understanding was, as you started out your presentation was that we were trying
to take care of Highway 7 was the intention. I did note that it did expand considerably to the south going to
the 105 foot but we've got another site that's going onto the water tower to the south that will cover that.
Garrett Lysiak: I'm also looking to the north. I'm looking full area.
Mayor Mancino: It expands to the north too.
Garrett Lysiak: See it expands pretty much to the north. If you look at where the water is, it goes at one
point it goes in and you get to that little peninsula there. Then the other one it goes quite a bit further. It's,
that's a pretty big area in coverage.
Councilwoman Jansen: Do we know where the next tower is up in that quadrant then? I know our water
tower isn't configured on here to the south. Is there another tower to the north that's as close as our water
tower has indicated on here?
Garrett Lysiak: You'd have to ask US West. I'm not sure where the next.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Garrett Lysiak: Here's another problem.
Councilwoman Jansen: See what I mean?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but the thing I don't get is, if by going with Figure 3, which is the smaller tower
at the fire station, I mean it looks like you're almost, I mean if your real issue is Highway 7, it looks like
you're accomplishing the same thing.
Mayor Mancino: They're real close. I mean the difference is inconsequential.
Garrett Lysiak: From 2 to 3? It's pretty significant.
Councilman Senn: On Highway 7?
Garrett Lysiak: Highway 7 is a road that goes in that bend right there, correct?
Mayor Mancino: But you're talking about the whole area. You're not just talking about Highway 7 are
you?
Garrett Lysiak: Yeah, I'm looking at the whole area but also looking at Highway 7 there.
20
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino: But I think they're, but the purpose is trying to cover, well I'm asking this. The purpose
is trying to cover the whole area, not just Highway 7.
Garrett Lysiak: Right.
Mayor Mancino: Because you're just going to need more poles to fill in so.
Councilwoman Jansen: But if there's a tower.
Councilman Senn: If there's a tower to the north and the south, that's what I don't get. I mean essentially
if you're, and I thought he said you were trying to beef up the corridor along 7 because the amount of
activity on it, well. I mean then why, I mean again I don't see the big difference between what is
accomplished by the shorter poles at the fire station and the other one as it relates to Highway 7.
Garrett Lysiak: It's not just 7. It's the whole total area you're trying to cover ..... Highway 7 is a
particular problem area that this resolves. And you go less in there than what they want, it poses a
problem. If you look at, simply look at Figure 2 and look how far the outer blue goes, it goes up to the
north. Up to that small peninsula at the end of the road. If we put it at the fire station, you know.
Councilman Senn: And it's narrower. Or am I missing something?
Councilwoman Jansen: The next tower to the north is actually closer than our water tower is to the south
as far as having been able to make up the lower. There's one in Spring Park that's right like here.
Mayor Mancino: Well Gary what we just need to hear from you is, there's a gap here.
Councilman Senn: Gary, could you come up here. I've got to show you this. I know it's hard to go back
and forth here. But ifI go to Figure 2, which is the US West proposal okay. Okay and here's Highway 7
right here, right?
Garrett Lysiak: It's over here. That's the bend we're looking at. That area.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but you're all red and green there.
Garrett Lysiak: Yeah, but it's the green that's the important part. Here, that's...this green goes right
away.
Councilman Senn: But red's still an acceptable limitation?
Garrett Lysiak: This is what they're trying to get right here. This area here between these two sites.
Councilman Senn: But to get that they're broadening this area for coverage. See here it's narrower.
Garrett Lysiak: Oh, oh okay. I see what you're saying.
Councilman Senn: See I mean here you've got a wider, here you're creating a broader area of bad
coverage by putting it out here. By putting it into the fire station you're narrowing this down almost to
nothing and still keeping that, maybe not in the high limit but in an acceptable limit.
21
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Garrett Lysiak: I see what you're saying.
Councilman Senn: So why wouldn't you do that?
Garrett Lysiak: Because the level they're trying to do also goes to that next signal down... These two are
together. These are working together. They're trying to get to operate as one. That's where they're trying
to get transition. What they're saying on the other part of 7 is, this part is an acceptable signal for their
system to get more.., bend in the road requires more of a signal because of how the road is laid out.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand, but the words you're using is more acceptable. Yet what we're
supposed to be dealing with in relationship to siting these towers is where is there effectively a void in
coverage or you know can't be achieved any other way and essentially if you look at Figure 2 here, you're
creating a larger void of bad coverage to the east and yes, you're picking up a little better coverage on that
curve on 7 because you've got some green there versus on Figure 3, I mean you're all in red which is
supposedly an acceptable level on that curve and you've cut the area to the east and bad coverage down to
about half of what it was before. Now you know it seems to me there's some subjectivity involved rather
than objectivity and if it's subjectivity we're going to rely on, why don't we put it where we'd rather have
it, at the fire station with a shorter tower. And they still have the coverage.
Garrett Lysiak: The problem is, is that, the problem is that. Is that their proposal is meant to cover that
particular side of Highway 7 as they told me. Okay. If you try to put the, at the fire station it moves that
whole desired path or signal coverage away from where they're trying to cover. They've identified the
problem area, I didn't. Okay, they're identifying the problem area on that particular stretch of the road and
they were very emphatic and took a lot of measurements in the field to back that up. What I'm saying is by
us moving it to the fire station, doesn't allow them to have the signal performance that they are requesting.
They're saying this is what they need to make their system work. I can't argue that. I'm going by what the
signal levels are. What they show. What I show. And what I'm saying is that I basically looked at all
their input and said, if they're trying to cover that part of Highway 7 because of a geographic problem, that
site, Minnesota 286 covers it. If you move it over to the fire station, it doesn't do what they're trying to
achieve.
Councilman Senn: Well again, and I don't want to get into a semantics or a game but we're not supposed
to worry about what they're trying to achieve. We're supposed to worry about what is required. We're
supposed to worry about proof. They are supposed to prove to us that they cannot get adequate coverage
any other way.
Mayor Mancino: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Legally what is it that.
Councilman Senn: Well, that's as I understood the explanation.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, I said just one second. Legally at what point, what kind of service do we have to
make sure that they have or say yes to?
Tom Scott: Adequate coverage.
Mayor Mancino: And how is adequate coverage defined?
22
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Tom Scott: You know I think many people have debated for a number of years exactly what that means.
Councilman Senn: I'm falling back to our consultant. He just said that the red zone was adequate
coverage.
Tom Scott: Well what I'm hearing our consultant say is that he's assuming what, he's taking as a standard
what the applicant is saying they need for a particular area. And then he's determining whether or not the
towers in certain locations meet the standard that they say they need for a particular area. Isn't that
correct?
Garrett Lysiak: That is correct.
Tom Scott: He hasn't looked at whether or not their standards that they say they need is really something
that we have to provide them. And I think if you want to look at that issue, we're going to probably need to
look at it, we're going to be here a long time yeah. I don't know if we can answer that one here tonight
because he hasn't even looked at that issue.
Councilman Senn: Well but again is it his responsibility, is it our responsibility to look at that or is it US
West's responsibility to come in and prove to us that they have to have that because if, and Tom I'm just
going by what Roger's told us previously okay. And my understanding was that they kind of need to prove
that they can achieve adequate coverage any other way. And if I look at Figure 3 here and I overlay Figure
2 to it in the best way I can in this format, there are such minor differences. In fact, one way it's a minor
difference this way and the other way it's a major better this way. It seems to me nobody's proved to me
that this is something that's needed. Okay, over and above the smaller tower at the fire station to obtain
adequate coverage and nobody's proved to me to the contrary which means why should we do it?
Tom Scott: I agree with you Councilmember Senn that they have to establish the need.
Councilman Senn: Then let's ask them to do that. Can we ask them to do that?
Tom Scott: Absolutely. I guess our consultant again is I guess looking at what they said their need is and
assuming that's correct and then saying this doesn't do it, but yeah. They have to establish that they need
this particular coverage and what they have isn't adequate.
Councilman Senn: I want to compliment our consultant. I mean this is the best picture we've ever had of
this and it's his picture. Okay. I my mind it's making this very clear now, which is this is a bunch of bull.
I mean adequate.
Mayor Mancino: Are we posturing here?
Councilman Senn: No I'm not. Adequate coverage can be very easily achieved by what he's put together
on Figure 3, which is a smaller tower at the fire station. Which means what are we fighting about?
Tom Scott: Well I don't know if he's actually said that, from reading his report.
Councilman Senn: Well look at his colors. I mean all I can do is interpret the colors.
Mayor Mancino: Gary, not to put.
23
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Tom Scott: Again, he can speak for himself...
Mayor Mancino: Gary, not to put words into your mouth...
Garrett Lysiak: ... complex problem to put into some very simple pictures. It's very, very difficult and
what I tried to do in every other city I've examined. Let me give you a model of how I do it so you
understand what I'm starting with. I use a model of looking at the proposal as the provider it gives me.
And I model that proposal based on the parameters he provides us. Then I use standard engineering models
to show coverage and then I play around with them, like you saw as I did. Now the problem with
computers is, if you diddle enough around with them you can make them say anything you want. You can
vary parameters and make them change colors. What I try to do is establish a very rigid model that says
here's how I'm examining it and then I can change things to keep everything consistent. And what you
perceive as a very minor change is not very minor. There's degradation of 5 of these units is pretty
significant. So the problem I have is when I start out and I look at what US West proposes, I first establish
what they're trying to achieve. That's number one. Then I look at all the other options and I say, does it
achieve the same thing? And when I look at all four of these pictures, I can say that moving it to the fire
station at 40 feet will not give their system adequate coverage. And that's not lightly because when you go
to 40 feet, a lot of the things that these computer models can't do, because there's no way to do it, is to look
at, like I said, trees and foliage. That's a variable. You can take a measurement on the system in the
middle of the winter and there's no foliage up. It's blank. And you put the trees up in the spring and
summer, it changes the whole picture around. So if you start out at 100 feet and you analysis the system
and it appears to work, and you drop it down to 40, you really have trouble in trying to compute what trees
do because there's no database for trees. So you have to put some kind of numerical value for the type of
area you're going in. So that's why it's very difficult to come up with an exact, move it here. Move it
there. The only thing I can say is if you move it down 40 feet, between 140 feet, you'd probably need 4
more sites to do the same amount of coverage. Area wise. And that's the problem. It looks like it's, the
area is much bigger when you have 100 feet versus 40 feet. The total area in one of those coverage maps
and that's the problem. It's very, very difficult to come up with a picture that's pretty clear.
Councilman Senn: But that's not what this says.
Mayor Mancino: Well yeah, I think we need a little more explanation on one, what is adequate and
defining that. And number two, where do the other poles that are south and north of it, how do they come
into play in this whole? How do they come into play and to show us that would be extremely helpful.
Garrett Lysiak: There are two other sites there. There's one labeled Minnesota 204. It's down in the
bottom. But that doesn't come into this, you know the coverage doesn't come up as far as this fire station.
Mayor Mancino: But that's so far away.
