1l Approval of MinutesCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2001
The Mayor called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. The following members were present:
Mayor Jansen, Council members Ayotte, Peterson and Labatt. Councilman Kroskin was absent.
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION INTERVIEWS: The Council interviewed the
following candidates for two three-year terms on the Park & Recreation Commission.
5:00 p.m.- Fred Berg
5:15 p.m. - Jim Manders
5:30 p.m. - Jack Spizale
5:45 p.m. - Joseph Maloney
6:00 p.m.- Bruce Feik
6:15 p.m. - Thomas Kelly
The work session was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Scott A. Botcher
City Manager
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, and
Councilman Peterson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Bruce DeJong, Teresa Burgess, Kate Aanenson,
Julie Hoium, Lori Haak, Todd Hoffman, and Beth Hoiseth
Public Present for all items:
Name Address
Wayne Fransdal
Deb Kind
Sherry & Elizabeth Ayotte
Signe Thomas
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Linda Landsman
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
6200 Murray Hill Road
2351 Lukewood
6213 Cascade Pass
6480 Devonshire Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7329 Frontier Trail
ARBOR DAY POSTER CONTEST WINNER AND
PROCLAMATION DECLARING ARBOR DAY.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for joining us here this evening. Under public announcements we have the
proclamation declaring Arbor Day, and I promise I did not write this lengthy proclamation but we will
read it as quickly as we can. It's a proclamation declaring Saturday, May 5th as Arbor Day, which the
City does host a wonderful program up here at city hall. I hope as many people who can attend will
attend. Whereas, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a
special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and Whereas, this holiday called Arbor Day was first
observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska; and Whereas, Arbor Day is now
observed throughout the nation and the world; and Whereas, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious
topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air,
produce oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife; and Whereas, trees are a renewable resource giving us
paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products; and Whereas, trees in
our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas and beautify our
community; and Whereas, trees are a source of joy and spiritual renewal; and Whereas, Chanhassen has
been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue it's
tree planting ways. Now Therefore, I, Linda C. Jansen, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby
proclaim Saturday, May 5, 2001 as Arbor Day in the City of Chanhassen. I urge all citizens to support
efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to support our city's community forestry program; and
further, I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well being of present and
future generations. And join us on Saturday, May 5th. The main presentation start here at city hall at
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
noon and run until 3:00 and we've got presenters and exhibitors, including Carver County Master
Gardeners, the Wildlife Rehabilitation and Release, the watershed district, Carver County Environmental
Services, the Herpetology Society, the garden club will be up here, Halla Nursery, Miss Rosie's Farm
Animals, compost sale, tree sales and a seedling give-away so come join us if you can. That was a long
public announcement.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
be
Approve Amendment to Chapters 7, 18 and 20 of Chanhassen City Code Relating to Building
Permits and Grading & Erosion Control; Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication
Purposes.
Resolution #2001-19: Approve Resolution Authorizing Execution of Hazardous Materials
Emergency Preparedness Grant Agreement.
f. Approval of Bills.
g.
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 9, 2001
- City Council Minutes dated April 9, 2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated April 3, 2001
- Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 27, 2001
- Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 27, 2001
- Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 10, 2001
h~
Resolution #2001-20: Authorization to Prepare an Addendum to the Feasibility Study for
Century Boulevard.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT & FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, council members. As you see my note mentions the area call
report and area citation report. They were working on those and I thought we'd have them here at least
by today, and they're not ready yet so. They continue on catching up down there at the same time they're
trying to implement all this new software so, we'll get it to you and all the cities in the county as soon as
we Call
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that.
Sgt. Dave Potts: The community service officer highlights are attached to the memo I gave to the
council. And under miscellaneous items for this evening, the sheriff's office held a liquor law seminar
inviting all liquor sellers throughout the county, training on complying with the underage liquor laws,
that type of thing and that's something that's kind of done on an annual basis. This year Applebee's and
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
the American Legion were the attendees from the Chanhassen area, along with Chanhassen City Office
Manager Karen Engelhardt. Regarding alcohol compliance checks, it sounds at this time that we'll be
doing one in the first half of this year and the second one in the second half of the year and probably
continue with two per year as the sheriff's office standard operating procedure on the compliance checks.
I wanted to have an update for you on the Mobil station robbery and I was gOing to throw in a piece on
the Legion robbery. As you know that investigation is still ongoing. Regarding the Mobil robbery,
Maple Grove made an arrest of an individual who pretty much perfectly matched the Mobil robbery as
well as some other robberies in the metro area, and our office was attempting or is currently attempting to
verify if that person was indeed one and the same. So I don't have a definitive update for you on that but
things are progressing there. Roger Roach, our detective assigned to Chanhassen has been working full
time pretty much on the Legion robbery, continuing to go after a couple of the suspects still pending in
that case. On April 7th we had what turned out to be an extensive search for a missing woman who was
originally from Hungary, now lives in Canada and was visiting Chanhassen. Left the downtown area on
a walk to cool down after an argument and didn't come back, and once it was reported to our office some
hour or two later, some medical information and other information came to light that became of concern
for the health and welfare of this individual so it turned into quite an extensive search and rescue
operation due to that information involving the sheriff's office personnel, Chanhassen fire personnel,
state helicopter, a sheriff's emergency response team, Minnesota Search and Rescue Dog Association,
Midwest Technical Rescue and Emergency Support Services, and even an Austin, Minnesota police
officer with a bloodhound. Ultimately this woman had walked the railroad tracks out of Chanhassen.
Eventually made her way, all the way to Edina where she was located by officers there and returned
safely. Watering restriction update. As I believe the council may be aware, in working with city staff on
this year's watering restriction enforcement and we will be issuing no warnings starting from May 1st.
The plan is to issue citations right from the get go and that would by deputies and the CSO either
receiving complaints or finding violations on their own. And also with other city employees patrolling
during various times of the day or evening, and completing a report that would be forwarded to me for
follow-up regarding that. And of course there always is officer discretion for a highly unusual situation
or something like that, but our standard operating procedure would be to just issue citations for violations
of that upcoming restriction. Project Leadfoot update. Project Leadfoot kind of gets slow during the
winter but with spring fast approaching now, coming back. Last year we documented 25 areas where we
had at least some level of involvement and so far this year we've already documented 24 different areas
in the city that we've done at least something on. For our part there are two additions to our traffic
enforcement efforts and Project Leadfoot. I begun the use of something I call a traffic sheet that all
officers can carry with them. It lists areas or streets in the city that we're looking for a little special
enforcement on. Either we're working with this area or group under Project Leadfoot, or we've
identified this area for some extra efforts. So with the traffic sheet, the officers have that list of streets
close at hand. In addition, each of the areas is ranked in a 1, 2, 3 basis. 1 being daily or near daily
enforcement activity in that area. 2 being regular enforcement, and 3 being more occasional. And we're
able to raise and lower the ranking of the areas to kind of move our officers where we think we want to
get some more enforcement activity. The last thing I wanted to mention was just this past Friday, had a
pretty serious accident on Highway 5 and Lone Cedar, which is just this side of Minnewashta Parkway.
Kind of a bad stretch of road. It involved a semi truck and 3 other vehicles. Completely blocked the
road. Requiring, we call State Patrol for accident reconstruction. The road was closed down for several
hours so we had traffic blocked off at Highway 5 and 41 as well as Highway 5 and Minnewashta
Parkway and Highway 5 and County Road 13 for a time. So it used up a lot of resources there. Nobody
was killed in that accident. There were a couple of serious injuries. I believe 4 people transported to the
hospital total on that.
Mayor Jansen: That sounds lucky.
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Sgt. Dave Ports: Yeah, it turned out well with all the circumstances involved so, and that is my update
this evening. CounciImembers have any questions or comments for me?
Mayor Jansen: The only thing I wondered about, and I'm going back to the first item that you
mentioned. The liquor law seminar. You only had 2 establishments in town actually attend that. Is that
typical attendance that you wouldn't have had more?
Sgt. Dave Potts: Well, as you know my first year working up here in Chanhassen was the first year I had
any involvement at all in knowledge of what the sheriff office does in the liquor compliance area, and
this same seminar was held last year so many several other Chanhassen businesses attended last year
rather than this year. And I could assume that in previous years that I wasn't aware, they held this same
seminar as well so I'm assuming that businesses go some years but not necessarily every year.
Mayor Jansen: More of a rotating attendance, sure.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah, probably.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilmembers, anyone with questions for Sergeant Pot-ts?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate the update. A John Wolff imposter.
Greg Hayes: He had a work commitment.
Mayor Jansen: Welcome Mr. Hayes.
Greg Hayes: Thank you. We are currently in the hiring process of hiring 10 new fire fighters. They
have gone through their orientation and physical agility test, and over the next 3 weeks we will continue
on with our process but we're looking at a record number of new fire fighters for the fire department
which will be 10 and then we will get them into our Firefighter One program. Currently we do have a
waiting list, which has been unusual for our fire department. To have a waiting list. We had about 20
people inquire from our sign that says do you want to drive a fire truck.
Mayor Jansen: Hey that's great.
Greg Hayes: Mark's little slogan out in the front fire station. That so far has been the best marketing
thing we could come up with.
Mayor Jansen: When are you going to tell them it's more than that?
Greg Hayes: Yeah, we've done everything from that to putting flyers on pizza boxes. That was our
second highest one so we'll keep using Mark as our marketing manager. Currently the river is receding
today. Who knows what will happen tomorrow with all the rains, the river's supposed to come back up.
From a fire department perspective, we have not seen any calls. However, neighboring cities across the
river have seen numerous calls. Within the last week I've counted at least 5. Two were major. One was
extremely serious. We did, just because of our location, we ended up not assisting because there's no
easy way for us to get across the river. But the river hopefully will keep receding. It's gone down quite a
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
bit in the last 2 or 3 days and hopefully from emergency management side, we can get the, that we'll see
the roads opening pretty soon. Because of all the traffic we are seeing, have seen an increase of
accidents on Highway 5 because we have a lot of congestion. So hopefully we can get those roads back
opened up. Some of our officers, which is fairly new, new program that we've developed with the
Minneapolis Fire Department. Some of our fire officers are going to be riding along with their Incident
Safety Officer. Due to the call volume they see and the serious nature of their calls, we are sending some
of our officers voluntarily to ride for 24 hour shifts to gain some on the job experience and to look at
things from a different perspective and that's something, it's fairly new for Minneapolis Fire and it will
be really exciting for us because we'll be able to get, not only school experience but on the job
experience for our officers. Because what we do in a year is what they do in a day. So it's really neat.
And our last thing is we'll be, next month we will be using Minneapolis Fire's training facility.
Simulating a rail car emergency fire and also a simulating structure fires so we will welcome anybody
that would like to come down and watch and participate where they can. Any questions for the fire
department?
Mayor Jansen: Council members, any questions?
Councilman Peterson: What's the cause of the 10 new positions? Turn over or growth or both?
Greg Hayes: Right now what we've seen, a few people retire. A few people had some family and job
changes. We are, we've got a potential for a large group that can retire within the next 2 years so we're
beefing up staff in order to make that bump a little less bumpy when we go through that because we are
looking at I think, we could retire at least there's about 10. A couple will be around we know for sure but
there are going to be some retirements next year, and hopefully we do this once a year and hopefully next
year we have another 10 to 20 applicants.