Councilman Senn: But that isn't even cranked in here. AS long as it would get through that violet or
whatever area you're calling it in the outer perimeter, I mean you've got good coverage if red's an
acceptable level of coverage. And if you take the other red parameters around this entire thing, the
difference between Site 2 and, or I mean Option 2 and Option 3 along Highway 7 is the exact same point
according to these drawings.
24
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Garrett Lysiak: But what they look at, look on Figure 1. Look at Minnesota 252 and look at the size of
that area. Then look at the same area on 129. That's a much bigger area.
Councilman Senn: You lost me after 129.
Garrett Lysiak: Yeah, 129 is it northeast.
Councilman Senn: Oh okay, so you're saying on the same one?
Garrett Lysiak: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Yeah I understand. But one's a 190 foot tower and one's a 118 foot tower.
Garrett Lysiak: Right. And that's a pretty significant difference. Drop it down to 40 feet and that.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but when we're quibbling over maybe height at the fire
department site rather than putting it down here close to the neighborhood. I mean you can't do 40 feet at
the fire department, we can get by with 60 or something. That's better than 105 feet over close to the
neighborhood. I mean.
Mayor Mancino: Did you look at the fire station and doing it any taller? The 60 or the 80.
Garrett Lysiak: We looked at 40 feet.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, you didn't look at a 60 or 80 foot pole?
Garrett Lysiak: We just looked at the 40. I was told to look at a 40 foot pole at both the proposed site at
the fire station to see what the difference would be if they would fit, and neither of them, neither of them
worked.
Mayor Mancino: So I think it would be worth it to look at the fire station at an 80 foot pole. A 60 and an
80.
Garrett Lysiak: My guess would be, if I looked at them, just looking at the way the plots are, I would say
if you put like an 80 foot, it still wouldn't get to that desired US West coverage.
Scott Botcher: Do you at some point, and I'm sort of asking Tom this question. You're supposed to make
your decision based upon what's in the written record. That's federal law. And case law has supported
that. I'm just cutting to the chase here. US West would obviously make the case that what is in the written
record to date would in their estimation support the position of being, of the existence of an adequate
coverage currently and the requirement of the 105 foot tower now in order to have adequacy of coverage.
In order for us to really go down the road that I think Mark primarily was talking about, we would need to
provide documentation in the written record supporting the position of existing adequacy or adequacy at a
smaller height to cut to the chase. Is that correct?
Tom Scott: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Or at a different location.
25
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: Or at a different location. And we currently don't have that in the written record.
Tom Scott: That's correct. Currently we do not.
Scott Botcher: Okay. Does everyone understand what we've got to do? I mean we can talk in circles all
we want but.
Mayor Mancino: I'm understanding the motion.
Scott Botcher: But that's what, that's the deal.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you.
Garrett Lysiak: You're welcome.
Mayor Mancino: So do you want to make a motion?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean effectively what we have to do is have Gary go back then and essentially,
and I don't think we need a motion to do that. We table the item. Ask Gary to go back and.
Mayor Mancino: A motion to table and what it is we want him to do.
Scott Botcher: You should give him direction though.
Councilman Senn: Right, give Gary direction basically to go back and look further at the fire department
site and altering the height of that pole from 40 feet to a 60 and an 80 foot type of scenario and come back
and show us what the results of it is. In fact for all I care you can do 100 foot there.
Councilman Labatt: The only problem is then we're going to have another, we're just pushing the problem
from one site.
Councilwoman Jansen: Because we've got more neighbors.
Councilman Labatt: To another neighborhood Mark with that problem.
Kate Aanenson: Those neighbors haven't been notified.
Councilman Labatt: And there's neighbors over there that will be here at that meeting and complain about
the location too so you know. Part of our duty is we have to make bad decisions and tough decisions
sometimes and you're not going to be... all the time.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that Steve but at the same time, the 40 foot or a 60 foot tower at the
fire station is going to be far less obtrusive to a lot smaller number of people than 105 foot tower at the
church location.
Councilman Labatt: I don't have that magic ball so I'm not going to.
26
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Well at least we'll know the two options. Between the two.
Scott Botcher: Madam Mayor I think you may want to give the counsel for US West is also here. Did you
want to speak for a second?
Mayor Mancino: You're certainly welcome to.
Steve Mangold: My name is Steve Mangold. I'm the Regional Real Estate Manager at US West. I am
here with our counsel Mr. John Beattie from Messerly and Kramer. From what I understand I think that
you're looking at doing another study on the fire station parcel at a height of around 60 feet or so.
Mayor Mancino: 60 or 80.
Steve Mangold: 60 or 80 feet. Our problem is that we've looked at the fire station and it doesn't fit as far
as setback requirements go. We probably would have to use a variance. We would have to need a
variance on that site. We don't have a willing landlord that we know of there and we also would have to.
Councilman Senn: You're talking to the landlord.., variances, you're already asking for variances on the
other site so if we're giving variances here versus there.
Steve Mangold: No, we're not asking for variances. The city's looking at relocating the site which would
require a variance. We weren't asking for a variance.
Councilman Senn: You're asking for a variance from our city code to locate the tower on a church.
Steve Mangold: The city staff is looking at relocating the site on that subject parcel. But the third situation
is that we would have to go through a conditional use permit process again anyway and we would have the
same issues on that site. There are, there's a neighborhood adjacent to this site so we'd have to go through
the same issue again. And I think that it would be up to the City Council to make a decision. I think
everything's fairly clear here. You had your consultant do I think what you asked them to do. We have
been very willing in working with you and we would like to have a decision. We would table it so you that
you can look at it a little bit further for the fire station but we would really need to, we would like to have a
decision by the next cycle. And I don't see how we could have all the issues squared away within the next
two weeks, including a lease on the fire station.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Scott Botcher: Just so you know and whatever your decision is. Whatever decision you make, up or down.
Not tabling it. Up or down ultimately, you will be required, or you should do as a matter of practice
anyway, to pass the resolution with a list of findings. Findings of Fact as you're acting in sort of a quasi
judicial manner here. So whatever you decide at whatever time, I would recommend that you give direction
to legal counsel to draft those because obviously we're not going to guess which way you guys are going.
You each have individual feelings on it. But that's really ultimately how this should be resolved.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other comments before we go ahead with a motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess as part of the direction to Gary, if we're going to be looking at the 60 or 80
foot at the fire station, I'm still not clear, I'm not seeing a big difference between the 105 foot and the 40
27
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
foot at the church. So if we could have him measure the 60 and the 80 at the church site, if that's what
we're doing at the fire station. Or at least the 80.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, the 80. Okay, compared to the 105.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Gary, did you get that? At the church site also look at the 80 foot as opposed to the 105
too. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: No. Nothing more to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Labatt. Okay. I don't know if the, I don't know how close the homes are
around the fire station. I haven't really look at that site to see where the homes are so when Councilman
Labatt says you know we're just going to another area, and there will be citizens or residents there that
don't like a monopole there, I can understand that. I just haven't looked at the site. Don't know where it
could be placed, and that's something that we're going to have to, we will all go out and look at and see if
that is a better site or not. I mean I just haven't really taken the time. I do know that the residents in that
area are always just as concerned as you all are about what goes on near their neighborhoods too so. With
that may I have a motion please?
Councilman Senn: I'll move to table with the direct that's been given to the consultant.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to table action on a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Plan to allow a free standing 105 foot monopole tower wireless communication
facility for US West Wireless at Holy Cross Lutheran Church with direction to the consultant Owl
Engineering to bring back more information on other sites and heights of poles. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Senn: Gary when you bring it, I'm sorry. I'm losing my voice. When you bring it back could
you bring us please the road system on a base map and then as far as your colored drawings, will you
please transfer those to transparency so we can have like Figure 2 and Figure 3, that sort of thing on
separate transparencies so we can actually overlay them?
Mayor Mancino: Some mylar overlays.
Garrett Lysiak: No problem.
Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you.
Audience: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry to interrupt. There is one site that doesn't appear to be on this map
at all and it's the 180 foot tower they just located on Merrywood in Minnetrista... but as I understand it
from the City of Minnetrista to the US West...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and she'll have that bears on this site. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
28
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
(The City Council took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
REVIEW LIQUOR ORDINANCE AND SET 2000 LIQUOR FEES.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Todd Whitlock, Country Suites
Dan Dahlin
Terry Maglich
591 West 78th Street
1889 Fairmount, St. Paul 55105
MGM Liquor
Mayor Mancino: Boy, I'm sure glad this isn't under public hearings. Otherwise we'd have to allow people
to speak on this one.
Scott Botcher: And I don't know if you've been following this and I don't mean to berate it, to beat a dead
horse, and I don't want to do so publicly but Karen's got a pretty severe medical issue going on in her
family so I'm not sure honestly when she'll be back and all that sort of stuff so I appreciate your
understanding. I know she called me Saturday from the office and she was working. She was going back
to the hospital so we're going to do the best we can here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, do you want to give the staff report on this?
Scott Botcher: Oh well hey. I don't really have anything new to add, and I did read this again today before
I went to St. Paul. Karen distributed to you all Sunday night I guess the final copy because the one that
went out was not complete. I have simply had, I just had one call. It was from MGM Liquor. Is MGM
Liquor here? What was your name? You're not the gentleman who called me are you?
Terry Maglich: Madame Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Terry Maglich. No, John Knowles
called you. But I did talk to Tom.
Scott Botcher: His questions were primarily...
Mayor Mancino: So just one second and we'll let you speak.
Scott Botcher: I mean how is it really going to be, you know the whole get people out. Does that mean the
door has to be locked or not or whatever? I candidly referred him to Dave Potts. I said you know the
council's not going to write to that level of specificity in the ordinance. We need to have that flexibility and
I referred him to Dave Potts. And that's where that went. Beyond that I don't have anything to add. There
was a question that Roger brought up, and maybe Linda it was in one of your e-mails. With the 3 day deal
and just reconfirm it and I did check again in my notes. The 3 day closure for the first offense I believe is
what it is. Is simply a policy call. I can't speak if that is a standard or not. I think that was your question.
Roger's only two cents worth, if you remember is that 3 days for MGM is a pretty good chunk of change.
3 days for Joe Smith Liquor may not be the same type of penalty and that was just one of the things that he
mentioned so it is purely up to you. I mean you could do that and I don't know if you're ever going to get
to the point where you're going to treat, where the impact on businesses will be identical with the same
penalty and I don't think you want to get to the point where you say well if you do gross sales in this
29
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
amount your penalty is X and gross sales. You don't want to get into that business but that was sort of the
two cents worth.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Scott Botcher: I know Tom you and Roger met.
Mayor Mancino: And this is basically the penalties are the same that Plymouth has right now. That
they've worked with over the last couple of years. I mean it's been in effect for a while. It was great
having Karen get from Sergeant Potts and Bud Olson and she did a great job of getting comments for us.
Anyway, Tom.
Councilman Senn: One quickie Mayor if I could. Just a question to Scott. When I went through this
everything kind of meshed with the comments and stuff that we gave before except on page 3. Item C and
Item F. I thought we got rid of any reference to capacities. Or I mean numbers of people. I thought we
talked about simply going, you know that the license itself or the cost of the license would be somewhat self
limiting but that we weren't going to sit here and split hairs over whether you know a place to serve wine
for example has to accommodate 15 or 25 or 50 guests.