Councilman Peterson: Good, thanks.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. Appreciate your coming in.
CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING RECOMMENDATION, BETH HOISETH, CRIME
PREVENTION SPECIALIST.
Mayor Jansen: There's Beth. Thanks for joining us Beth.
Beth Hoiseth: You're welcome. Good evening Mayor and council members. Upon your request I'm
here to report on my findings in the Crime Free Multi-Housing program. I'd like to begin with a brief
summary of background on the program. Crime free multi-housing began in Meza, Arizona about in the
early 1990's and it was introduced into Minnesota in 1996, and that's when I went to a State conference.
Brought the information back to, at the time we had 6 rental properties so I introduced that program.
Offered it to those property managers. At that time no one was interested in the program but they were
interested in pieces of it so I provided information to them. And since that time I've had routine contact
with property managers. If there's a crime problem, I provide them with a crime update or a crime alert,
whatever fits that particular situation. Conducted a few crime watch meetings at properties, rental
properties. So the proposed program tonight is actually an enhancement of some of the things we're
already doing. And as I stated in my memo, the program is a modification of the state program. What I
did is selected those strategies that have proven to work in other communities but I eliminated some of
those strategies that were proven not to be effective, nor were they good use of our resources. What I
found in researching other police departments, what they've done is they've most of them, many of them
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
have modified the state program as well to fit their needs. And the success of the program is summarized
in the memo. Three key components to make this program successful and certainly the first one is active
management. The managers, the landlords, they want, they have to want to be able to create and
maintain a safe and healthy environment on their property. And they have to want to receive
recommendations from us. And most properties want to do that so we've got a good grounds to start on.
And law enforcement's role then is to provide that information, encourage them to take on a
recommendations and be there as a resource for them. The second key component is the partnership
development. And we've already experienced quite a bit of this and what a significant role that plays.
We need to build strong relationships, working relationships with the managers and we need to provide
them with crime activity. What's going on on their property. This is key for them. If we can provide
them with monthly activity reports, they could look to see where the problems are on their property and
then correct those problems. We need to be there again as a resource for them, and this builds a
foundation for us to work together so when problems come up we can do some problem solving together
and we can be more proactive and they'll be more receptive to some of our ideas that we have. And then
the third piece that's important is we have to bring in the tenants. They're citizens also and so just like
we have Neighborhood Watch meetings, we do Crime Watch meetings. Keep them in the loop as far as
what crime activity's going on. What we need to have them do and just like we do in Neighborhood
Watch meetings. It's important to get them involved and let them meet our local enforcement officers as
well. And while we were researching this program, Sergeant Potts and I, we you know naturally started
implementing some of our new strategies and we've already seen some success in the short time that
we've been starting up some of our new process. What we've seen is enthusiasm being generated from
everybody involved. The managers have been very receptive to our contacts and very appreciative of us
providing them with crime activity, phone calls, printouts, that type of thing, and the deputies are
catching on too. I mean they're always out there on patrol and doing that type of thing anyways but
we've explained to them that we're expanding our efforts and so they're starting to keep us in the loop
more. Leaving voicemail. Letting us know, you know last night I got a voicemail from Bob Zydowsky
about some activity that he was involved in so they're really keeping us in the loop so that we know how
to take action that next day. So everybody seems to really be jumping on board and we're optimistic that
we're going to see some success in this program. Are there any questions? Comments?
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. Thank you for doing such a terrific presentation and already starting to go
out and find some successes with it. That's good news.
Beth Hoiseth: Well that's kind of exciting to do that. You don't want to just make, you start writing up
these proposals and you just want to dig in there and start making the calls and start the program.
Councilman Ayotte: Just as a matter of record, you -know I have a major concern about one particular
apartment complex in town, and I'll let your mind wander on that one. The concern though is what do
you see as a need that you have from council. And in the areas where we don't have owners or managers
as responsive or as receptive as we need them to be, what can we do?
Beth Hoiseth: What can you do as council?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes.
Beth Hoiseth: I don't know. Dave?
Sgt. Dave Potts: That's a very good question.
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Beth Hoiseth: It is a good question.
Sgt. Dave Potts: We did look at, and I don't know if Beth would like to comment on this any further.
We did look at the possibility of implementing city ordinances regarding certain aspects of the program,
and we felt that the program as Beth laid out in the memo, is kind of where we'd like to start. And then if
we feel that we need to go further or if we're not getting cooperation or not getting the results that we
had hoped for in time, then start to look at some of those other options.
Beth Hoiseth: From studying some of these other cities, we went to another conference and I called
several communities and it's not mandated in any city, this program or the variation. It's a voluntary
program. The only thing that's closest to it is some cities, I think Minneapolis perhaps, and you can
imagine how large of a property issue they have there, but they have registration and so even though the
crime for multi-housing or the crime prevention program is mandated, they have registration
requirements and they use that as leverage to work in with their program. But as Dave said, we will
pursue more of those options if we run into problems with the plan we've laid out.
Councilman Ayotte: Well I won't speak for the rest of the council but I will say that your comment
about ordinance is very positive. I want to make it a matter of record, that's why I'm speaking publicly
on it. That your job is extremely important in that venue and the issues that we have are pretty focused
and if we can deal with just a couple of those areas, you're going to do a lot of good so I hope we can
concentrate on it and I hope you do come to council and ask for help if needed. Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Jansen: Scott you had a comment to add.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, there are cities out there that will license, not just register but StrictlY license the
operation of multi-family, multi-tenant 'facilities. The theory being that if you have difficulties you have
multiple calls. You can have non-compliance with this policy that you then I guess in theory, and I
would defer to Roger on how you get into it, but you would just not issue the license. That raises all
sorts oftaking's questions but suffice it to say that there are communities out there nationwide that do do
that.
Roger Knutson: Some of your neighbors do that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Ayotte: On my street or?
Roger Knutson: Not, neighboring communities. Plymouth and St. Louis Park where we work. They do
at both places.
Mayor Jansen: That's good to know. Thank you for sharing that and if in fact we can't get voluntary
compliance at least we know that there is another step that we can take. We did add this, and we'd have
to go back and check how we added it as a condition to the last two apartment developments that were
approved by the council, because this was a program that we were encouraging to be put into place. So
at least on the Lake Susan Apartments and Powers Ridge, it was right within the conditions for approval
so we are trying to formalize it and make sure that it just becomes a part of what you do for us, which is
wonderful. I'm glad that you've started to implement this already. Scott, was that all you had to add?
Scott Botcher: Yep.
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from council? Comments? Okay. Thank you very
much. Keep us posted.
Beth Hoiseth: You're welcome.
Councilman Labatt: Thanks Beth.
ROUNDHOUSE PAVILION RENOVATION, ROUNDHOUSE PARK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jan Lash 7001 Tecumseh Lane
Fred Berg 6910 Chaparral Lane
Rod Franks 8694 Mary Jane Circle
David Moes 6241 Near Mountain Blvd.
Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road
Michael & Connor Howe 2169 Stone Creek Drive
Deanna Bunkelman 4191 Red Oak Lane
Ed Kling 4169 Red Oak Lane
Jody & Greta Carlson 4041 Leslee Curve
Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road
Jim Manders 6791 Chaparral Lane
Todd Hoffman: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. It's my pleasure to be here this evening
again to talk about the round house with the City Council. This past February you directed staff to
coordinate a neighborhood meeting between the Park and Recreation Commission and the neighborhood
to discuss alternative methods of renovating the round house. And if you recall at that time we were
talking about a public bid project of approximately $125,000 to complete this work. On Tuesday, April
l0th the commission conducted this neighborhood meeting. Approximately 20 to 25 residents attended
representing both sides of the issue. Those sides being tear it down, and either just leave the hole or fill
it and plant grass or put an alternative shelter up, and those residents supporting the renovation or saving
the round house. The meeting lasted approximately 2 hours. Upon conclusion of the discussion that
evening Commissioner Franks recommended the City Council move forward with Option #4. And that
option in brief is, have the City invest approximately $50,000, or up to $50,000 in the project. Then have
a neighborhood group or neighborhood committee with a chairperson work with local contractors and
local building suppliers to complete the project as a neighborhood initiative. And that would lead to an
adaptive re-use of the round house as a park shelter and that the commission would review the progress
to that end at their September meeting. And ifa consensus of the commission at that time is that progress
is not satisfactory, that the commission would then entertain demolition of the round house at that time.
The motion was clarified to specify that a neighborhood coordinator and committee would form to retain
and work directly with a local contractor to complete the renovation. Commissioner Berg seconded the
motion which passed in a vote of 5 to 1. In the audience this evening we have Deanna Bunkelman who
has volunteered to serve as the neighborhood coordinator, or at least play out that role if another member
were identified. And then there's members of the neighborhood here as well this evening. In addition
we have all members of the Park and Recreation Commission in the audience this evening here to answer
questions, or offer assistance to the City Council.
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: None of them have an opinion though, do they?
Todd Hoffman: I believe they may have an opinion, sure. If you'd like to hear those. With that, I'm
excited about the process. I think this is what, sometimes we're criticized for...that certainly takes some
element of risk on the part of the City and the City Council, but I think it's a project that is worthwhile.
One thing that I noted at the meeting was that it took some bravery to stand up in front of those neighbors
that opposed the project and say that we support it and we're willing to take it on if the City gives us a
chance. I think there's a good deal of neighborhood peer pressure in the area that will push these people
to make the project a reality. That's the end of my report.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point?
Councihnan Peterson: Todd, is the design that was presented in February and the design that is
essentially is there today, is it substantially different? It was a hundred and some thousand by having an
architect drawing and an outside contractor doing it. Is the building still essentially the same or has it
changed substantially?
Todd Hoffman: The project I would think would be relatively the same with the exception of probably
the clear story or the glass glazing would go away from the top. It's an expensive element. Some of the
structural steel that was identified in the project may go away as a part of a neighborhood project. But
the neat thing about it is that plans that were developed and the city paid for would be utilized by the
contractor and the committee to make use of in their project so we are getting some value, out of those
plans.
Councilman Peterson: We also authorized a certain amount of money to be spent in February to stop the
deterioration. Was there any money spent at all or? ~
Todd Hoffman: Not to date, no. The roof membrane which has been placed over it is still in good
condition and holding water out of the structure so it has dried out. We have not placed a temporary
fence around it at this time.
Councilman Peterson: Lastly, we talk about a $50,000 investment from the City. How confident are we,
and I don't know whether or not it's appropriate for you to answer this. I'll leave it up to you. If we get
down the road and realize it's still going to cost more, there's a, are we going to be caught between a
rock and a hard place if we end up spending 45. Get down to September and we need another 25 to
finish it, I mean what are the odds that that might happen you think?
Todd Hoffman: There's some risks listed under here and one of those, as is stated directly in the staff
report, is that the possibility that the money may run out prior to the completion of the project. But I
think if we're clear to this committee that the reason that $50,000 has been identified is that's the limit
for, that a city can invest in a project such as this without going out to public bidding and so that's a
pretty clear message to that organization that you'd better budget wisely. Get an upfront plan. Make
sure you know who you're getting donations from and where your labor's coming from and plan
accordingly because nobody wants, is interested in getting 3A of the road down the project or halfway
down and running out of money.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you.