Mayor Mancino: No we didn't in that area. We did in the area where it had to do with shopping center.
We did in the area where it had to do with office building.
Councilman Senn: But I thought we did, said in all areas?
Mayor Mancino: No. We just did under 10-19(a) we eliminated 1 through 4. But we did not eliminate
(b), (c), (d), (e), (f). We didn't make any changes.
Councilman Senn: Well I wasn't saying eliminate them. I was just saying, just the reference to...
Mayor Mancino: No, we did not.
Councilman Senn: We didn't? Okay. That was my only question because I thought we had.
Mayor Mancino: No.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Scott Botcher: If you want to just say so.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I mean if that's a discussion item but just so you know from the last time, my
notes are pretty, we didn't do that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I couldn't find my notes so.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
30
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: Can I ask one other question that I did have and I haven't had the chance to go through it
and find this and maybe you guys know where it is. Oh, here it is. Delivery. This was the other MGM
question. Under 10-52(a).
Mayor Mancino: What page?
Scott Botcher: 19. Mark Senn I think was one that brought this up in terms of delivery. The question
came up, it isn't clear if it restricts delivery by persons licensed outside of the city of Chanhassen. So I
guess give that a read through. It appears to be a fair question. I mean obviously you don't want, for
example people in Excelsior to be able to deliver to people in Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: How are we going to stop that?
Councilman Labatt: Well it's simple.
Scott Botcher: You catch it on the, and I'll defer to Tom but I think you catch it on the back side as you
govern delivery of alcohol within the city at large. Not so much your license your process. But that was a
question I know MGM had and I think that it's a fair question in terms of the competitive disadvantage
they may be placed in if this is somewhat fuzzy. So Just think about what you want to say here and maybe
if it needs to be massaged we can do it.
Mayor Mancino: Well I don't think we want delivery of anyone under age in our city and that's the
important part.
Councilman Senn: That was one point of it. The other point though was to restrict deliveries in the city to
people who were licensed in the city so we weren't open for internet deliveries and all this other stuff from
outside parties, etc.
Tom Scott: I did talk to Mr. Maglich about that this afternoon, and it is a good point. I think it's covered
in the section that Scott just referred to. And then there's another section that says you can't sell, including
delivery without a license. But having said that, to make sure there's absolutely no question about it we
could in Section 10-52(a) Restrictions. It would read only licensed off-sale retail liquor establishments
located in Chanhassen.
Councilman Senn: How about licensed in Chanhassen?
Tom Scott: Well we already say only licensed off-sale retail liquor establishments located in Chanhassen.
Just to make absolutely clear. The other thing that Mr. Maglich raised a number of good points. The other
one that I wanted to bring to the council's attention kind of relates to that same issue. It's on page 18 and
it's 10-47(c). It starts no person under the legal drinking age shall consume or receive delivery of
intoxicating or 3.2% malt liquor, except in the household of the minor's parent or guardian, and then only
with the consent of such parent or guardian. The way that seems to read, and again I'm, before today I
hadn't seen this ordinance before and haven't been involved in it but that would seem to permit the delivery
of liquor to a minor if they had the permission of the parent. And.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, got it.
Councilman Senn: That's not a good deal.
31
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: That's not legal is it?
Tom Scott: I don't even think it's legal. No, because I think it would be considered a sale and now it does
read, part of that it also repeats state law that says no person under the legal age shall consume except in
the household with the permission. But that's already covered by state law so my recommendation would
be just to strike that paragraph and just get rid of it.
Mayor Mancino: Any other suggestions Tom that you would make?
Tom Scott: No, those were the two. Again, Mr. Maglich had a couple of other questions. I think I
answered those and those were the two that I thought were appropriate points to bring to your attention.
Did you have anything else Mr. Maglich? Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward and have any questions on
the ordinance? Please state your name and address.
Dan Dahlin: Dan Dahlin, 1889 Fairmount, St. Paul, Minnesota and I was wondering, my question was
regarding the 50%.
Councilman Labatt: What page are you on?
Dan Dahlin: Well it says 10-26 on the cover sheet from Karen. And I couldn't find the 10-26 says that so
I found I think that that is 10-32(f) on page, it starts at the bottom of 11.
Councilman Labatt: 10-26, is the renew application?
Mayor Mancino: No. You're talking about on page 10, (f) under restaurants.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's where the 50% rule is.
Dan Dahlin: Right. I'm talking about 10-32(f). Even though it says 10-26.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, it's page 10.
Mayor Mancino: Yep, you're right.
Dan Dahlin: So I was wondering what that means and if it is still part of the ordinance.
Mayor Mancino: Well and I think that Karen's suggestion is that, we say no on-sale intoxicating liquor
license shall be issued unless at least 50% of the gross food and beverage receipts of the establishment will
be attributed to the, oh. 50% of the gross receipts of the establishment will of the food and beverage
receipts will be attributable to the sale of food. Isn't that how she wanted to change that?
Councilwoman Jansen: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: So 50% of your food and beverage receipts.
32
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Senn: Have to be from food.
Mayor Mancino: From food.
Councilman Senn: But if you have something like, her example I believe was the Chanhassen Dinner
Theater where you're selling a ticket to view a play. That would not count towards the total gross receipts
in the calculation of the 50%. As is I would assume purchasing a game of bowling or whatever.
Dan Dahlin: Okay, I guess I don't understand that. So the calculation would be.
Councilman Senn: The calculation would be, how would you say this? The enumerator would be the.
Scott Botcher: ... food and beverage receipts, that's it.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, gross receipts minus entertainment.
Councilman Senn: Or the other way to back into it is all food and beverage receipts. And then half of that
has to be food. That's the easiest way.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So again revenue that you receive from food and beverage. Half of that has to be
from food.
Dan Dahlin: So I would take the gross receipts for example.
Mayor Mancino: That you get from food and beverage.
Dan Dahlin: And then subtract entertainment.
Mayor Mancino: Well no. Whatever food is, it would have to be 50% of that.
Dan Dahlin: So the gross receipts then that we're talking about would be food and beverage.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Dan Dahlin: So we would exclude anything other than food and beverage...
Councilman Labatt: Number 3 spells it out.
Councilman Engel: That's 3, page 10.
Councilman Senn: It says for the purpose of this section, establishment shall include the food and beverage
portion of a multi-service establishment. And it says financial records for the food and beverage portion
must be maintained separately from the records of the remainder of the establishment.
Dan Dahlin: Practically what does it, Councilman Senn what does that, what does that mean?
33
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Senn: Practically if we're running an establishment I would take my gross receipts from food.
I'd take my gross receipts from beverages. I'd add them together and then I'd go back and look at my
gross receipts from food and if they weren't 50% of that total, you're in violation. Easiest way.
Dan Dahlin: Okay. And what is the intent of doing this?
Councilman Senn: Our intent is that for no on-sale or for on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses they will only
be granted effectively in establishments where 50% of the revenue is obtained from food. Period. No
hidden intent. It's pretty straight forward.
Dan Dahlin: Yeah I just, if there's been some problem or some.
Mayor Mancino: No, this is this way in many cities.
Councilman Senn: This is very common now.
Mayor Mancino: Edina, Plymouth. I mean we have, we had a whole slew of them Dan that we reviewed.
Dan Dahlin: And this would be effective with this application?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Dan Dahlin: And there would be no grandfathering in of existing businesses? And what will the procedure
be on, this is not a public hearing?
Mayor Mancino: No. You're talking to us now. This is public.
Dan Dahlin: Oh okay. But I mean procedurally when will this be voted on?
Mayor Mancino: Well we may vote on it tonight. We may vote to table it. And do you have a concern
with it?
Dan Dahlin: Yeah I would, I don't, I think I understand now the arithmetic of it.
Okay. So you would like some time to kind of process that?
Yes I would. I need some time to figure out if I can comply so if you could table it that
Mayor Mancino:
Dan Dahlin: Yes.
would be great.
Mayor Mancino:
Okay. The one thing we do have to do tonight is go ahead and pass the fees because that
has to be done tonight. But we'll listen to other councilmembers and if they'd like to table it and give you
some time to review it. We might want to have some more changes made tonight and then do a final copy
and make sure you get that and have another public hearing.
Dan Dahlin: That'd be wonderful. Thank you so much.
Mayor Mancino: You're welcome. Anyone else?
34
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Tom Pazinski: My name's Tom Pazinski. I'm with the Chanhassen American Legion. I have just a few
questions on the proposed new ordinance. As far as I'm aware the Legion's club license does not fall under
the restaurant provision, is that correct?
Mayor Mancino: Boy Tom, I don't think it does because I think we kind of took you into account. I don't
think it does but.
Scott Botcher: Club licenses may be issued if you meet Minnesota Statute 340A.404. subd. 1 and I think
you do. Then you can get a club license. That's on page 4. And I don't believe that's a change. Just
citing statute chapter and verse.
Mayor Mancino: And since it's a state statute I'm sure you have to already.
Tom Pazinski: Right, so we don't fall under the 50% restaurant provisional?
Mayor Mancino: No.
Tom Pazinski: Okay. The other question I have is deals on page 8 of the copy I have, Section 30(b).
Premises. Each license shall be issued only for the exact rooms and square footage described in the
application. License is valid only in compact and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises
described in the license and all transactions relating to sale under such license may take place within such
building or structure. Couple questions I have on that is, we have a patio. I know Axel's has a patio. In
our application do we have to then include that area?
Mayor Mancino: I would. Because that will be part of the structure then, correct Tom?
Tom Pazinski: I mean you walk out. You walk outside the door and I mean you're outside the building.
You know so it's, I wasn't quite sure as to what was.
Councilman Senn: But you need to have a designated area so people aren't simply wandering around or
beyond that designated area with open bottles and that sort of thing.
Tom Pazinski: So that has to be included in the application?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Tom Pazinski: Applicants have already been submitted I think for this year. Renewals haven't they?
Mayor Mancino: I don't know.
Scott Botcher: Karen has not mentioned that to me.
Councilman Senn: Tom forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought this was right out of the State.
Tom Scott: Yeah, there's no question you'd have to include your patio area.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's something you'd have to do regardless of what we do because it's part of the
State.
35
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Tom Pazinski: But I just wanted to make sure that I understood it so when our club manager fills out the
application, I think he's already resubmitted it but I'm not sure. We'd have to either amend it or make sure
it's on there if he didn't put it on there. Then the other question I had was dealing with the 50%. Just a
comment. Oh, and one other thing we were just talking earlier. I think 50% really is a hardship for most
restaurants. That's going to be tough. That's my opinion.
Mayor Mancino: Some cities are even 60%.
Tom Pazinski: But that's my opinion. The way that liquor prices and stuff are going now, I mean I go out
to dinner with my wife and I and we order, you know we'll split a steak or something like that and order a
$40 bottle of wine, and you know just to have a good wine and a light meal and I think 50% really is going
to be tough for a lot of these guys. But that's just my opinion and comment. And the other question I had
was, you were discussing earlier delivery. Section 52(a).
Mayor Mancino: And what page are you on please?
Tom Pazinski: 20. City Attorney Roger was discussing it earlier. Restrictions on delivery. And a couple
comments were made that delivery, did I understand it correctly is delivery in Chanhassen of intoxicating
liquors can only be made by those licensees holding a license in Chanhassen? Is that what the gist of that
discussion was?
Tom Scott: That's correct.
Tom Pazinski: What about ifI order some wine from California, which is legal? I mean I could order
wine and have it shipped interstate to my house from California. Or I belong to a wine club and I order
products that come in from out of state. You aren't going to restrict, I mean that totally restricts me from
being able to do that now?
Tom Scott: Well, it's a very good question. You get into a lot of broader issues that interstate commerce
and those types of things. I think the language that's used is no other dealers and I think the intent is from
other premises that are licensed liquor dealerships in Minnesota but you know not licensed in Chanhassen.
I don't know if this topic came up during any of your discussions of the ordinance but you raise a good
point. I mean if you read the literal language I guess that the question, the clear intent I think is from
neighboring cities or other licensed establishments and maybe we need to, if that's. It's a much broader
issue you raise.
Councilman Senn: The issue was more of an issue of how can we control it and enforce delivery effectively
to minors. And it's tough. The two issues we talked about were one, which is going on very actively now
which is ordering over the internet with no proof of ID and all that sort of thing being delivered right to the
premises just as prescriptions are ordered, etc. And that's something we're trying to basically eliminate
that type of a way around it so to speak.
Tom Pazinski: Well I order wine from quite a few different places and most of it comes in from out of
state. It seems to me that the delivery agent has the responsibility to do that. DHL or UPS, Fed Ex, I mean
we get them all, and if there's nobody there to sign for that shipment, that is 21 or there's nobody there
period, they take it back. I mean that happens at all my house all the time.
36
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Senn: Then they're meeting their requirement. Not everybody is that good.
Councilman Engel: I think those things are governed by the rules around those kinds of businesses already.
I don't think that anything we're writing in here would circumvent or stop them. They're complying with
their distribution.
Tom Pazinski: Just as long as I can keep ordering...
Councilman Engel: Yeah, because I don't think there's any legal way to do that. I don't think those guys
can be put out of business by the locals.
Scott Botcher: The State of Wisconsin did that last year.
Mayor Mancino: They did what?
Scott Botcher: ... outlawed internet, out of state deliveries of alcohol except for a licensed distributor.
Tom Scott: Did it stand or was it appealed?
Scott Botcher: One of the great bought and paid for political deals in American History. To my knowledge
it's still standing. If you're in Wisconsin you can't do that anymore unless you order it from a licensed
distributor, wholesaler in the state because they license the wholesalers and the wholesalers but together.
Tom Pazinski: In Wisconsin?
Scott Botcher: In Wisconsin.
Terry Maglich: Madame Mayor, members of the council, my name is Terry Maglich. I beg to differ with
this gentleman. There's recent information that was supplied to the State of Minnesota and it's being
argued at the State level. Michigan about 4 weeks ago did a direct delivery sting operation. 80% of the
product that was delivered were delivered to under aged people. There's a massive problem. Now it's over
simplified when you say I want to get wine through the internet. It's not a loaf of bread. It's not a tie. It
can't be dealt with in the same fashion as was suggested here. It's a very serious issue. I don't have a
solution and I think we're all after convenience in this world but when it comes to control substance we
have a very serious issue and this isn't the only community that's reviewing their policies on delivery. You
just can't let this stuff come across state lines. Come across, I mean that suggestion that the convenience
aspect over rides the social problem of controlling the sale and distribution of beverage alcohol just doesn't
fly today.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, anyone else? Okay, Steve. Any comments? Bring it
back to council.
Councilman Labatt: No. No. I'm okay with everything in here. There's a couple of grammatical
corrections that were made.., the comments from the sheriff that compliance checks would be conducted
once per year. I think we should do two but I'll leave it at that.
37
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: And I did, just for what it's worth, ask Dave and Bud what the additional cost would be.
And it was under a couple hundred bucks. So with that I think we ought to just stick with two and call it a
day.
Councilman Senn: Keep it at two?
Mayor Mancino: Yep. I agree too.
Councilwoman Jansen: Agreed.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel, anything?
Councilman Engel: Nothing more to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: No, I'm in agreement with all the different changes here tonight. I guess I'm
assuming we're going to table this and get a complete edited version back. I don't know how anyone else
feels about the penalty issue that Roger raised. If we want to address that or stay with that as to being
excessive.
Councilman Labatt: I'm fine with it.
Councilman Senn: I don't think so.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: I mean I think as long as we're notifying them in advance, the specific time frame. A
month time frame. This is when we're going to have compliance checks. We do it both times we do
compliance checks. It's a heads up, you know and that then I feel we really do want to be.
Councilman Senn: Proactive.
Mayor Mancino: Well not only proactive but very clear and very stringent about can't sell to minors in our
community.
Councilman Engel: I think there's less ambiguity there.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I mean it is the law. I also liked Bud Olson's suggestion on the training. That
every time that there is a new person, that they do get training and then it's on an annual basis and I don't
know if that needs to be included in the language here Scott or not, but I thought that both of his comments.
One on the training and the compliance checks was very good. Councilman Senn, any other comments?
Councilman Senn: Not additional ones that we haven't talked about but isn't, now if this is an amendment
to the existing ordinance, right? Doesn't that normally take two readings?
Scott Botcher: Not anymore.
38
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Senn: Oh it doesn't.
Scott Botcher: Two readings was in your resolution that you did away with.
Councilman Senn: Oh okay.
Mayor Mancino: But I think we should go through this one last time and make sure we can go ahead and
we can delete on page 18 what Tom suggested that we delete. We can on page 19, add the new wording.
We can make sure it says 50% gross receipts of food and beverage. We can also put into the language that
Bud Olson has suggested about compliance checks and about training should also be included. And then
we'll look at it one more time and we can take more public comment.
Councilman Senn: ... delivery part too. Page 19.
Scott Botcher: Say that again?
Mayor Mancino: Yep, on the delivery.
Councilman Senn: On 10-52(a) we were going to add located in Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so let's just see this back again in final form and make sure that everyone's
notified. Thank you for your comments.
Councilwoman Jansen: Do we need a separate motion to do the fees?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we do. Do you want to do that motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: I'll move to pass the fees for the liquor licenses.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2000-16: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
liquor license fees for the 2000/01 license year per the attached resolution. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Again, thanks for coming and for giving us your thoughts. And we'll see you again. Do
you have any others? Once you see the final form.
LAKE ANN PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY, SELECTION OF ENGINEER; AUTHORIZE
DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Mancino, members of the City Council. I would characterize our
situation as one of those dark clouds with a hopeful silver lining. That we're left with the need to move a
building due to the frontage road and, however the access boulevard is going to be a nice improvement for
the city and we feel as a staff that the enlargement and embellishing the facility at Lake Ann... will improve
our operations as well. We are in need of vacating our facility by June 1 of this year. That's in a written
agreement with MnDot. State of Minnesota. We've anticipated this need to move for a number of years.
Dale, who's sitting behind me, Park Superintendent with David Moes in attendance as well, one of our
39
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Park Commissioners. We've been aware of this. They've been bugging us to enlarge that space or at least
be able to move some of that equipment inside. However, waiting until we were displaced literally kicked
out of the building by the road seemed to be the prudent decision over those years so we've waited. It's our
desire to relocate a building sized at approximately 7,200 square feet, and again a rough size is 72 x 100 to
a new maintenance yard. Taking the council's comments to heart about not penetrating the tree canopy, I
would see this building just moving slightly to the north and to the east of it's present location. And again
as Bill Engelhardt mentioned, until we get to a site plan type of a drawing, that's about as accurately as I
can predict where the building would be constructed. Overall our indoor maintenance space would expand
from approximately 3,400 square feet to 7,200 square feet under that proposal. To accomplish this we
need a variety of professional expertise items. Site plan, grading plan, utility plan. We're talking about
extending water which is in the vicinity there when the Lake Ann pavilion was constructed and the
bathrooms, water is just half a block to the east of the location. Sewer would just go to the west. There's
the access point down in the creek so we could make use of an... wash and restroom in this facility. Our
current proposal is for a pre-engineered building design and I'll pass down some catalogues that talk about,
give you a depiction of what some of those buildings look like.
Mayor Mancino: This looks like a horse barn.
Councilman Senn: It looks like Paws and Claws.
Todd Hoffman: And I believe tonight what the council, one of the questions is architectural issues. Our
current proposal calls for a pre-engineered building design and with construction materials including, but
not limited to. They no longer use the solid wood poles. These are laminated wood poles. They don't
crack or chip or warp. A brick wainscoting. In our current proposal we're talking about a metal siding.
You can either go vertical or you can go horizontal like residential metal siding. Shingles or standing seam
roof. It is anticipated that we would expect a hip roof design where you knock down the ends so you don't
have that peak effect. Make it look more like a professional building. And then again as we left the room
this evening, there are concerns about a pre-engineered building and you do want to see architectural
drawings for a masonry structure. Engelhardt and Associates estimates that architectural fees would total
about $16,500. And so it depends on the level of concern of these architectural issues. You could add
brick. Go from a wainscoting to a full brick and you'd easily consume $16,500. You could add a concrete
floor and it would surpass that so the buildings, which way you want to go, pre-engineered or with
engineered drawings. One of Bill's suggestions was you could just, you could take a look at both and if
you want to see architecturally designed buildings, spend $16,500 and then have a pre-engineered building
as an alternate, you know they may come in about the same price. So how are we going to get all this
done? And we looked at three avenues. First was an interview with Brauer and Associates. We're
familiar with the company. They performed work for the referendum project with the Bandimere and City
Center Park. Their fee was quoted at $48,500. That included full architectural design and drawings. Our
second interview was with Engelhardt and Associates and Mr. Engelhardt was here this evening at the work
session. And their base fee is $17,500. If you would like to see engineering drawings, then you add
another $16,500. We also interviewed sales representatives from Morton, Lester and Ameri Built
Buildings and at the suggestion of Councilman Senn we talked about what their companies would be
willing to provide as a service. And they sure are willing to provide site planning if you'd like to see that.
And they'd go so far as to do the landscaping and those type of things at some sort of a fee. And they all
will provide you with the specifications for their brand of building. But those specifications would not
meet our state bidding laws so with the complexity of those issues, when we go to a public bid requirement,
it would be staff's recommendation that we enter into an agreement with Engelhardt and Associates to
perform these professional services for the city in an amount not to exceed $17,500 and that we authorize
40
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
development of plans and specifications utilizing a pre-engineered building design for the project. And then
what would be helpful is, with the comments from the council, we're going to need to prepare those
specifications, we'll meet with one of these companies again in depth and perhaps even more than one of
them and they can do a variety of things. Right up to wood siding. Brick all the way up the building. You
can really dress them up to just, they build a McDonald's. They build any building on Main Street USA so
I guess what I'm saying is the sky's the limit on looks and so we'd like to hear from the council in that
area.