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: First off, I did some checking last week and I got the answers today. A number of
residents e-mailed me inquiring about safety issues. Safety issues in terms of improving the facility and
people using it inappropriately. That sort of thing. I got a hold of Bud Olson. He had some people
check it out and they do not see that as a viable safety issue, which surprised me. So he changed my
mind. Not just because he's the sheriff, but because he had some good, credible information associated
with this so just as a matter of public record, I want that to be known. With respect to liability for folks
working on the project. How do you couch liability for the volunteers?
Todd Hoffman: There are certain segments of the project which will have to be subcontracted and the
one that I know of today is the removal, if the paint is removed on the outside, of that lead-in paint. And
so the group would need to work with a licensed contractor in that area, if they want to strip it. If they
want to paint over or encapsulate that paint, they would be perfectly fine doing that work.
Councilman Ayotte: Does the commission or anyone else view any potential liability areas outside of the
Hazmat? Crawling up on the second floor scaffolding. Things along that, and how do we protect the
City?
Todd Hoffman: There's risks in that area. I'm not sure if Roger would like to comment on that but
anytime you have people working with a project such as this, it's a two story project. There's demolition
involved.
Councilman Ayotte: How are we protected?
Roger Knutson: Liability normally attaches based on negligence and a lot of other theories. It depends
on what we have these people doing, and whether the conditions are safe and if we have them doing
things that only skilled people should be doing and we allow them to do it, we could have some liability.
Of course we are insured. So it'd be whatever deductibles we'd have. That's little comfort if a person is
injured.
Scott Botcher: Without the city exercising direct supervision of the activities and the volunteers, we
have liability.
Roger Knutson: Again, depending on what you're doing.
Scott Botcher: Absolutely.
Roger Knutson: If you're up on a scaffold and you have a 16 year old child working on a scaffold,
there's a problem.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm just voicing a concern. I'm hoping that it's addressed properly and that the
supervisory issues are there. That the QA issues are there and that possibly we inform folks of the risk
and liability associated with the project before we do a go forward. That is a concern of mine.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: I had the same concerns with liability so Bob once again answered them for me. As
I look at this building, every time I drive by it, it's a building that definitely is an eyesore but I think with
what.
10
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: I think that was agreement.
Councilman Labatt: And I look back to what the folks in Excelsior did with the Minehaha steamer and
how they used a group of volunteers over a long period of time to restore that. And I think that this
option 4 gives us that option so I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. This is in fact not a public hearing and we certainly have extensive minutes from
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. I'm sure everyone did read through those and we
appreciate every one who did come in and speak at that hearing. The individual that, if council wouldn't
mind my asking her to approach the microphone and speak to her supervising the project, would be
Deanna Bunkelman. If she, did I understand she's here this evening? If you wouldn't mind coming
forward to the microphone and if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record.
Deanna Bunkelman: Deanna Bunkelman, 4191 Red Oak Lane.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for joining us tonight. We appreciate it and for stepping up and volunteering to
organize this effort. We appreciate it.
Deanna Bunkelman: I'm not sure, I had sent you a separate e-mail. Were you able to read that?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. Appreciate that.
Deanna Bunkelman: Okay. One thing I did want to let you know is I did find a co-coordinator so that
we can definitely have the time and resources available to do this because I think it would be a lot for one
person, since I do have a full time job. And he's here tonight as well and I don't know if you want him to
speak. He wasn't able to come to the commission meeting but he would be willing to say a few words.
Mayor Jansen: I'm sure we wouldn't mind meeting him as well.
Deanna Bunkelman: Ed Kling. And I pretty much, if you've read my e-mail, I pretty much said
everything I needed to say so I don't know if you have any specific questions for me.
Mayor Jansen: Well, some of the issues that I'm hearing, and maybe if you wouldn't mind potentially
addressing, the one that came up as far as the city's contribution and we haven't established yet as a
council what that contribution amount will be. But it inevitably will take more financial wherewithal to
get this accomplished.
Deanna Bunkelman: We are hoping to get as many donations as possible from local businesses. I just
found out tonight, we were hoping to hit some major window manufacturers because we really liked the
design of the building with the windows up above. You know right under the cone of the roof, and I just
found out tonight we have a great connection with Marvin Windows so we're hoping to get all the
windows donated. We'll be going to other local building manufacturers to see what type of building
material we can get donated, such as all the roofing materials, the cedar shakes. We also have
connections with some local builders so we're hoping that they can donate whatever they can donate, so
at least the materials. Labor, we have many neighbors in the neighborhood that are willing to offer their
time and labor so again we're hoping to do as much as we can. Ed has connections with, he has with
painting you know so hopefully the varnish and all of the painting type materials we can also have
donated. So we're just going to go out and try to solicit more volunteers and try to solicit as many
donations as we can. And what we're hoping to do with that is actually similar to Excelsior. They have
11
City Council Meeting- April 23,2001
that playground next to the lake down, right on the main lake there in Excelsior. And you can see
everybody that donated like Norwest Bank and stuff. They actually have plaques there to show that they
donated so we're kind of thinking maybe we would do something similar. Just to recognize them for
their donations. You might be aware that on Lake Minnewashta, I don't know how many years they've
been doing it because I've only been in the neighborhood for a couple years, but they actually go around
to get donations for fireworks, to do their own fireworks on Lake Minnewashta so we're thinking that if
they can do that, that we should be able to get donations even from people that live on the lake and from
the neighborhood as well so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for addressing that. Do you know in reference to some of the volunteers
in the neighborhood, what kind of a skill level you're going to be able to bring in? I'm hearing our
liability issue as far as our ending up with some of, you know if you were to put me up on a roof we
would definitely have a liability issue.
Deanna Bunkelman: I don't know if they're professionally licensed. You know I'm sure the builder
would be, and his contractors would be if we can get any time from them. My husband built on a third
car garage on our previous home. Put on cedar shakes, did things like that. He's not a licensed
contractor but he's done a lot of work like that. I know Ed, in his previous home built a gazebo and did
all the construction on that so, I don't know as far as licensed but I do know we have a lot of people in
the neighborhood. They build their own decks. They do a lot of things around the home. You know
they're handyman type people so as far as truly skilled and that's their profession, I'm not sure.
Councilman Ayotte: One of the things I would request is if we could, and when a motion is made I might
throw in the thought of having a QA plan and a safety plan integrated into Option 4. That it may not be a
bad idea that when the plan is put together that there'd be really heavy staff review by our city engineer
to ensure that if there is potential issue or potential concern with some of the things that are going on,
that they can introduce some of the safety parameters so we're not causing ourselves a problem. I'I1
probably throw that out when we're ask to vote on this so, but would you be receptive to working in that
kind of constraint to have the plan reviewed by city engineers to make sure you haven't had any hiccups.
Deanna Bunkelman: If they're not going to charge us.
Councilman Ayotte: She set me up.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions?
Councilman Ayotte: Heck no, geez.
Deanna Bunkelman: And I definitely wanted to give Ed an opportunity...
Mayor Jansen: Sure, thank you.
Ed Kling: Hello, I'm glad to be here tonight. Thank you for inviting me up.
Mayor Jansen: If you could state your name and address just for the record please.
Ed Kling: Okay my name's Edward Kling, 4169 Red Oak Lane.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
12
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Ed Kling: I think you know when we look at the building and what it has to offer and also the support
that we're getting from our people in the neighborhood, and then also the opportunity to have businesses
contribute to this building, I think what we have, or what we really need to look at is, when we see
communities, some of the small towns that surround the Twin Cities are surviving on the fact that they
have an appeal, an aesthetic that you can't get by building a new building. And some of these small
towns are surviving only on the fact that they have bed and breakfast to bring people in and now they're
starting to thrive on that. And by looking at this building we can rebuild this building and have
something that we couldn't get by building a new building. And I see as we go forward we have more
and more support and there is a lot of excitement and there are a lot of options that we have to cut costs
and to get this building built. I don't think that's a problem. Concerning the liability, I don't know if
there's any way that we can maybe draw up a liability waiver for those that are going to be involved, and
then whenever we do go forward to do any construction on the building, make sure that there is someone
from our local neighborhood committee on site to make sure that if there is anybody there, that we have
the liabilities signed and we have everybody accounted for. If that is an option.
Mayor Jansen: That's an interesting question. If we could maybe have Roger speak to that.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think what I'm hearing tonight is kind of a concept for a project. You'll need
to have professional supervision of anyone working in that building, whether that's staff or a hired
consultant, contractor, whoever, you'll need someone who's responsible to the city to do that and you'll
need a project budget and you'll need to know exactly how much money you're spending and all that
before you actually go over there and start working, I would assume. So yeah, all these things you'll
need and waivers aren't that effective.
Scott Botcher: They're not worth the paper they're written on.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: I wouldn't go quite that...
Scott Botcher: Save the trees, don't even write them.
Ed Kling: Okay, that's all I have.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it. And appreciate your stepping up to co-chair.
Ed Kling: Thank you and I have, you know this if my first time tonight but I have committed to seeing to
it that if there is something that needs to be taken care of to spearhead any issues that would become our
responsibility, and give as much time as I possibly can to make sure that things get done. Okay?
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you very much. Bringing this back to council, I'm watching our city
manager agitatedly fidgeting over here as he's going to explain to us all of the impracticalities of what
we're trying to accomplish, which is why we have hired professional staff. And I guess before he takes a
crack at it, I know all of us are sitting up here looking at the practicalities of the project and trying to
weigh that with the emotional side of it and I'm intrigued that apparently every time this project has been
debated, it's been the same thing. You've got 50/50 and the e-mails that we have gotten in opposition to
our renovating this have been just as adamant and practical as the ones who want to save it and renovate
it. It's good arguments on both sides. And I think what you're going to be hearing our city manager
13
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
explaining to us that in order to do a project like this, there are going to be some significant issues that as
a city we may have to come up with some answers for them. As Councilman Ayotte was pointing out,
the whole liability issue on the city's part. I think everyone here as residents can certainly appreciate that
you don't want to see the city put in a worse financial position than we are currently because we got all
warm and fuzzy about the round house and put our necks on the line and everyone's tax dollars on the
line in order to do something with it. So there may be some issues that you're going to hear us having to
address in order to actually put this together. And I'm hearing from our city attorney that we may have to
have a more concrete plan in place if in fact we do choose to go forward with this project. So with that
I'm going to turn the practical aspects over to.
Scott Botcher: Dr. No.
Mayor Jansen: Dr. No.
Scott Botcher: That was a great movie. He had those gloves, remember that? I thought you were Dr. No
Bob? Sorry to take your thunder. I'm just, I'm perplexed by this. Not being the emotional guy, although
I told Todd Gerhardt I'm going to be Alan Alda the last month just to see how it feels. Todd, how much
have we spent on design so far of this, I mean the drawing of the specs for this thing?
Todd Hoffman: Approximately $15,000 with the testing. Materials testing.