Scott Botcher: I think and I just from mine own two cents worth, I'm not supportive and I don't think we
can support again for purposes of, if for no other reason than supporting a professional staff, a metal
building. A metal sided building. I just, I don't see how we can in good faith have Kate and her staff going
out there trying to get non-metal buildings and then mm around and put up a metal building. Dumb
question though, and it's mainly for the representative Engethardt's firm. What would it cost just to do a
standard, and maybe Todd, I know we talked about this but I don't remember the number. To do standard
plans and specs for the implementation or the construction of a Morton, Butler pre-fab building. Just to do
those standard specs so we could bid off of them. I guess that's my question. Instead of going with a full
architectural around 17 and some change, what would it cost to do specs that would meet the standard
bidding requirements, get a response from the three parties, or however many parties but we've got three
here. And then be able to compare and then if we wanted to do you know partial brick, partial lapped
siding, partial whatever at that point, then we'd work that out. Is that something that we can do?
Todd Hoffman: Break this down even farther and just start with a cost for specing on a building and then
go bid that part first so we can decide on the building prior to siting and?
Scott Botcher: I guess I'm, and I'm not in the business but.
Councilman Senn: Just a question for you, because I wondered, it's kind of important. I want to
understand it. Where are you drawing this line? Because staff has already recommended the building of a
metal building that have a rock face block, wainscoting and metal and then metal roof and stuff and so if
we do the same thing, where are we crossing some type of professionat line?
Scott Botcher: I'm suggesting if it's an exposed metal sided building like a pole barn, that's what,
personally that's what I'm saying.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but if we put wainscoting up or something like that?
Scott Botcher: Well I guess I personally, and you guys can draw the line wherever you want but I'm
suggesting that if you had a standing seam metal roof, because they're decorative and we have them, I'm
personally okay with that. The rest of the building I honestly, I'd get a little squeamish.
Councilman Senn: But why when we've already done it?
Mayor Mancino: Maybe because we don't want to do it anymore. There's only two places where we've
done it and you know where the two places are and you keep bringing then up. And this is, excuse me. I'm
not done. And this is in one of our community parks. It's right on Highway 5. It's in our central area. It
has a little different presence than those, and maybe we also teamed we might not do those again. I mean
we all do make mistakes at times and maybe we teamed we shouldn't do them. So I think it's worth
looking at this one, not as a metal siding. We don't have any metal siding buildings, siding buildings in this
41
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
area of our city and we ask developers, we're asking them all the time to upgrade their materials. In fact
we're on that bent right now. That principle right now so I think we'd be hard pressed to do an all metal
building.
Councilman Senn: I mean just so you know, I mean you're looking at a budget here versus a budget here
on the basis of what you're talking about.
Mayor Mancino: I'm looking at doing it right and we can see the difference in cost. I mean absolutely you
can make things as cheap as you want to. I mean anything that we do we can make cheaper and cheaper
and cheaper, but that's not what we're about.
Councilman Senn: No, but you also need some basic discussion over what you're after. Are you after a
maintenance building with no concrete floor in it and stuff like that or are you after footings, foundations
and a full structural build out beyond that. I mean those are two completely different worlds.
Mayor Mancino: And that I would have to ask Todd and Dale to tell us you know what's going to, how
are you going to use the building. Should we have a, you know what kind of floor, etc. I mean one of my
questions is we're going from 3,400 to 7,200. Does that mean there aren't going to be things, you know
there's so much outside now that's stored around the shed. Are we not going to have any more outdoor
storage? Will we be able to eliminate most of that too?
Dale Gregory: Well we'll try to eliminate some of that outdoor storage.
Mayor Mancino: So we'll still have some.
Dale Gregory: Everything will not be able to fit into that building. Right now we're so hard pressed for
the room in there just for our equipment. Mowers, etc. We get fertilizer in in the spring, I mean we get it
by the semi load.., and we just don't have room for everything inside. So we would still need somewhat the
outside storage.
Mayor Mancino: And you know interior wise, as far as having a cement floor or just dirt, does it make any
difference for what you do in there with just storage?
Dale Gregory: Oh, we're looking at right now where the building is out of the 7,200 feet, we're looking at
about 30 feet of it being cemented out because right now we're running into a problem out in the
maintenance shop. We don't have room when we start building goals and we start building tables and start
doing stuff in the winter time, we don't have room to work. And so what we'd like to do is at least get that
part of it cemented out. Have some heat in there so we could actually go out there and do some work in the
winter. And have an area that we could build goals. We could do a lot more work. We could actually
work on the lawnmowers out there.
Mayor Mancino: So you're also going to set up a workshop inside here and will it be, you know for
heating purposes and stuff, you're just going to heat that area?
Dale Gregory: Infrared.
Todd Hoffman: It'd just be infrared heat.
42
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Dale Gregory: It would just be that area. It would not be the rest of it, the rest of the building would still
be just cold storage.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any more questions?
Scott Botcher: I guess I'll ask my question again though, and you guys go whatever direction you want but
how much would it cost Engelhardt to do plans and specs, we could just bid off of four for the Butler type
building?
Todd Hoffman: I don't know that. We would have to ask him. We have to be out by June 1st. We have to
be back in by the end of the summer so we'd like to get going with the siting of the building and the
landscaping and utility services. The utilities are the first thing to go in. They've got to bring the sewer in
and bring the water in so, I think as a community we can manage the.., working on all these other things as
well. And we'll bring back some of those issues. As staffI think what you're looking for, I think you still
want the attractive things about a pole building is this brick that they put on there is a screw on material.
It's not a masonry type brick so the costs do not escalate to the point of a masonry.
Mayor Mancino: So they can do a whole face brick all the way up the sides?
Todd Hoffman: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. So the metal siding is the substrate, I mean do they use metal siding as a
substrate at all?
Todd Hoffman: It would be a plywood.
Mayor Mancino: It would be plywood and then you'd have face brick.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Or faux brick. Whatever they want to call it. Cultured brick. Okay. I think that's fine.
I mean I don't think any of us are saying that it has to be the full brick if we can have that good solid brick
look and you know it also hopefully has a weathering capabilities because again we want to build
structures that are going to be here for 50 years so we don't have to continually do maintenance on also.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, they have a long term warranty on them.
Mayor Mancino: Oh they do, okay.
Todd Hoffman: What do council members feel about shingling or standing seam metal roof?
Councilman Senn: Well but you need to understand, I mean if this is going to be built the way it's talking
about building it, I mean there are no footings. There are no foundations and that is not the way a pre-
engineered building is constructed.
Todd Hoffman: There's footings on the poles.
Mayor Mancino: So are you saying is that good or bad?
43
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying whether it's good or bad but you just made a speech about how you
want this long lasting building and stuff okay. This type of a building, a pre-engineered building you do
not go down and put in footings and foundation or anything else. You basically do some pour holes. You
put in some footings. You put the poles on those. You dig underground and you provide a tie-in between
the poles on this side to the poles on that side, which hold the bottom of the structure together underground
and effectively from there you have poles going up. You hang metal from it.
Mayor Mancino: So what's the life of a building like that then?
Councilman Senn: Well I can take you down and show you buildings that have been up like that for 100
years.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: Some big companies do have a full footings system if you want to go to a full footings
system. And Dale and I, our conversations with those representatives really the only benefit to that would
be to bring a full foundation up above grade about 2 feet so that we're moving materials and equipment
around inside the building, you would have that solid, what they use it for is for animal barns so they can
scoop out the bedding material with their bucket and hit right up against the concrete without denting the
shed. But we came to the conclusion that for that money, it's not worth going to a fully.., foundation...
Councilman Senn: Yeah but you're willing to go with the product that Todd's talking about, with the
screw on product, that's fine because you can't put a block without footings and foundation. You can't put
brick without footings and foundation. So before when you were talking about brick exterior and
everything, those are two very different things that you're talking about.
Mayor Mancino: Got it. And I haven't heard from other council people but I mean I feel comfortable with
the face brick and not going with the full footings.
Todd Hoffman: It's being widely used now. They can up to three stories with this screwed on material and
it's appearance is very good, especially.., it's going to be fully landscaped.
Mayor Mancino: It's kind of like the stone on some of the townhouses. You can't tell any difference.
Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: But it's still not something that we would probably allow anyone else to build in
Chanhassen, correct? Under our ordinances.
Councilman Engel: True, but they wouldn't be using it for what we're using it for.
Councilman Senn: That's not true.., private property owners could put one of these up.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Yeah, I mean think about the, Walnut Grove and stuff. All those townhomes have
that fake stone.
Councilwoman Jansen: On poles? Those type of.
44
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino: On townhouses.
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm thinking of how it's actually constructed.
Todd Hoffman: There's pole buildings.
Councilman Labatt: Sure, right on Galpin.
Mayor Mancino: I've got one. I've got a pole barn.
Councilwoman Jansen: But I'm back to this being a public focal point and I guess I can't visualize this.
It's right at the entrance to the park.
Mayor Mancino: I'm not sure it's going to be a focal point, and as long as it has the brick appearance and
the aesthetics.
Councilwoman Jansen: Todd, in your catalogues does it show a picture of the actual brick?
Todd Hoffman: Sure. There's one in there, there's a bank...
Scott Botcher: I took the position, I asked Kate. I said Kate is this something that is prohibitive by
ordinance. As long as you deal with the siding issue, no. You can put that up in the city of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Jansen: Oh, okay.
Scott Botcher: That's what she told.
Councilman Labatt: As long as you brick it. All the way up.
Scott Botcher: Well you've got to do something with the siding.
Councilman Senn: Well it depends on what zone you're in because residential you don't have to do
anything other than put up metal siding.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, yeah. But I mean anybody to build a building here would put in footings and the
whole deal.
Scott Botcher: And I think there's some other code issues that may be out there depending on what
occupancy and I think that since this building doesn't have much in terms of occupancy, it's not the same,
except for me. It's not the same deal. It's been a long couple weeks.
Councilman Labatt: ... wanted concrete.., what do you get for putting that?
Todd Hoffman: Correct. Insulated.
Dale Gregory: That will be a floating slab.
Councilman Senn: It's floating slab generally Steve.
45
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: Just to play devil's advocate. You can do the $17,500 and you'll probably get a building
that will be there long after all of us are dead. Get a full masonry building. My gut tells me the cost is
more, but I don't.
Councilman Senn: Many times more.
Scott Botcher: I mean I just think it's going to be a lot more.
Mayor Mancino: Here's what I want to do. Say go ahead to Engelhardt and Associates and then I would
also like to see a bid come in with the full brick, something like this with a seamed roof that we've seen
here.
Scott Botcher: Now let me explain that. You want them to spend the $17,5007
Mayor Mancino: No.
Scott Botcher: Oh okay, thank you. But we do need a quote on what it would cost to do the specs though,
right?
Todd Hoffman: Spend the $17,500. Get Engelhardt rolling. Don't do the $16,500 for architectural...
Scott Botcher: That's what I meant, yes. I'm sorry. Yep.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That's what we want. Do we need to make a motion or anything? Okay.
Councilman Senn: What do you want a motion on? Authorize selection of Engelhardt and Associates to,
at a contract of $17,500 to do the site planning and pre-engineering work for a pre-engineered building at
Lake Ann Park?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Scott Botcher: Can we, now just so I understand. Are they authorized also to draw bids and, or draw
specs from which we can bid this building? Because I'm not sure Todd, unless I misunderstand that's
included in this number.
Todd Hoffman: Yes it is.
Scott Botcher: Never mind.
Councilman Senn: That was my understanding, yeah.
Scott Botcher: I misunderstood.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, it's been, the motion has been seconded.
Resolution #2000-17: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to authorize the
selection of Engelhardt and Associates at a contract of $17,500 to do the site planning and pre-
46
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
engineering work for a pre-engineered building at Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: Okay, a couple items I have under council presentations. Are we taking a minute bio
break? Okay. Again, thanks for coming. And for waiting all this time. Okay, next on the agenda is
council presentations. One of the things that I have a couple things here and number one, I'd like council to
know that the Met Council has invited me as representing Mayor, as representing all of Chanhassen and the
Council more specifically, invited me to be on a Mayor's Regional Affordable Housing Task Force. And
we will be discussing, reviewing and discussing current status of affordable housing by examining data,
policies, programs, and strategies and we should have in this next year maybe 4 to 6 meetings so I will be
bringing you up to date on those and also obviously asking for a lot of feedback on council's position.
Councilman Senn: What a bunch of glory hounds. Why can't it just be council task force on affordable
housing?
Mayor Mancino: I didn't make it up.
Scott Botcher: That only hangs with the big ears.
Mayor Mancino: They only want the mayors, exactly. Next what I'd like to bring up is some council
discussion on I guess what I would call council behavior and kind of what's, how we as council members
want to, how we want to deal with each other in a couple aspects. And obviously it brings up one of the
correspondence pieces that was in the, a letter from me to Carol Molnau in the correspondence area. And
what it has to do is 212 and kind of what's been going on and some of the surprises, outright surprises that
I have had. Phone calls from the Star and Tribune. Going down to the legislature with Ursula Dimler and
our City Manager, Scott Botcher, and sitting in a few meetings and just being absolutely surprised and kind
of very much caught off guard as to having one of our council members, Councilwoman Jansen, down at
the legislature and they're questioning me about it and not knowing anything. Not knowing one single
thing. And again, as I also said being called by a reporter and saying that one of our council people has
called a press conference on Highway 212 and asking me the official position of the City, as the mayor and
my saying, we haven't talked about 212 as a council for a year. For me to give you the official position of
the city, I really need to go back and look at officially what was the last action that the council took.
Would you mind if I called you back tomorrow? And I just think that whenever any of us are out in public,
whether it's down at the legislature, whether it's calling a press conference, and we're using the identifier
as being a Chanhassen council member, that we should number one, I mean it's a very, very uncomfortable
position to be in. And one, I think it would be good if, especially if you wanted to talk about 212, to bring
it up to the rest of council beforehand Linda. And also it's very hard to take off your council person hat
and be a regular citizen when you are in fact a council person, and people take you that way. And they
know that that's a distinction also that you're using when you're meeting with them. So I would just like to
have a discussion so that this doesn't happen again and doesn't happen so that we're all on the same page
as council people and what we expect from each other when we're out there doing other activities. I did
receive a letter from Carol Molnau today in responding to my letter. So everyone does have a copy, and
just how are we going to operate on issues like this. Quite frankly it's never come up before. It's not
something that we as a council, or I as a mayor have ever dealt with before. But I certainly have been
called and asked several questions by residents and others wanting to know why we have a council member
47
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
out to stop 212 and what the council's position is. So if you don't mind I'd just like to take a few minutes
and talk about and what we need to do to go forward, and any comments.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well first of all, when questions come up that you can't answer and they're of
someone else specifically, in the future I for one would request that those questions get leveled to the
individual that they're being asked of. Now as far as Representative Molnau and her putting you on the
spot, I don't know.
Mayor Mancino: It just wasn't she. It was other legislators too.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well it's obviously an issue that they hold near and dear. My interest in 212 goes
back well before council. And as far as how I've represented myself, I have continued in my capacity to
reflect my opinion as an individual and a resident. At any point I've been asked council position, the
Memorandum of Understanding is definitely a piece of the information that I'm quoting, along with the
letter that you had attached to Carol so there is a firm council position on Highway 212 that I definitely
have reflected as the position of the City Council.
Mayor Mancino: But when you have done that you have left out one of the most important lines of that
memo. And we took a month as a council in 1998 and crafted that memo to really reflect where we were
coming from. And to do it in a very forthright, clear way in that memo and one of the sentences in that
memo says...
Councilwoman Jansen: The City Council supports...
Mayor Mancino: It is important to note that Chanhassen does support the future building of the Highway
212 transportation corridor. And yet when you write about it, you continually, well not continually
because you've only written about it once. But you don't bring up that as a very important part of this
memo. And you're clarifying your position and then you say, in all fairness to city council members. Well
in all fairness to us is to tell the entirety of the memo. I mean an important point is that we do support it
and yet you've left it out of here, and I think in all fairness to us you do need to tell the whole truth. And it
is different than your position because you have said you want to stop 212 and the only way I know that is
reading it in the paper.
Councilwoman Jansen: And what the press actually reports in a news piece unfortunately they will tend to
slant it and make it more sensational if you would.
Mayor Mancino: So that's what I'm saying is important as a council member. That you should know that
and you deal with it that way.
Councilwoman Jansen: And I chose to deal with it the way that I dealt with it and if, I mean as an
individual representing my position, I am also then representing that the council is supporting 212. Now
yeah, I didn't get that line in that article. I didn't put the whole letter in the article but we signed the MOU
and that to me was the signifier that it's going forward. I mean we haven't backed out of the project.
Everyone knows we're in this. You're getting your chops busted by someone who doesn't appreciate my
taking a different position on this, and I was asked to do some presentations on 212 knowing my familiarity
with the project, and I did. Now yes, they do relate me as a city council member but I am very specifically
saying.
48
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino: So why wouldn't you in fairness to the rest of the City Council let us know? I mean.
Councilwoman Jansen: Do you let us know everything that you're involved with? We're not exactly that
up to speed on communicating.
Mayor Mancino: When I'm representing the council I do. Absolutely. When I'm talking as a Mayor.
Councilwoman Jansen: I was not representing the council. I was not acting as a council representative.
Mayor Mancino: Then how did they know you were a council person? Why was that in the title of the
article? Why was it common ground when you wrote that article?
Councilwoman Jansen: They know I'm a council person and they definitely hit it as hard as they could to
get the sensationalizing affect of the article. Now I'm sorry that you got landed on by the representatives at
the State.
Councilman Senn: Well I think there's, listening here I mean, I think there's important distinctions here.
And the important distinctions aren't in my mind so much what you say as how you deliver it. Okay. You
know in the last 7 years, I mean and I've gotten a few calls about this whole thing too. Whether it was 212
or other letters to the editor, etc. Okay, I mean you always have to assume that people are going to
visualize you as a council person. That's rule one. You can't ever think that you'll be visualized as a
citizen because you are going to be visualized first as a council person. So any time I have ever written any
letter to the editor or anything else, I start out that letter to the editor by simply saying that these are my
own personal opinions, and have nothing to do with my position as a city council person or the feelings of
the City Council. You can go back and check over the years, the articles I wrote because they're all very
clear about that. Because I always assume right at the end of the article where I put Mark Senn.
Councilman Engel: They're going to write it in.
Councilman Senn: They're going to parenthesis right underneath, Mark Senn is a City Council person of
Chanhassen. I assume that. Automatically. Right off the bat. And I always have assumed that because
that's very important. And whenever you get interviewed by reporters or by the press or outside articles,
it's the same thing. Whenever they ask you a question, I always say, you know are you asking me as a city
council person or are you asking my personal opinion? If they say a city council person, I say I can't ask
you as a city council person because we haven't taken a position on that, or if we have and you know what
the position of the city is. But I'll say I can answer you personally what my personal opinion is on it. And
my personal opinion is.
Mayor Mancino: And that's also when you meet with developers or anybody else.
Councilman Senn: Well anybody. Whether I'm at a neighborhood meeting or whether, I'm only 1 of 5
people. I never state a position that anybody knows is anything other than, and stated as my personal
opinion. I mean even if they've invited me to the meeting as a city council person. Any question I answer I
say it is my personal opinion. Okay, and not necessarily the opinions of the rest of the City Council.
Councilwoman Jansen: And I haven't done it any differently than that. And we have a very definite
position on Highway 212 as a council. That document is in every one's hands. They know what the
position is of the council. Now I can appreciate that you'd like to talk about this. I don't know that it's
49
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
necessarily appropriate for this meeting. We could certainly have this conversation at a work session if
you'd like to work out our relationships as a council and how we communicate.
Mayor Mancino: I'm talking about in this particular matter because obviously if Laurie Blake would have
read the memo, which she finally did fax to me, would have pulled that out. It certainly does show our
official position.
Councilwoman Jansen: Sure it does.
Mayor Mancino: She felt for some reason that maybe there was a waivering or a difference. I wasn't there
with you. I have no idea, so I don't know what got her and what prompted her to call and say what is the
City's official position if she had it in her hand. I wasn't there. I wasn't at the press conference Linda so I
don't know. But anyway.
Councilwoman Jansen: If you've got questions in the future, and you end up with phone calls, certainly
you know my phone number. You can certainly call. We can have a conversation. But I have represented
my position as my position, and also shared the City Council's position in writing. So I definitely made
sure that I did this as appropriately as possible. I mean heaven knows I realize that Representative Molnau
and Workman would undoubtedly receive the material. Know that I was over talking about the project.
I'm not saying anything that isn't true about the project. It's all being properly documented.
Mayor Mancino: I didn't say you were saying different things about the project. I'm just saying as a
council member how are we representing ourselves and this has not come up before.
Councilman Senn: Well my point is, it's a broader issue and we need to keep it that way. And in addition
to being a broader issue, it's something we always need to be conscience of. Because I remember a letter to
the editor about the budget process and how the council had supposedly taken a position on the budget and
we hadn't even taken a position on the budget yet. And things like that, so you need to be very careful
about what you say when the council does do or doesn't do when you're speaking for the council. And
stuff and it's better just simply not to do it because then you don't, you know then you don't get into that
problem. And generally if that's the case, then you refer them or at least what I generally do is refer them
to city staff because they're the ones that have the record. I don't walk around with the record one way or
the other.
Councilwoman Jansen: I mean that's suggesting that we can't communicate and I don't agree. I don't
agree at all.
Councilman Engel: I want to just ask the question here Linda. You're talking about Molnau it appears is
misconstruing your representation of yourself or the Sierra Club or the City Council's position. It looks
like, it sounds like you think it's a Molnau issue. Right? As I'm reading her memo here, third paragraph
says, there's attempts to contact the Governor, the Department of Transportation staff and other members
of the legislature and all that's undermining. What I'm wondering is, I mean she's obviously talking to
these other people and that's how come she knows you're involved with them. Are they all getting the same
read? She must be thinking they're getting the same read as she is, is the only thing I can infer by reading
this memo. I mean is that the case when you're meeting with, or you're trying to meet with the Governor's
staff or the Department of Transportation staff, or other members of the legislature. Are they all making
the same mistake she is or I mean, I'm a little confused by this as I read that paragraph because if it's just
her, I can see a single person making the assumption that you're speaking for the council and be wrong.