Scott Botcher: So we ultimately could have 65 grand sunk into this thing and not know if we're going to
have anything when we're done. Is that correct? Yes, it is correct. So my question is, is there anything
else in the entire city that you would spend $65,000 on and now know that you're going to get anything
for it? I mean I think that's just a fundamental issue. I mean we've worked so hard to deal with financial
issues and it's a passion of mine, I admit. And Bruce is gone. And certainly the volunteerism aspect that
Todd has mentioned is good, but you can have that same level ofvolunteerism on other things absent the
exposure that the city could potentially undertake if Option 4 were to be followed. The numbers that are
in this recommendation are significantly different, and I'm not sure where they came from. I know Todd
got them from the $50,000 or less but you all were pretty clear I thought in your last motion what you
wanted to do. And I'm admittedly a little confused as to how we got from where that motion was back
in, was it March, February, to where we are now. Just reading you all.
Mayor Jansen: Well and we haven't discussed the dollars yet.
Scott Botcher:. Understood.
Mayor Jansen: So, you're correct.
Scott Botcher:. And you're right. The e-mails that I got, and I've got copied on I think almost every e-
mail you all got, Linda's right. There's a significant number of people in that neighbor also who have
said geez, you know we'd really like to have the money invested into something perhaps with more
utility. More functionality. Something we can use. I still question, even at $65,000 the cost per square
foot of this thing and the functional utility of what you're going to have when you're done if it gets
pulled off.
Councilman Ayotte: What would be the cost per square foot at $50,000?
14
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Scott Botcher: Well it's at 65. At 100, well I'm just roughing it out. At a hundred and a quarter, it was
about 275, ifI remember from last time. So cut it in half roughly. That's a significant amount. I mean
again, the library's out there at a hundred and a half.
Mayor Jansen: And just let me add, council's original motion at the February 12th meeting was that the
project cost had begun and had been budgeted at $40,000, because the referendum money went over and
above. So we were at 40 and the motion was to then take out of the 40, the 15,000 that's already been
spent. So then it would be in fact 25,000 so the city had a cap originally of 40. Now as it's come back
up through the public hearing process, if council wants to consider the cap 50, it's whether you consider
it 50 or 40 but.
Scott Botcher: Well, that's what came out of the Park and Rec Commission.
Mayor Jansen: Correct.
Scott Botcher: I mean it's up to the council.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, but the original motion was 40 less the 15.
Councilman Ayotte: And it's 600 square feet. 600 square feet?
Todd Hoffman: I don't recall what the total square footage was?
Councilman Ayotte: 600 square feet?
Todd Hoffman: I don't recall.
Mayor Jansen: He doesn't remember.
Councilman Ayotte: Does anybody?
Mayor Jansen: But I wasn't meaning to cut you off, but I'm agreeing on the dollars. That we had a
discrepancy on the dollars.
Scott Botcher: I mean I just again, trying to watch what we do with our budget. And looking at the
expenditures and tax dollars as an investment for the future of our community, this is one that quite
frankly from the beginning, I've been very open about it. I simply don't get and I think we're simply
struggling with the emotions of it and that's why we can't just say you know, because I think cognitively
each one of you looking at this on a sheet of paper, if you didn't know what it was for, would say there's
no way in god's green earth we'll spend the taxpayers money on this type of project. But it's up to you.
That's why you get the big bucks.
Mayor Jansen: Yep. And you're right.
Councilman Peterson: One more question. Todd, do you recall what the demolition cost is going to be?
Todd Hoffman: Again the demolition costs were just an estimate but.
Councilman Ayotte: Just under 20,000 1 thought.
15
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Todd Hoffman: Yeah. 15 to 20,000, depending on the landfill costs. Those are the biggest costs. The
landfill. The lead in paint material and the exterior.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, good.
Councilman Ayotte: You bring up a good point. If we have $20,000 on the table and if we have the
opportunity of turning into a functional facility for a little bit more, that's a reasonable consideration.
But I'm not about to feel good about spending 100 plus dollars per square foot. That's my hard point, but
I think there is a, if we can figure out a way to get the material, and it sounds like you've got a handle on,
which is your biggest cost. And if you get free labor, and if there was a set aside to offset the cost of
demo, given a timeline, that might be doable. The 50K, Mr. Botcher's got a very, very good point, even
though he doesn't have a tie on tonight.
Scott Botcher: Steve took it.
Councilman Ayotte: Well you trade off. Last time you didn't have a tie on. Playing the Steve McQueen
look, but I'd be receptive to looking hard at Option 4 if we could lower the threshold a bit.
Mayor Jansen: If we lowered the threshold a bit?
Councilman Peterson: Cost expenditure?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Scott Botcher:. You know maybe the way to do it, if you want to do this, since I'm the only one who's
Dr. No. I think Bob's point of having a budget plan is excellent. And safety plan, absolutely. Because
we have, our butt's in the sling out there. But I think, you know if a budget could be put together, we
need to confirm the demolition cost because frankly we haven't done that. It's a wag. We don't know
what it is. We need to confirm that amount and maybe the way to do it is to have, you know a dollar for
dollar match with the volunteer contribution or in kind sort of stuff so we're not just handing a check
over for 50 grand and we say okay, folks go do your thing and they come back and they say we've got the
windows. We've got whatever and we've got in kind labor in the amount of, estimated amount, fill in the
blank. We then can budget from that. Measure against that then a more firm demolition cost because
again we still have some internal debates as to is lead really in that paint to the extent that it's preported
to be by a single individual, which we then need to confirm. We need to confirm the handling of that
stuff. But if you really wanted to do it, you really want to spend the taxpayers money, that's what I
would do.
Councilman Peterson: I'd spin that a different way. I'd say let's find out what demolition cost is and I'd
be willing to spend that towards the project, nothing more.
Scott Botcher: And you could do that as well.
Councilman Ayotte: That would be a reasonable thing to do. Do you follow that? Ms. Lash is looking.
16
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Mayor Jansen: Well I guess what I'm looking at is what we said on February 12th we would approve, and
this went back to the Park and Rec Commission with the understanding that this was our motion. You
know 40,000 was the budget. We'll deduct whatever's been spent from that. The 15,000. It did go back
for the public input and they stepped forward. You know 50% against, 50% for, but we have a couple of
individuals who are willing to organize this and maybe go out for the contributions and part of our
motion or part of the direction and summary that we gave was that there would be additional funding and
volunteer work coming from the community. So I do appreciate the city manager's suggestion that we do
roll up a budget and see what in fact those numbers could conceivably come to, and the residents then
will see what we need in kind and conceivably then also in a financial contribution, and we know before
we get started, that we can accomplish the project. Because the other concern I'm hearing is we don't
want to get partially into renovation and be coming back for more dollars or having this delayed for a
year or two as we try to come up with more contributions to get it accomplished. I think we need to get it
accomplished in a timely manner.
Scott Botcher: And I think to roll up the budget though, you're going to need to have the input from the
neighborhood as to what volunteer contribution, in kind contribution they can come up with. I don't
think it can go the other way. You have to identify what is really out there non-cash and then roll it back.
That's going to take time. Yeah, materials and in kind labor and that's going to take some time and that
probably means, unless they really move fast, and they might be able to, you know it may mean this thing
doesn't get started right away this spring because I practically don't see it happening. It's going to take
time to do that networking to see what you can dig up. But if ultimately the goal is, on the part of the
supporters to save the building, then it would seem to me that that commitment of time is a good
investment if ultimately they can save the building that they want to save.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there a horizon date though that we have to put on it where we have to face the
reality of dealing, take the building down? Can we wait until your roll up budget showing the material
in kind and so forth, to what point? How far out before the building~ starts to degradate? We have more
lead base paint flaking and is there a problem in waiting too long?
Todd Hoffman: I don't think so. Not in the time frame people were talking about.
Mayor Jansen: I don't think a few months, correct?
Scott Botcher: It's fully depreciated Bob.
Councilman Labatt: So let's try to recap what's here. So you're going to deduct the $15,000 already
spend off the 40 that we've set the budget for back in January? Whenever the last meeting was.
Mayor Jansen: Yep, that's what we said on February 12th.
Councilman Labatt: Is that almost water over the bridge or under the bridge that's already been spent a
year ago before?
Mayor Jansen: It was just spent. It was just now spent on the engineering, in order to get to the
documents for the $125,000 bill.
Scott Botcher: Second half of last year probably.
Councilman Labatt: Second half of last year, 2000.
17
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: As a part of this whole planning process and budget process on the building.
Scott Botcher:. Part of the capital budget.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So then, if I'm hearing it right, we may be willing to match in kind
contributions, right? Up to and exceed not a certain amount or is it the up to the demolition cost?
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Peterson had mentioned the demolition cost. Are you comfortable with...
Councilman Peterson: I suspect it's pretty close so I don't think we have an issue. I think the answer
would be yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So it'd be that 40,000 that we'd be looking at as the match.
Councilman Peterson: Minus the 15.
Councilman Labatt: Minusthe I5.
Councilman Peterson: So you've got 35 you're dealing with.
Councilman Labatt: 25.
Mayor Jansen: 25. We will totally have 40,000 into the project.
Councilman Peterson: Exactly.
Mayor Jansen: In taxpayer dollars.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So this group of residents is going to be empowered here. They're going to
go out there and work their behinds off and come up with in kind of contributions along with maybe
some monetary contributions from certain corporation. What are we going to do about that? Are we
willing to match that? If they come up with 15, 18, $20,000 in in-kind contributions and they go out and
get monetary contributions of 10, 12,000, 15,000, whatever they can come up with, are we going to put
our mouth behind those contributions too?
Councilman Peterson: No we can't. We can't go up over $50,000 so.
Mayor Jansen: The city contribution cannot be above 50.
Scott Botcher:. Without applying for bidding.
Mayor Jansen: Would be the maximum. I'm saying I'm comfortable having the city's contribution of
taxpayer dollars into this project being the original 40,000. They will then yep, they will roll up the plans
as to what this is going to take now to put this together and the residents will know what they need to
come up with in either in-kind or the balance of the financial in order to get it done.
Councilman Labatt: So the balance this group only has to work with is 25,000?
18
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Correct, because we've already spent 15.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. I just want to make sure that that's clear to them.
Councilman Peterson: And we also have to consider, I think a lot of that 25 that's left is going to be
spent on supervising.
Mayor Jansen: That's what I'm hearing.
Councilman Peterson: ...requirement of the project from the city perspective.
Scott Botcher: Well and if that's an option the city wants us to pursue, we can poke around and try to
come up with some other options but there certainly will be some expense to that. How usable are the
existing plans going to be if, and I think you mentioned Todd, maybe the windows on the top come out.
Are the plans still functional if you start deviating from them with any significance?
Councilman Peterson: You don't have construction plans yet, do you? All you have is design plans.
Todd Hoffman: Design and bidding plans. What Deanna said is they're hoping to keep that clear story
glass. I would think that the plans would be very functional for use as a part of the project. IfI could, I
know you're talking about a $40,000 budget. The original allocation from the CIP was $40,000. Then
the study was undertaken by Locus about what it would take and that's when the cost went up to around
80. Previous councils did allocate an additional $40,000 out of the CIP for an expenditure approved at
that time of up to $80,000 for the project. And then that's where the recommendation to increase it to
120 came to the City Council so to date on the books we have an $80,000 allocation for the project.
..
Mayor Jansen: As I understood it, $40,000 was from the original park and trail referendum, which was
over spent and that's where we lost then the 40,000. It would have been council's prerogative to decide
to pull that 40,000 then additionally out of CIP, but what I'm hearing this council say again, and they said
on February 12th, the $40,000 was the project budget that this council was comfortable working from.