50
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: They all know that I'm a City Council member. It's not as if that's the reason why
I'm speaking to this issue. But yes, they do know that I'm on the council. But I'm not presenting any of
the information that, and anything that's my opinion I'm expressing as my opinion. I am also at the same
time then making sure that they know that we've signed the MOU and that the Council supports the project.
It's in looking into all of those questions that were drafted into that letter that my opinion has now gone
more to the negative on this project than we took as a council, or you took as a council in that letter. But
it's pursuing all of that information and getting those things clarified that I now have a different opinion of
Highway 212, and I would not have signed that letter.
Councilman Engel: You know and I have no problem with that. I mean it's a group of 5, I don't care if
it's 4 to 1, 3 to 2. It doesn't matter .... the legislators so I mean my only, I have to infer from reading this
response to the letter that the Mayor wrote her, that this is more than Carol Molnau's opinion.
Councilwoman Jansen: I didn't even read this since it was handed to me. I mean I have no idea what she's
saying about my repeated attempts to contact, but she doesn't say that I'm trying to contact then as a city
council person, and I'm not doing it personally. So Molnau needed to be directed or I needed to be know
that she needed to speak to me because she doesn't, she doesn't have a clue what's actually going on here.
She's drawing conclusions. The only communication on this has gone between the Mayor and Carol
Molnau. The Mayor and I haven't talked about this so to properly clear up any misunderstandings that
Representative Molnau has, I'll need to speak with her. Because it still isn't clear.
Mayor Mancino: No, but she has certainly talked to other people down at the legislature I would assume
that have said that. I mean obviously or she wouldn't have that impression. And again, I think it's pretty
important for us as council people to make sure that when we do, whether it's a 3 to 2 vote, a 4 to 1 vote,
or whatever, that we support wherever the majority goes as a council. And that we stay together as a
group, as a team. I mean people obviously voted, all 5 of us to work together. To have a lot of diversity.
A lot of good deliberation and a lot of good debate on all issues, but at the end of the day when we do vote
as a council, that's it. We speak in one voice. And that if you do want to go out and certainly give your,
how you feel on issues, just please make sure that we do so, each and every one of us, as a citizen and
know how hard it is for everyone else to kind of just see us as a regular citizen and not part of council
because perception if reality so we have to be very, very careful.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to add a caveat to that though. And that is that there's no issue or any decision
is ever sacred. I mean if somebody has new information, they ought to say I have new information.
Mayor Mancino: Absolutely.
Councilman Senn: We ought to bring in to a work session. We ought to talk about it and then we can
decide whether we're going to reconsider an issue or not reconsider an issue. I mean that's the way we
should be working together. Because to me nothing's sacred that way. We can reconsider anything at any
time, especially given new information. But that information needs to come in. Needs to go through a
process where the staff can analysis it and study it and bring back basically you know all sides of the issue
or some different perspectives to it and we can talk about it in a work session and we can go ahead and go
from there and who knows. We may change our minds. We may not but I mean that's the way we should
be doing it all the time. That's why we have work sessions I thought. Or one of the reasons why we do.
Mayor Mancino: Anything else? Any other comments?
51
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, going into correspondence.
Councilman Senn: I've got one on that.
Scott Botcher: And I actually had administrative presentations.
Councilman Senn: Oh okay, do you want to do that first? Go ahead. I really don't care.
Scott Botcher: I just need...
Councilman Senn: I've just got one quick one on, or I hope a quick one on correspondence. The first item.
Which is Anita's memo to Scott Botcher about Highway 101 meeting schedule. This is absolutely
ridiculous given what we've talked about and the direction we've given. Given the fact that it keeps getting
misstated. Misrepresented. This word gets out to everybody. And stuff. Can we please define what this
process is going to be? The last neighborhood meeting is tomorrow night. Okay, and I would hope, I'll
just say it's my hope that sometime in the first two weeks of March if you choose to have an open, one
more open house for everybody, that we do it in the first two weeks of March so we can have on March
20th consideration before the council on what we're going to do, which you could make a public hearing.
And you could skip the last open house and make that the public hearing anyway, or have two of them in
March at each council meeting, whatever, but let's please agree on a schedule and let's set it and let's go
forward rather than all the misinformation floating around. Because every time one of these goes out,
believe me the word gets out like wildfire.
Scott Botcher: That's one of the things I wanted to confirm. This schedule, fits a couple schedules. That
of the facilitator. That of the meeting room quite candidly. I mean the Rec Center is, as you know is doing
very well this year in terms of bookings and activity and financially. I don't know of another, I mean we
could find another place. We could probably go to St. Hubert's. We can do whatever. We go to the Rec
Center first. These dates fit. They seem to fit production of the Minutes. In other words, getting them
drafted. Sending them out to the neighborhood to get them looked because they want to see them. Sending
them back. And this last meeting on the 29th, for us to get the minute drafted, sent to the neighborhood for
them to review, sent back to us and still have the open house in the first two weeks in March I think is too
aggressive of a schedule. That's part of the reason this was put together.
Councilman Senn: Question?
Scott Botcher: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: We already have all the minutes other than the one neighborhood that's left...
Scott Botcher: And not for the 29th. I'm just.
Councilman Senn: ... from the 23rd Scott.
52
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: This was built with that in mind. I mean what happens if they didn't come, you know so.
But if you want, honest bottom line, if you want to adjust the schedule, tell us and we'll find a place. It
may not be the rec center. It may have to be St. Hubert's. It might have to be whatever but.
Mayor Mancino: So Scott you're saying.
Scott Botcher: I'm giving you this is Anita's recommendation. That's a broader time table. It fits the
meeting room. It fits some things but it can be moved.
Mayor Mancino: So the community wide open house though, I mean we don't need to have the minutes on
that one ready from the neighborhood groups. The community wide open house, again kind of frames it up
with board designs and presents them to the rest of the community or the neighborhood. So we don't need
minutes before we do that. We couldn't do it on the 15th?
Scott Botcher: If you want us to try and move it up, we'll do it. It won't be at the Rec Center but that's.
Mayor Mancino: How does everybody feel on the 15th?
Councilman Senn: I'm just posing the question.
Mayor Mancino: On the community wide one.
Councilman Senn: Or would you rather have a couple public hearings in March as a council meetings? If
you're going to do it anyway, it just seems to be, now you're down to the point that you're doubling up on
meetings. Because if we're going to have public hearings in the council meeting, why don't we just go
ahead with the council meetings and have the public hearings? If anybody's concerned from the broader
general community about what's going to happen on the south side of the neighborhood, they're going to
show up at the public hearing.
Scott Botcher: And I tend to agree. I tend to question the necessity for two open houses independent of
public hearing. I would agree with that position because I think, I tend to agree with you on that comment.
That the greater community will attend the public hearing. Folks from my neighborhood for example,
they're not going to be drawn to a community wide open house necessarily. If they need to come and it's
important, they'll come to a meeting here. So that may in my own opinion offer us the opportunity to
consolidate the open houses. What that means though, possibly and you guys will have to make the call is
that it may again raise up the necessity that you want the minutes from the 29th. Now and I've been very
candid. I'm not making any guarantees as to how quickly some of these neighborhoods get them back.
Some have been very prompt. Some have been less prompt. That's just how they are and that's okay.
They're very fluid organizations. But we're really trying to err on the side of a conservative schedule so we
allow for these things.
Mayor Mancino: Don't you think we should be able to get the Minutes to have a first public hearing on the
20th though of March?
Scott Botcher: Except I believe that is, that's the affordable housing thing at the Rec Center. I think. I
don't have my calendar but I think that's. Is that the affordable with the Met Council people. We've been
trying, that's going to be a full night by itself and to try and combine that with 101 would be insanity.
53
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Mayor Mancino: What about having the public hearing on the 27th?
Councilman Senn: Well what's wrong with the one on the 13th? That gives them two weeks to get the
Minutes out. Well I mean again, they've got two of the neighborhood groups out in less than a week.
Scott Botcher: I guess the question is, how important are a specific set of Minutes to your thought process
at this point? Not that they're unimportant but I'm.
Councilman Senn: No, I think they're all important but I mean if there's a reason somebody can't get it in
two weeks and somebody can come and give us a synopsis, what's the difference? I assume somebody's
going to be in the position to do that.
Scott Botcher: I would agree.
Councilwoman Jansen: These other copies of the minutes that came out so quickly, it says draft on them so
I'm assuming that they haven't made it back from the neighborhood. That this was.
Scott Botcher: I believe that to be true, yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: This was staff's initial, and so.
Scott Botcher: The neighborhoods, right.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So if they do have changes, we're not aware of them.
Scott Botcher: Correct.
Councilwoman Jansen: I think we just may need to buy some more time and do it on the 27th for our first,
so that we can, I think the 13th is too early is what I'm saying.
Scott Botcher: Well right now we've got the community wide open house on the 22nd. Separate and apart
from a council meeting.
Councilman Labatt: Do you need both the 22nd and April 12th?
Scott Botcher: Well I tend to agree that two open houses is overkill to me but that's just.
Councilman Labatt: Just eliminate one of them.
Councilwoman Jansen: I think if we have the community wide one, then at least we've given people the
opportunity to speak to this that haven't had that opportunity plus.
Scott Botcher: Yeah the neighborhood people, let's be honest. They've had, the four meetings, they're
going to come to the public hearings, right? Enough's enough and...
Councilman Senn: You're just doubling up.
Scott Botcher: So you guys want to dump the 12th?
54
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Labatt: Dump the 12th.
Councilman Senn: If you're going to go beyond the 20th as far as any type of a meeting on this issue,
you're going to get into real trouble unless you then wait until mid-April because most of the area which
you are considering this for is in the Minnetonka School District and it is their spring break. The week of
the 27th and the week of the first week in April.
Scott Botcher: Why don't we do a public hearing on the 27th because Minnetonka doesn't get out until the
29th or 30th.
Councilman Senn: You will get in trouble because I will guarantee you that there's a large chunk of the
population that will leave town the weekend of the 25th and 26th. So you'll have people hammering on you.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, they'll take their kids out.
Councilman Senn: It's two days in school for cripes sake which generally the kids watch movies.
Scott Botcher: So if we move, okay.
Mayor Mancino: So what that does is it pushes it to April l0th.
Scott Botcher: Is April l0th the end of the world? For a public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we could do the public hearing on April l0th.
Councilman Labatt: We're kind of pinned by if we want to accommodate spring break vacations, let's put
it on the l0th. We can't on the 3rd. That's a work session, right?
Scott Botcher: Yes, and we're going to have vacation problems then big time because that's the week
they're off.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so public hearing is on April l0th.
Councilman Senn: And the 20th is the other deal, right?