And that was part of our summary statement that we had made as this was going back.
Councilman Ayotte: And the large part of that is, going back to the cost per square foot. I keep going
back to that.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: You know it would be inappropriate for us to set a cost per square foot at the levels
we had originally. Just not acceptable.
Mayor Jansen: The other part of what I want to make sure everyone understands is this goes back into
the planning process. Is as I read through the minutes, there still seems to be some confusion over what
the final building is going to provide for the neighborhood. I'm still seeing some people even in the e-
mails thinking that there are going to be restrooms and not port-a-potties. That this building's going to
amount to more than we're actually accomplishing so if we can make sure that part of the communication
as this goes forward includes the fact that this is not going to be a functioning facilities building. So
everyone's clear. Does anyone want to take a crack at a motion? I can call offa couple of the points that
I heard mentioned. The supervisory responsibility. Making sure that the city has a qualified supervisor
19
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
on site during the project. Quality assurance plan that Councilman Ayotte brought up. The safety
considerations with the liability aspect and getting that addressed.
Councilman Ayotte: Let me give it a shot. I make a motion to approve Option 4 with the following
caveats. That the total value of the project from a bottom's up budget would not exceed $40,000 and
would include as a minimum a safety plan, a QA plan and meet all the constraints normally exposed, that
a building's normally exposed to for a project under the supervision of the city engineer and planner.
Did I miss anything?
Scott Botcher: How do we account for the salaries of those 2 individuals? Are they part of the budget?
Mayor Jansen: It all has to come out of the budget.
Scott Botcher: Are they part of this budget? It's a question, so we know because those two costs.
Councilman Labatt: How are we applying it to like the library or another similar building?
Mayor Jansen: Is it a staff person that's on site that you're thinking can supervise? I mean you're
talking.
Scott Botcher: I'm just responding to his motion. Whatever those costs would be a staff person, how do
we account those against that budget?
Mayor Jansen: Okay, we've got a motion on the table. We need a second so that we can go to
discussion, if we want to discuss the motion.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, I have a second. Not to interrupt the discussion but now if we can discuss the
motion.
Councilman Peterson: I don't see it as a city person. Staff person as much as you know a licensed
contractor is fine, and they may get that volunteered. They may not. But we have to be, the project plan
has to have the appropriate, the supervision, the city or otherwise in there. So I don't think It has to be a
city person.
Councilman Ayotte: Doesn't the staff however have to review that project? As any other project, and
won't that consume x number of man hours? I think Scott brings up a point there.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, I think the review of the project, I would be okay with that. Just coming on.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I don't see it as an issue. We're talking about a building project's
provision that I'm concerned about.
Mayor Jansen: Which is more intense as far as the amount of time. Legally, do we need to have this
supervisor be a staff representative or a city representative versus just a licensed contractor?
Roger Knutson: No, but what I was, what Scott and I were talking about. When you're actually, during
construction, if you have volunteers there, you're going to want to have a professional. A real, honest to
20
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
goodness contractor, someone to supervise the volunteers on staff any time a volunteer is there unless
they're, as I said, cutting the grass or planting flowers. You don't need that, but if they're in the building,
if they're up on a ladder, I think you're going to want someone knowledgeable in the trades. Someone
there to supervise it to make sure it's the proper safety precautions are taken and kids aren't up on the
ladders with their parents and things are being handled properly. So I think that, I don't know. I'll
venture a guess, I bet you don't have anyone on the staff that has that time available to do that so I'd
assume you're going to have to hire someone.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So staff will need to take that into consideration when they're putting the budget
plan together on the building.
Councilman Ayotte: So amend the motion to include professional trade supervision on job site.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second of the amendment?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Jansen: Are there any other issues with.
Scott Botcher: And that service could be donated as well Bob. I mean understand if there's a
professional trades person who has the abilities to provide supervisory services and they wish to donate
the services, that would be great. That we can do that.
Mayor Jansen: As part of your motion when you noted the 40,000 as the not to exceed, is that less the
already spent 15,000.
Councilman Ayotte: Spent 15,000. ,
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Just as clarification. Any other questions or comments on the motion?
Councilman Ayotte: I hope not.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt to approve Option 4 for renovation of the round
house building at Roundhouse Park with the following conditions:
1. The total amount of money allocated for the project shall not exceed $40,000, including
monies already spent to date.
2. A safety plan, a QA plan and a plan to meet all the constraints normally associated with a
building project such as this shall be submitted prior to construction.
3. Professional trade supervision shall be provided on the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you neighborhood and we're going to wish you luck and obviously to move this
project forward, parks and tee commission, as well as park and rec staff, coordinating with the
21
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
neighborhood in order to pull the plan together and get all the specifications and good luck to all of you
working on the project. It should be a wonderful endeavor. Thank you.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN
ESTATES 2Nr~ ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING
DUPLEX, 8004 AND 8006 DAKOTA AVENUE, ROBERT PAULSEN.
Julie Hoium: Thank you Madam Mayor, councilmembers. I'm just going to give a brief background of
how we got to this point in the subdivision request. Staff met with the applicants who owned the duplex.
They are requesting to split their property.
Mayor Jansen: Julie, not to interrupt. Could you pull the microphone a titch closer?
Julie Hoium: Sure. Is that better?
Scott Botcher: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Julie Hoium: They currently occupy the duplex. They live in one half and rent the other half. They wish
to split the duplex down the center so they can sell one unit with the property. One-half of the property.
This property is zoned residential single family. This requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,
with a minimum frontage of 90 feet. This district also permits a single family detached homes with 2
enclosed parking structures. What we have in this case is a duplex that is a non-conforming use, and a
subdivision of this duplex would create two lots with non-conforming lot areas, non-conforming
frontages, non-conforming parking requirements and possibly some non-conforming setbacks. Initially,
when this application came through, staff considered several different options to subdivide this property.
Any option would require variances of the previous stated requirements. On March 20th the Planning
Commission reviewed the, and tabled this request so that the additional information could be provided.
Staff went back and looked at the entire subdivision where this duplex is located, Chanhassen Estates. It
appears that this subdivision was initially created as a planned unit development. Staff believes that this
subdivision was referenced as a P-l, planned residential development in the 1972 zoning ordinance.
However there is no record. Staff has not been able to find any record of a rezoning to residential single
family. From everything we've found it's always been R-1 on the records. When looking at the
characteristics of Chanhassen Estates staff also discovered that a majority of the lots within the
subdivision are non-conforming with the residential single family district requirements. Several of the
single family lots are, have small lot sizes. Approximately 95 of the 130 lots within this subdivision do
not meet the ! 5,000 square feet requirement. Approximately 62 do not meet the frontage requirements.
This is just some examples that show this subdivision does have legal non-conforming lots within it.
And what this means is that any exterior expansion, modification or addition to these, any structures on
these lots would require a variance and for this, one remedy that we suggested was to consider rezoning
Chanhassen Estates to a planned unit development and in addition the 5 duplexes that are located near
the applicant's to planned unit development. The ordinance does state that no variances are required for
non-conforming lots if they meet a 75% of the minimum requirements. Within Chanhassen Estates 16 of
the 130 lots would not meet the 75% for the lot area, and approximately 20 for the frontage would not
meet the frontage 75% rule. In some cases the same lot does not meet both of them. If Chanhassen
Estates was rezoned to a planned unit development, some of the advantages would be that a majority of
the lots would then be conforming lots and would not require variances for any additions.
Approximately 7 would remain legal non-conforming lots. However they would meet the 75% rule. It
22
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
should be stated that this rezoning would not solve all of the issues for the subdivision request of this
duplex, however with specific conditions it would lessen the variances that would be required. On April
3~d of this year the Planning Commission reviewed all of this information and voted unanimously to
recommend denial of the subdivision. Staff also recommends denial of this subdivision. With that I'll
take any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff at this time? I have mentioned to the applicant that we will
certainly have the applicant come forward and address any new issues and comments that they would like
to share. This is not a public hearing and we do have all of the Planning Commission minutes from the
public hearings held at the Planning Commission. So if the applicant is here this evening and would like
to approach and state your name and address for the record please.
Terri Lee Paulsen: Yes, my name is Terri Lee Paulsen and I live at 8006 Erie Avenue. We're here
today, before you this evening with a proposal to subdivide our duplex. My husband has owned it for 10
years, and we no longer want to be landlords and are looking to subdivide so we can sell one side but still
live on the other. If you've read through all the staff reports and notes you'll see it's taken a while for
this issue to reach this stage. Our first meeting on March 20~h, before 4 planning commissioners, was
tabled to allow the city attorney to review any precedence, namely 2 duplexes in Chanhassen, including 1
on our street were subdivided about 10 years ago. Upon review Mr. Knutson told staff that precedence
hold no bearing in situations like this. Legally perhaps not but in my opinion what made sense to
subdivide these properties back then still makes good sense now. This is our duplex that we are looking
at subdividing. We live on this side here and want to split it right down the middle and sell. The square
footage, we're looking at 6,300 square feet and 9,400 square feet. 10 years ago this duplex, 3 doors
down from our place was subdivided. Split down the middle. The lot sizes are slightly bigger than what
would be the smallest of our's that we're proposing. Again if these people wanted to build a deck they
wouldn't be able to without a variance. This is another property in Chanhassen that was subdivided.
This is on Iroquois Avenue, not too far from here. The smallest lot size on this is 6,020 square feet,
which is smaller than what we're proposing, and this was approved by the City Council in 1990. And if
you look, comparison of the lot sizes, we fall in the middle. Our lot, if it's able to be subdivided, one of
them would be larger than any of the split duplexes. The resulting lot sizes are nearly equal.
Subdividing our property would create 2 single family homes and would not have a negative impact on
the neighborhood. In fact, some might argue that it's better for the neighborhood to have homeowners
rather than rental property. We've spoken to a number of neighbors who are in support of our plan to
subdivide, and they are quite surprised we are getting resistance from the city. During their research,
while the issues was tabled, the planning department discovered that of the 130 lots in Chanhassen
Estates subdivision, only 27% meet the city's current zoning regulation for lot size. The rest are too
small. They recommended to the Planning Commission that the cite create a planned unit development
for the entire subdivision, bringing all the lots, including our duplex and 4 others in the neighborhood,
into compliance. It would give the city control over the properties while still allowing the owners to
make improvements to their property, without having to prove a hardship. Something that would be
difficult to do. And as Ms. Hoium said, all the properties here highlighted in yellow are non-conforming.