Scott Botcher: 22nd.
Councilman Senn: No, but I mean the 20th of March is the other deal that you already said.
Scott Botcher: Housing.
Mayor Mancino: Is the affordable housing.
Scott Botcher: So the 22nd will stay, and it will just be an open house for whoever wants to come and then
the l0th will be the hearing and we'll drop the hearing on the 12th.
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, when's the open house?
55
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: The 22nd.
Councilman Senn: The 22nd Of?
Scott Botcher: March. I'll write all this down for you.
Councilman Senn: So that's a Wednesday night you're picking?
Mayor Mancino: Yep.
Scott Botcher: And we've got the Rec Center booked already for that.
Councilman Senn: Then we're going to have the council meeting when?
Scott Botcher: April l0th.
Councilman Labatt: And not the 24th that's in the fourth paragraph there. In the middle, right? April 24,
2000 is now April 10th?
Scott Botcher: Correct. Yep. If that's what you guys want.
Mayor Mancino: We'll hold a public hearing on April l0th, not April 24th.
Councilman Senn: ... community open house, we'll have a council meeting on the l0th and decide from
there what we're going to do?
Scott Botcher: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: My concern is that we create an environment in the open house so that anybody who
wants to can come and speak to it because when we get to the public hearing with the way the
neighborhood groups feel, I just don't think anybody else will get up and talk about it. I mean they'd never
say they want four lanes.
Councilman Senn: The neighborhood people aren't going to miss your open houses either. It doesn't make
any difference. They're going to be at every meeting...
Mayor Mancino: I think it will be less intimidating at the open house.
Councilman Engel: Because they won't have the cameras. They won't have the audience. They won't
have the chambers in session. It's will be easier at the open house.
Mayor Mancino: And plus it can be kind of you know more informational.
Councilman Engel: We just don't need two of them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Just a second, administrative, did you want to?
56
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: I had our meeting schedule 101. Work session, April 3rd. We have two, and I've got a
stack of about five things up in Karen's desk and I'm going to have to copy and just put in your mailbox.
One of them is a copy of all the work session schedules from now through like June. That's been updated
and current so you guys will have that. I know Linda wanted to see that and so I had Vicki pull it up.
Vicki went home today at noon sick. We've just been, I don't know what's going on.
Mayor Mancino: Everybody's sick.
Scott Botcher: We've just got problems. So that will be coming along with some other correspondence.
On April 3rd you are scheduled to Board of Review on the properties and then interview people for
commission posts. The ads have been out and I haven't seen any come in to me but they may have gone to
the department heads. Park and Rec primarily and Planning Commission. Just so you know that evening,
Minnetonka is on vacation. As you know I'll be on vacation. God knows I need it. And Kate will also be
on vacation. Minnetonka's on vacation. We're not taking our kids out of school. So, and those two items
quite honestly with the interviews and the Board of review will fill up your night but I just, you know you
guys need to know that. I mean I assume it will fill up your night.
Councilman Senn: When is our next work session now?
Scott Botcher: It will be, what is today?
Councilman Senn: Next week?
Councilman Engel: Next Monday.
Scott Botcher: Yep.
Councilman Senn: What do we have on the agenda for that?
Scott Botcher: We've got about 6 or 7 things. When you see the agenda, we're packed out to like May.
We're just packed. We've got Bud Olson coming in to get some, we're going to have some narratives put
together. I think I mentioned that. Steve Torell is coming in to talk about the new energy code laws and
you probably know go into effect April 1. Just want the council to know what they're doing. They are
meeting, they are holding some open houses for builders and developers to come in. Trying to be more
proactive. Communicate what it is we're doing. Those two come to mind.
Councilman Senn: Our next one we need to deal with this one way or the other if we're going to take city
positions on any legislation.
Scott Botcher: And I guess I get that e-mailed to me. I simply forward and you guys should be getting
that. If you want to, you just.
Councilman Senn: There's a number of issues we have to deal with that we should be taking a position on.
Scott Botcher: That's up to you guys. That's fine. I'm forwarding you this information. That's why you
don't see me say.
Mayor Mancino: Well we'll have to put it in a work session.
57
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Councilman Senn: But we need to do it soon because the legislator's only goes...
Councilman Engel: Yeah, bump something else.
Scott Botcher: I think if you want to take action on that, you're probably looking at the work session next
week, and it's going to be a late one.
Mayor Mancino: What about the performance standards for the contract? Police.
Scott Botcher: Oh, that's next week.
Mayor Mancino: That's with Bud. Oh good.
Scott Botcher: The ideas that we'll put together what we, Bud, Dave and I have talked about. Put it in a
little bullet paragraphs. Give it to you guys and say are we close? Good? Bad? .... our goal is still March
31 which is set so that will give us the opportunity to work through two council meetings then, which has
really put a bug in our baskets so to speak. Really screwed us up. We'll still hit the 31st except for those
people in the Minnetonka District who will be gone.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well why don't we look over the work session schedules because we also have to
talk about performance standards for city manager and.
Scott Botcher: And I still have those things, strategic plan things put together. I just haven't gotten to
typing then in. So that's been...
Councilwoman Jansen: The only other thing that I had, and of course now it's gotten to be late and I
thought it was going to be a short night. But just as far as potentially giving some direction as to how
we're all feeling on taking a look at the zoning ordinances as far as, and in my memo I am simply
suggesting that we're getting a consensus as to whether or not we want to give staff the direction to look at
it. I'm not proposing that we make any decisions, but I gathered from reading the code book, that it's more
of a council or Planning Commission at least gives the word to initiate this type of a process and Scott had
brought up during our review conversation that our code book does need to be addressed. I got myself
more familiar with our PUD ordinance and some of the residential ordinances just because of Powers Ridge
and I guess from that felt more of a necessity of finding out where we are with the building materials and
architectural standards that started through the system. I know that the Planning Commission I believe
reviewed them in their last meeting, or at least it was on their schedule. But then whether or not we want to
more proactively take action to request some recommendations from staff on the PUD ordinance. And at
least the multi-housing since that seems to be the piece that is coming up the most readily, unless staff
knows of other projects that are coming up. And more so started in the process and I'm reacting because of
the porch ordinance that belabored itself out there from August until I believe it was reviewed again in
February by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Mancino: It took a year or two. I mean that's come back a couple times.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah, so really looking at what timing issues we have to deal with and can we
address these ordinances at least to some extent before we're pushing ahead with developments that in hind
sight we wish we had addressed the ordinances.
58
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
Scott Botcher: Just my two cents worth is, and I'll be brief. I know we've got, well I'll speak for us three.
We want to go. I just think there's some large issues there. I have not heard a consensus from this council
as to whether, as to how far into architectural we want to get. Because there are varied opinions on the
council as to how far into actual architectural approvals and site plan approval we want to get. Cities do it
differently. As I've said, I think it's always good to review it. I think a recodification allows us to do that.
but I also think that we need to take a measured approach to this stuff because we are dealing with property
rights and everything else. Make sure we do it in a measured way. And I would fully support putting it on
a work session and having a talk, talk my way through it. I just don't want, I mean off the top of my head,
some of the samples that are in there, that you gave us from other cities. You sent me a response as well
about the Minnetonka one. Plymouth for one, Kate and I spoke with those folks up there, and I can't speak
for Dave Childs. I haven't called him, but I think that what you see on paper and what they do in practice
are two drastically different things. And I think we just need to be aware of what's, you know I want to
make sure that if we go down that road, and candidly Delafield in Wisconsin, we were very aggressive in
defining architecture. I mean we were pain in the asses. But that's what they wanted and our ordinances
were, we had to go through a whole recodification. You can't nit pick that stuff because you can get in
trouble doing that. So that's just my only two cents worth on it. I think it's a good thing. I just think we
need to take a really measured approach to it and get input from the development community because they
are important to our community and what are their legal positions and their rights and folks that are anti-
development. Folks that are neither and folks that, you know. All, like we try to do with all the stuff. I
mean I think we want to.
Councilwoman Jansen: Because there's a whole public hearing process I gather that goes on through the
Planning Commission. You probably, since you're out of the office you probably didn't get my e-mail
back.
Scott Botcher: No, I went up. I read it. And I sent you one back as well so make sure you know, but I
think I did. I want to make sure that, I mean candidly though, public hearings at Planning Commission
don't carry the same weight. And that's not to denegrate the Planning Commission but unless you're in the
neighborhood and you have an issue before Planning Commission, Planning Commission's going to hold a
public hearing on zoning code. Sorry, that's not going to draw them. If you've got a council thing and you
work with the media and you do whatever to talk about broader base, but define ideas. I mean you guys
are the big hitters. I mean you set the policy and there's some reality to the fact that until an issue gets to
the point where people who actually make the decision have the issue, the interest level isn't necessarily
there. I mean heck, let's be honest. There are bills that go through the legislature and they're very
important but until it gets up to the Governor's desk, you know people sit around the water coolers and say
is he going to sign it or not. And some of that bears out with you guys. I mean you have responsible
positions and that's how people look at it.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I guess I just assumed it'd probably follow the same process that we started
on the building materials project as far as the way that was being addressed. This would be done
somewhat similarly.
Scott Botcher: That's just, that's my own opinion.
Mayor Mancino: I'd like to put it on a work session and have the council talk about it first because if there
are things, I mean I don't want to just say you know staff go and look at some of our existing ordinances
and what needs to be changed. I think, and I think it's a good idea. If there's some things in the PUD code
59
City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000
that we want changed, we should direct staff about what's in the PUD that we don't like now and be a little
bit more specific. What is it that we're trying to accomplish by having them go back and review it? Or if
we're wanting them to go back and review the R-8 or the R-12, what is it about it? What are we trying to
accomplish as a council? What is our vision for R-8 or R-12 that we're seeing there right now that we're
having some problems with. I think we need to be more specific before they take it and look at it and go to
the Planning Commission with it. Or they'll just come back with something that.
Councilman Senn: We need to be more.
Councilman Engel: Put it on a work session.
Councilman Senn: We need to be more realistic and more specific because it's very easy for us to sit up
here and say, as we constantly do, put it on a work session. And now we're hearing that work sessions are
backed up for months to come. Okay, what we probably really need to deal with at the next work session is
maybe looking at what all those issues are and the council ought to start prioritizing them to get them in the
order that you want to deal with them because we only have...
Mayor Mancino: Because there's a timeliness.
Councilman Senn: ... limited staff resource. I mean we can't have them chasing 10 different directions at
once.
Scott Botcher: And if you want to adjust the work sessions schedule, we can talk about that. There's some
things that just have to happen at certain times. We have tried our best to prioritize your work load in
terms of timeliness. You know we owe citizens a response. We owe other government bodies a response...
but if you want to re-adjust stuff, we're great with that and we can talk about it. But it's just, if you look
at the mass of stuff, it's a busy year.
Mayor Mancino: So let's do that on Monday night. Let's look at it.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, bit's got to be copied. One last thing before Steve and I go. Do I need to respond to
Charles' memo?
Councilman Engel: No.
Scott Botcher: Thank you. I was reading it, and he didn't work for us anymore and I didn't, whatever.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
60