They are smaller than the 15,000 and the ones in pink are actually smaller than 9,000 square feet, which
is the largest of our parcel that we are proposing. So you see it's a big issue here. If the Planning
Commission didn't want to create a PUD for the entire subdivision, the planning department
recommended that a PUD be created for the 5 duplexes on Erie Avenue, thereby bringing those
properties into compliance and allowing us to subdivide. Instead the Planning Commission, which
consisted of one 2 members who were present for our public hearing, and 5 members who were
unfamiliar with the issue, chose to ignore the planning department's recommendations and denied our
request. I realize that a PUD is meant to be created before development begins, but for some unknown
23
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
reason this didn't happen. However, when the Hidden Valley subdivision was created immediately to the
west of Chanhassen Estates, it was a planned unit development. The staff report outlines the many
similarities of these two subdivisions. If you take a look at the city code you'll see it's possible for
someone to submit an application to the city to create a PUD, but the code is written with developers in
mind. According to the city, no ordinary citizen has ever submitted such an application. For us to get
this issue before the Planning Commission, for them to hold a public hearing on the matter, we'd have to
submit the signatures of all 130 property owners consenting to the creation cfa PUD. And I doubt many
of those people would sign something when they know little or nothing about PUD's. Something that
they've learned about at a public hearing. The current zoning for Chanhassen Estates is a mistake. I
know the city has discovered a number of problem areas and are going about to rectify these. I encourage
you to add Chanhassen Estates to your list and right that wrong. What we're asking for you to do today
is allow us to subdivide our property. While the resulting lot sizes would be smaller than the ordinance
recommends, they are sufficient size for the homes. We'd accept restrictions on the subdivision,
mandating that only a duplex could be built on the property. As part of the application procedure, we've
already spent nearly $1,800 in fees and surveyor costs. All of this for something we thought would be a
simple procedure because it has been allowed before a couple of times. The second option would be for
the City Council to accept the planning department's recommendation that the city create a PUD for the 5
duplexes. I'd like to see tonight's meeting opened up to public comment. While the public hearing was
held regarding our request on March 20th, new information about the PUD option surfaced since then and
I believe the public should have a right to speak. In fact Mayor Jansen, in your editorial in the
Chanhassen Villager on March 22nd entitled suggestions on taking part in the local democratic process
you wrote, "we will strive to provide ample time for comments when new issues have surfaced or
changes have occurred". But before you decide on whether to allow public comment, and I'm not even
sure anyone here wants to speak about it, I'd like our attorney, Brian Huber, to speak briefly on
easements and how if our property is allowed to be subdivided, that easements could be created for the
driveway, garage and sidewalk, essentially making no physical change to the property but creating legal
common areas. Thank you. ~
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, and just so you're clear as to why in fact this is not a public hearing on the
PUD. It would have to be noticed as a public hearing for the PUD and your application is coming
through as a subdivision. So it would have had to have gone under the PUD process. It's not that it's
being denied for review. You still have the option to come back through the process asking for a PUD,
and as I had suggested to you in my e-mail, I'm certainly open to having council give some indication as
we're going about having our discussion as to whether that's something that would be worth your time,
and as you mentioned, cost of coming through the system to do. But that is why it's not being open to a
public hearing on the PUD. It wasn't noticed that way. But I appreciate your bringing that up.
Mayor Jansen: If we can keep this brief, we would sure appreciate it.
Brian Huber: I will do so Mayor. And thank you and council members. My name is Brian Huber. I'm
an attorney and I office at 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard in Chaska and I reside here in Chanhassen at 921
Lake Susan Hills Drive. Briefly, having spoken with our surveyor, the property as is proposed for
subdivision would have a dividing line right along the common party wall that divides the two dwelling
units. And in addition, in order for this subdivision to be feasible, we would propose easements that
would address the issue of the garage, and perhaps divide that into two separate units. Another easement
for the driveway and yet another easement for the walkway in the front. Having spoken with my
surveyor, I understand that in a majority of the simple subdivisions a plat is not required by
municipalities. However in this case if, whatever reason the council thought that might be necessary in
order to establish something recordable for future reference, we would certainly be able to do that. I'm
24
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
certainly willing to respond to any questions that council or your attorney may have. I know there are a
myriad of details here but it may not be necessary at this point to get into those.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions from council?
Councilman Ayotte: I do to Mr. Botcher and our legal counsel, not to this gentleman.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Very much appreciate it. One of the other things that was mentioned
by Terri Lee, and I certainly appreciate and I empathize with the feeling that maybe because of our
commission turnover that potentially your application was not reviewed in detail and I was sitting as the
liaison on the commission the evening that they reviewed the application and I certainly thought that the
representatives that were there completely understood the issue and had the same perspective that, as I
just shared with you, that with the PUD hearing it would need to be coming through the system as a
PUD. And there were a couple of members who entertained the idea that they might even consider that
to be something they would look at but that was not the motion that was before them so I don't think it
was ignored but I apologize if in fact you got that impression that it was not duly considered. The other
point that was made, Kate I know within the, or Julie, was made within the staff report. You had noted
that the main difference between this request and the previous subdivisions was that the location of the
garage for one. The fact that the garage is on one side of the building and if you divide the building in
half, you now do not have a single family dwelling on the other side because there is no garage. So of
the two other pictures that we were shown, did I gather those were tuck under garages?
Julie Hoium: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So each unit had it's own garage standing with it.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. City ordinance does require a garage with each unit.- That's why their attorney
represented he can get the easement to go with it.
Mayor Jansen: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Our concern was that they would come back and ask for additional variance for a
garage.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So the point of difference in wanting to say that the precedent has been set is that
this is different. I mean we are looking for an easement in order to accomplish this. We weren't looking
for an easement on the other two.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I thought I understood that correctly. Thank you. Any other questions council
that you would like to ask?
Councilman Ayotte: Scott and Roger, what's the harm in terms of approval or disapproval? From a
reality standpoint. I understand PUD, precedent setting but in this context, what is our risk to the city if
we said yes?
Roger Knutson: You said from a practical point of view. I'm a lawyer. I'll address it from a la,~v3Ter's
perspective. Our zoning ordinance and our subdivision ordinance require certain things and when you
25
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
review those applications we determine whether they meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and
the subdivision ordinance and the staff and planning commission have found that that's not the case.
You do not meet the ordinance requirements. To try to respond to your other question. Putting the law
aside, if you will, putting the law aside the ordinances aside, what would the effect be on the ground?
Would it be any different? It may not be any different, as far as I know and Kate can answer that better.
But the question is for processing, do they meet our ordinance requirements and the Planning
Commission and the staff found they do not.
Councilman Ayotte: Well the answer to that is no. However, with respect to PUD, if we open that up.
Roger Knutson: Oh they could do that.
Councilman Ayotte: And that's my point.
Roger Knutson: What harm from that? Personally as I'm sitting here, it's more of a planning question. I
don't see any harm in that.
Mayor Jansen: Well and again, it's not a legal issue. It's now we're taking all of these other homes and
we're changing the existing zoning that they believe is on the neighborhood. Now one of the things that I
did go back and do, as staff had pointed out, there is an impression that this may have been constructed as
a PUD. If you go through and you total up the lots, the average lot sizes within a PUD they have to
average 15,000. So you have lots within this subdivision that are up in the 28,000 square feet, 31,000
square feet balancing out these smaller lots. So though they are below what the 15,000 square feet is
referred to now on the current zoning. It's below that 15,000 for the current zoning, it was within the
balance if in fact this was created as a PUD. This in fact would be the last lot that you could subdivide
without falling below that average. So this would be, you have to be careful not to spot zone too. And
what I found ironic, to maybe give a little history since you weren't sitting here, is this neighborhood had
an instance where we were going to be, it was proposed to rezone the Family of Christ Church and they
came out adamantly against doing a rezoning. We don't rezone easily because you change people's, like
on Pulte. There's an impression of what the guidelines are. There's an impression of what can be done
there and to rezone it, though what staff is saying is that it appears to have been constructed under those
guidelines but they weren't here way back when this was done. Was it '69 and '707
Councilman Ayotte: That's what you were talking about what you couldn't find?
Julie Hoium: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, and it's just, it's not this staff's fault that they can't find where that original, where
that originated from. But if you look at the guidelines, the setbacks within the PUD are identical to what
it's currently zoned as far as the setback guidelines on all of the homes. So I was trying to determine
what we were changing.
Councilman Peterson: Another thing I think is important, it's been easier for me to remember is that I
think whenever you do a rezoning or even a variance, I mean compelling. Compelling reason is
something that you've really got to keep in the back of your mind as a rationale. There has to be a very
compelling reason to do that because it has a real cascading effect to a lot of people and a lot of
neighbors in the community.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you.
26
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for adding that. That was a good point. That is one of the parameters we
often time use. The other question that I had posed to staff prior to the meeting was whether or not
we've ever rezoned an existing neighborhood and we have not. So I mean this would be significant and I
completely understand and can appreciate what staff has discovered in taking a look at the single family
homes, but with the setbacks being identical within the two zonings, I don't see where these homeowners
are going to be put under any different burden under their current zoning that they would be a PUD
because they'll have to meet those same setbacks. Variances are usually setback issues so I guess that's
why I was trying to take a look at it from that regard. Does anyone else care to jump in and comment?
Councilman Labatt: This is strictly spot zoning something like this so. We were at the Family of Christ
Church and the big issue that was with all that, a no no is spot zoning so. Unless they can go back and
get the whole Chanhassen Estates to change the zoning I don't see a reason to go forward.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And the other point that I had taken a look at then was backing up to the original
application and whether or not under that application it seemed reasonable to subdivide and I can't make
that leap myself with the setbacks and wanting the garage to be on the correct side of the building. So
I'm agreeing with staffas far as not approving the subdivision and ! would not be comfortable going back
and rezoning to PUD. And I don't know that, I couldn't get myself comfortable with even doing the
PUD on just the twin homes.
Councilman Peterson: I would agree.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And I appreciate hearing your opinion coming off of the Planning Commission
and that request on that PUD. Any other comments? With that if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd recommend that the CityCouncil deny preliminary plat for
Subdivision #200 I-2 for two single family lots as shown on plans dated February 13th.
Mayor Jansen: And a second please.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. Could I also suggest you adopt as the council's written findings, the Findings of
Fact set forth in the Planning Commission's report as your findings.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Councilman Pete, son: So noted.
Mayor Jansen: Amendment seconded?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council denies the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #2001-2 for two single family lots as shown on the plans dated
received February 13, 2001, subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning
requirements and consistent with the Findings of Fact outlined in the staff report dated March 20,
2001, All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
27
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
PRESENTATION BY COLONIAL CHIJRCH AT HERITAGE SQUARE REGARDING OLD ST.
HUBERT'S CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name Address
Phil & Pastor Cynthia Shepherd
F. Lawrence Blake
5162 Tuxedo Boulevard, Mound
8201 Main Street
Scott Botcher: Phil, sorry it took so long. I told him something that began with a 7.
Phil Shepherd: Madam Mayor, council members, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: If you could state your name and address for the record.
Phil Shepherd: My name is Phil Shepherd. I'm a member of Colonial Church at Heritage Square which
meets at the old historic St. Hubert's building, across from the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. I live at 5162
Tuxedo Boulevard in Mound, Minnesota. And I'd just like to open by saying, I don't know how you
folks do this. I could not do this. I wouldn't have the patience to do this. Whether there was a garage on
one side or on the other side and I just, I have to hand it to you. You do a great job. This is good work
but I couldn't do this kind of work.
Scott Botcher: That's what Job used to say.
Councilman Peterson: It's divine intervention.
Scott Botcher: Patience of Job.
Phil Shepherd: You are so patient. Well I'm assuming that you all got a copy of this letter and the
drawings that I dropped off last week.
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Phil Shepherd: Is that true?
Mayor Jansen: Yes, thank you.
Phil Shepherd: How do we proceed? Would you just like to ask me some questions?
Scott Botcher: I'll give some introductory remarks to give the council a little bit of guidance and then
you can jump in or they can jump in or however you guys want to do it. The issue here is, as I mentioned
at the work session last time, two weeks ago, Mr. Gerhardt and I had lunch with Phil and some of the
members of your church over at Byerly's probably 2 months or so ago it seems like. There was snow on
the ground. It might have been last week, who knows. And they mentioned to us their interest in
enhancing the physical structure of their church. They currently reside in the old St. Hubert's building,
and as his letter indicates, they've been paying rent for a little over 12 years. The goal here tonight I
think is, last week we gave the council a very conceptual review of the site. Sort of what is, what isn't.
28
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Kate's also here tonight to give us any input that I mess up on. But I think our goal tonight is to, at a
conceptual level anyway, because obviously that's where we're both starting from. You know allow the
council to sort of feel where you all want to go conceptually. See if it jives sort of with what their
expectations and position is on that property and that part of downtown, and if there is a possibility, a
probability to continue working with staffto bring some of these concepts to fruition, then they can direct
us to do so and if there's not, then they'll say that and we can shake hands and go home. Is sort of how
I've looked at this so there's no expectation on my part that these plans be full site plans and staff review
because we're just talking conceptual here to try to give you some guidance and at the same time allow
you to present your thoughts to the council. In a nutshell.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Your choice whether you would like to proceed or follow our requesting a staff
report from our planning department.
Phil Shepherd: Let's do that first.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Kate if you wouldn't mind, part of what we had discussed as far as
conceptualizing this comer, was enlisting your expertise in showing us the dynamic that exists around
this comer and some of staff's visions that you've had around this with, realizing there's going to be
some redevelopment. You'd done some old town conversations. I'I1 turn it over to you.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: This site, with tearing down the Pauly's/Pony building led to a lot of discussion of the
view. The church steeple is a historic view that was identified a number of years ago and it came to light
specifically when that building got tom down and the fact that it cart be seen from a lot of different
perspectives, and that is the core of the downtown. The historic downtown. So as that building got tom
down and there was potential development plans. Discussion was kicked off of how do we preserve the
character of that core area and if some development proposal was to go forward, how would it blend in?
While this specific site, based on the location of city hall is not historic, the location of the depot which
was moved over during the Highway 5 environmental, that is historically correct. St. Hubert's is on the
old, old St. Hubert's is on the historic register. The City of Chanhassen does not have an ordinance
protecting that building, but if you were to do any remodeling of the building it does take it off the
historic register. As we looked at the old town standards, try and preserve the view, which was critical
again to the, to a lot of residents and we tried to develop some design patterns. The council at the time,
after we'd done quite a bit of work, decided not to go forward with that. They didn't want their hands
tied with specific design standards so I believe the Park Commission had specific concerns about what
Chaska had done, making it kind of an open space. A gazebo. The planning staff, the Planning
Commission at the time thought, just leaving it open maybe didn't draw a lot of energy. That it needed
something to bring people there. Try to enhance it, but no conclusion was drawn. In the Vision 2002
study, it did anticipate some development with the fact that we own the parking lot. The Planning
Commission is reviewing a proposal just south of this site which will be at their next meeting. An office
building in the old Klingelhutz office will come down and there will be a new office building at that
location so the dynamics of this area is changing. Again we are concerned about perspectives as far as
view. Not diminishing what's in this area already. If you had any other questions I'd be happy to answer
them.
29
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Maybe just a brief idea of what might happen were this site across the street to redevelop.
What that could conceivably redevelop into. Not specifically but.
Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about the old Kenny's building? Is that what you're talking about?
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: That plan anticipated, as you look along the edge of that and the Planning Commission
is looking at design standards right now. It was anticipated that that building would come forward.
Again, as you're entering downtown you've got that narrowing, it kind of gives you a sense of place.
You're entering somewhere. Those buildings are all towards the front. Chapel Hills expanding towards
the front of West 78~. Closer to the street, and again it was anticipated the utility of the building, as we
call it the Kenny's building, Mason building, has seen it's life. But we do anticipate that building at
some time to be tom down. Something towards the front. Again design standards is what we're trying to
put in place on that. The issues that we would have as far as this, again the blending of these two would
be the historic or the architectural themes. Window spacing. And again it's because the city owns the
lot, the long term parking. How that works with the rest of the site. And again, what happens on the
comer and what that energy does to the view perspectives so, and matching that to what's happening
across the street.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Do you have any feel for this site as to whether an expansion could happen to the
building going south instead of west?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the specifics. I guess the first hurdle is, in
my looking for direction from the council was, how you feel about adding onto a historic building
because any change you make, again on the exterior, takes it off the register. So if there's strong .
sentiment towards that, that'd be the first issue. And there's maybe other applications working with the
State Historical Society that you can make a physical connection minimizing the historic register. Could
the parking lot go towards the front? Yes, but that kind of goes a little bit against some of what we're
trying to accomplish. It can. I guess we'd have to look at some different design schemes. Try to give
you a sense of main street. The old time kind of main street.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point on the vision for the comer?
Councilman Peterson: Well I don't know if I really heard a vision or not.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. If you'd like to proceed with your presentation, that'd be great. Thank you.
Phil Shepherd: Well the main things I would have to say would be pretty much what I wrote in the letter
so maybe we should move to questions. Is that appropriate, or would you like me to summarize?
Mayor Jansen: Council, would you like a summary or do you have questions for Mr. Shepherd?
Councilman Ayotte: Well as you can tell by some of my questions sir, I'm very slow so I'm going to ask
you some very basic.
Phil Shepherd: Well we're matched.
Councilman Ayotte: You guys want the parking lot.
30
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Scott Botcher: No.
Phil Shepherd: No .... where there's some sort of agreement for it's long term use. The parking lot's
used now by other groups. Other functions. People who use the parking lot when they use the old town
hall.
Councilman Ayotte: So what would be the hiccups with, let's just take that one. What would be the
hiccups with us entering into some sort of agreement for the use of that parking lot?
Mayor Jansen: I think more the question however is whether or not council is amicable towards the new
structure.
Councilman Ayotte: I don't know because I don't know.
Mayor Jansen: The new structure will determine how much parking would be necessary. So if we're not
going forward.
Councilman Ayotte: Well you've got the parking lot issue. You've got the issue as to whether or not
there's going to be an adverse effect with respect to fooling with a historical site. Right? Okay. And
what are the disadvantages with mucking with a historical site? What kind of problem does that present
to the city? Now since I'm not, although I'm on the, involved in the Environment Commission and I
know I'm on TV right now, I'm not as concerned about having an effect on the environmental side if we
have some gains, as an example youth activities. That's a big deal. And depending on what the
population of youth would be serviced would influence my interest in either saying go or no go. So the
trade-off starts with (a), the adversities of a historical site. And (b), from a functionality standpoint, what
gains does the community have as a result of saying yes to this plan:
Phil Shepherd: Well I guess maybe I should go back and summarize just a little bit. We have been
having some initial conversations with St. Hubert's to purchase the old historic St. Hubert's church. And
when we started thinking about that we thought, well what happens if for example that spit of land that
Pauly's used to be on, what happens if that gets developed into low income housing units for example.
Then we would for all practical purposes lose the ability to use that parking lot. And then you'd have a
stranded property that virtually had no value as a public building, if that parking lot's not available so we
thought well, it wouldn't be a good idea to buy that building from St. Hubert's if we don't know the
future of that area. That was one consideration. Then we started looking at the footprint of the land and
we thought well, maybe we could talk to the city about purchasing some of that land directly to the west
of the church that Pauly's used to sit on. What's the long term plan, or is there really a vision in the city
for the use of that area? And I guess there's some talking with Scott, there has been talk of leaving a
green space. There's been some conversation about using it for housing. Assisted living housing or
something like that. We don't have an ax to grind in any particular direction. We'd just kind of like to
get an idea of where the city wants to go so we know what we might do. If the city likes the kind of thing
we're talking about, and we could work out some sort of agreement for the parking lot and the possibility
of purchasing that land was real and the, at that point in time we would contact architects with a
reputation and skill in dealing with buildings that are on the historic register and say okay, what could we
do with this area to preserve it's character and integrity.
Councilman Ayotte: So really our hiccup with Pauly's, our situation with Pauly's and taking over the
bowling alley is pivotal to really what we can say or not say with respect to this?
31
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: I'm sorry, you threw me when you said the bowling alley.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm sorry.
Phil Shepherd: To go at it from another direction, no one wants to buy a building if they don't have an
understanding of what's going to happen to it immediately in it's vicinity. I mean I wouldn't like to see
an Arby's sitting out in front of the church for example. Of course there are drive thru churches
nowadays.
Mayor Jansen: I'm sorry, the zoning on the comer. Do I remember it was OI?
Kate Aanenson: I was just going to mention, correct. It's office institutional. Retail's not a permitted
use. Office would be though.
Scott Botcher: No Dairy Queen.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so it is somewhat limited and you wouldn't find an Arby's on the comer.
Kate Aanenson: But the concern is valid. You could have a mix of, although churches have a better
timeframe as far as mix of parking. I think the conflict would probably be pretty low based on the uses
that are there as far as conflict.
Scott Botcher: I mean frankly I think the issue is, and I'll try to back up a little bit, and Bob's points are
well taken. I think there are probably two issues. One is a land sale issue and one is use of the parking
lot issue. Fundamental. But those two issues are issues that we can begin discussions and negotiations
on if council says you know this is worth your time to do that. Because obviously they don't want to take
their time chasing down a rat hole, and we don't want to take our time doing the same thing unless
there's at least a, and certainly no commitment on council's part because we're not there yet but at least
an indication to say you know, this would be a good use of staff's time to entertain discussions with these
folks.
Phil Shepherd: Any group that wanted to purchase that building would come up probably with the same
questions that we're asking and it really comes down to whether the city wants to see a church there or
not. It comes down to that because if the land gets, the land adjacent to the church gets used for other
purposes, the parking is not available, as I said before that church becomes basically a stranded public
building and who's going to want to buy it?
Kate Aanenson: IfI could just interject. I think you have to keep in mind again, the church is the best
use for a shared parking situation. We found that historically as we've done developments in the city
because of the offset in hours so, depending on if it was an office use, and your primary use is Sunday
morning, it works great. You can still have both uses.
Councilman Ayotte: Could you talk a little louder Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. A church use, the peak demand would be Sunday morning. Or maybe some
evening events. An office use is 8:00 to 5:00 so you can do shared parking and we found that to be well
received in other projects that we've done that.
32
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: And then I guess the only overlap that might exist is that as part of the expansion I'm
seeing educational and administrative facilities so now the potential would be.
Kate Aanenson: That was another, right. Yep.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that's where I wondered if we weren't then getting into more of a do we have
enough parking spaces even for this sort of an expansion. To that question, in order.
Scott Botcher: And we would need to do the calc's.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And what the use exactly would be and that sort of thing.
Mayor Jansen: Gotch ya. In order for you to exist on this site, do you need the expansion?
Phil Shepherd: Yeah. I learned a term when I was in real estate. I was not a successful real estate agent.
[ tried for a couple of years but one of the terms I learned in class was a structural obsolescence. A
classic example of that is anybody who wants to use the bathroom during the service has to trapse past
the pulpit to get to the bathrooms, which are in the rear. And my wife is here tonight and she's the pastor
and she's very good at kind of keeping that focus as people move past but the building is structurally
obsolescent is you want to use the bathrooms and not trapse past the pulpit, you have to exit to the front
and walk around to the side and go back in.
Mayor Jansen: A little tough in the winter.
Phil Shepherd: ...it was constructed in the 1800's but it doesn't fit the suburban family's idea of how
church should function today so.
Councilman Ayotte: So the historical aspects of it go away because we have to introduce functionality
into the church.
Phil Shepherd: They can occasionally be hysterical...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so is that one of the changes Kate that we would have to be finding out from the
historical register if we lose the historical registration for.
Kate Aanenson: My understanding is some of the interior isn't as important as the exterior.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Phil Shepherd: In talking with several architects, and I don't know if what they told me was true or not
but they said that basically ifa historical building is owned by a government or a public entity, that it
comes under all kinds of rules and regulations. Ifa historical building is owned by a private
organization, a church, a private owner, you can do pretty much with it what you want.
Kate Aanenson: Well the fact of the matter is, is that the city has an ordinance that says what you can
and can't do with it. That's what's going to dictate it.
Phil Shepherd: Within code.
33
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Kate Aanenson: Well, a historical ordinance. That's what I pointed out at the beginning. It is on the
historical register. The city does not have an ordinance. If we chose to do it and we could adopt one but
who owns it is not the point.
Phil Shepherd: Yeah we were thinking solar collectors on the roof to help with some heating bills.
Mayor Jansen: Kate's not feeling well tonight. This isn't helping. Okay, I guess I'll weigh in with my
hesitations about affecting this building. I am in agreement with staff as far as not wanting to affect the
view shed of the steeple, I happen to like the idea of making this more ora public space as far as park
space, and making it more of a gathering type of an area on the comer. Now whether that is compatible
with some sort of a need on your parts to have something of an expansion, I couldn't even begin to tell
you. But part of my direction would be that I would want a public park or gathering area on this comer,
and I see that enhancing what is there currently. You know the church and the village square. I hesitate
to encourage development, though I realize it's zoned for office institutional and could come back on the
tax rolls by our building something on that comer and it certainly would be in keeping with what's going
to happen on the other side of the street. I can go either way but I tend to lean towards wanting it to be
more of a park area or gathering area that would in fact have the use then of your own congregation or
anyone having a wedding or an event on the property. I do hesitate to impact the old historic structure
too much, and I do react to a little surprised that we don't have an ordinance in place to maybe put a few
protections on it and I would certainly be in favor then of the city doing that on some of our older
structures. Other council comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mine aren't that dissimilar. I think that the way I had envisioned this spot over
the years, and I sat in on numerous old town meetings about the property. I think that number one, I'd
like to keep the integrity of, and the-ambience created by old St. Hubert's there. I think that the drawing
B certainly diminishes that ambience substantially by putting a larger structure there. And Mayor, you
mentioned the, if we do sell that to a church it will go off the tax rolls and I think it's an issue, I think we
haven't really spoke a lot of. I think it's pretty important. This is prime real estate in our downtown so
whether or not it goes off the rolls I think should be an issue that we speak much more intensely on. I
had seen something there, and I don't think we need it all green space but I foresee some of it being green
space and some of it being developed and somehow that would enhance and augment the feeling that St.
Hubert's currently gives so, I didn't envision this because I think it will change the integrity a lot. So
ideally you want something that wouldn't change the structure. You know wouldn't need to expand that
much and then sharing a parking lot would seem very plausible but this proposal seems that they need
more space than what I'd be willing to give up.
Mayor Jansen: And I wonder if to your comment about part of it being green space, part of it potentially
developing, if in particular...you might have a better buffer to your concern about what is going to
impact the church you know right next to it. We might be able to create a better transition and in fact if
you put some architectural guidelines on it, maybe having it look more old town if you would.
Councilman Peterson: Trussels or something.
Mayor Jansen: And it might make it more conducive, okay. Other council comments?
Councilman Ayotte: I don't think we have a plan for use of this area as yet and I would not feel
comfortable in telling this gentleman this is a go forward without us first having a much better idea of
what we're going to use the property for so.
34
City Council Meeting -April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: That's what they're here looking to have us speak to. Conceptually what we would be
comfortable with.
Councilman Ayotte: Well I don't know yet because I don't know. I don't have an idea as to what would
be the optimum application for that piece of property. And until I have a better feel on what we can do to
optimize utilization of that property, I would not feel comfortable in telling you to go forward. I think we
have to do a little bit more study...
Councilman Labatt: What's to prevent you from going to the south a little bit with your building?
Phil Shepherd: The cemetery.
Councilman Labatt: How far off.the cemetery are you?
Phil Shepherd: The space between the building and cemetery is approximately 30 feet.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Phil Shepherd: And if you look at the southern elevation drawing number C, you're looking at the
building from the south. The Old St. Hubert's is written on the roof. You'd have a very difficult time
putting a structure within that 30 feet without blocking the windows or substantially altering the
character of the building.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Well on the drawings here, the one drawing, we'll call it B. It doesn't have
the old village hall on it so I kind oflaid them over and drew it on here.
Phil Shepherd: Well I superticiously took the liberty of moving the old village' hall to the very corner of
that piece of land. It's that small square that you see on the.
Councilman Labatt: So that's what that is out there. Okay. I didn't realize we moved it.
Phil Shepherd: And I decided not to mention that, but I will at this point. That it would be, right now
that's where the village hall is tucked away and is visually not very prominent and struck out on that
comer, there's some nice pine trees around there. A courtyard could be put around it. And the expansion
that we propose doesn't necessarily have to come this far. I tried to grab for the most I could get when I
do the drawing.
Councilman Labatt: Well you grabbed about 190 feet, ifI look at your scale right.
Phil Shepherd: Well you know, the idea of this meeting is to see where you all are coming from. But I
think that the old village hall on that point would be much more prominently displayed. Everybody who
drove down 1 of the 3 streets would see it and it might be much more usable than it is now tucked away
as it is so, just a thought.
Mayor Jansen: I wonder how mobile it is.
Kate Aanenson: That one building is not, the old village hall is not in it's historical location so.
Councilman Labatt: Where was it originally?
35
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Kate Aanenson: That's a good question. But actually.
Todd Hoffman: Across the street by the, where the depot is. Just north of there, kind of where the little
building by the Dinner Theater is.
Councilman Labatt: So it's close.
Todd Hoffman: Close. It moved for the road. The West 78th extension.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks.
Councilman Labatt: I tend to agree with Mr. Ayotte and Mr. Peterson that you know, it's a big building a
open space there and you look at the south elevations, although it's nice, it's not quite the vision I had but
you know.
Mayor Jansen: And I'm sure we all appreciate your wanting to be in Chanhassen and to stay on this site
and do the best for the site.
Phil Shepherd: Most of our members are from town, yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Yes. Yes. Obviously and we certainly appreciate your bringing this proposal. I guess
maybe what I'm hearing is that this isn't quite necessarily what we have in mind for the site, though I'm
recognizing you're saying you need more space if in fact you were to stay in this location.
Phil Shepherd: I'll just make one more comment to Conclude. It is Very difficult to build a church in this
site because Chanhassen is a city with young families and people expect nice facilities for children. '
Though the basement fills up with 6 inches of water every spring, it's musty. It's dank. The building
like I said is structurally obsolescent. It's very difficult to conduct Sunday School and that sort of thing
so it's hard to grow a congregation in that building. And with a few more members and a little while
longer we'll be ready to move out someplace else. We would like to stay here but we can't, and no
church could afford to stay here without making some alterations to that property. It's a cute church. It's
a beautiful historical building. We love it and we've maintained it lovingly the way it is. We haven't
gone in and painted out everything inside and done anything to it. We've maintained it, and we would
continue to do so but you can't grow a church in that building the way it is now.
Mayor Jansen: And correct me if I'm wrong council but I think we can appreciate the practicalities of
what you might need to do, and what I'm hearing is we're wanting to maintain the integrity, at least of
the exterior of the building I'm sure as much of the interior as possible. So I don't think there's an
adversion to your needing to make some improvements. We just need to have staff be comfortable with
what that would mean to the integrity of the building.
Phil Shepherd: Well we'd like to continue working with you on the subject if that's possible. I get the
feeling that this is an area and your plans for the future are not set in stone and so.
Mayor Jansen: I think that's an accurate analysis. Though hopefully you got something of a feel for
direction. You won't be seeing an Arby's or.
36
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Phil Shepherd: Well we do thank you for your time and I'm not sure where we go from here. We
obviously can't purchase the building until some of these issues are a little closer to being resolved so.
Mayor Jansen: Would staff like to give direction as to what the next steps should be then.
Scott Botcher: I think what we do is we just sort of keep thinking and talking. I mean keep the
communication open is what I would say and if something comes of it that we think is worth bringing
back, we bring it back.
Mayor Jansen: And maybe explore alternatives and options with staff with Kate as far as ideas for the
property.
Scott Botcher: It's a tough nut. I mean the building's got some issues, there's no question about it. It's
got an emotional attachment to the community and it has value but it's utility is just hurting.
Phil Shepherd: I thank you so much for your time. I really do appreciate it.
Mayor Jansen: Well thank you. Appreciate your coming in tonight.
APPOINTMENTS TO PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: A motion to table that until the next meeting based upon our requiring some more
information we didn't receive this evening for our work session.
Jan Lash: Mayor, could I just address you before you table? Can I make one comment on the record
please?
Mayor Jansen: Unusual but sure.
Jan Lash: ...I came for Roundhouse but, my name is Jan Lash. I live at 7001 Tecumseh Lane and I'm
the Chair of the Park and Rec Commission. And I didn't realize you were going to table this issue
tonight so I apologize for taking a minute of your time. But I did, and I don't expect a question, or an
answer to this question tonight but in past years when we've had the application and interview process,
the commission has screened the candidates first and made a recommendation to the council. And that
procedure has been changed or not, and I guess that's what I'm just interesting in finding out. If there's
been a change in procedure for this, it'd be nice for us to know that it's an official change in the future.
And if it hasn't been.
Mayor Jansen: We can sure have that conversation. I'd be happy to have that with you later if that's
okay.
Jan Lash: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. So we have a motion on the table to table. Do I have a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
37
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table the appointments to the Park
and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
UPDATE ON ASSUMPTION SEMINARY PROPERTY, LORI HAAK, WATER RESOURCES
COORDINATOR.
Lori Haak: Good night, or good evening I guess. I was getting ahead of myself...
Scott Botcher: See how quick you can do this.
Lori Haak: We'll try. Good evening Mayor and members of the council. I asked for an opportunity to
come before you this evening, just to give you a little bit of history on the site that you see up on the
screens in front of you. The Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen site. It is a very rare, natural resource
within actually the metropolitan area, especially within the city of Chanhassen and I just wanted to take
some time to give you some background on this site. The Seminary Fen and the Assumption Creek are
probably the most pristine natural resources within the city of Chanhassen. Both of these resources are
located on approximately 14 private properties on the south end of the city, just west of Bluff Creek
Drive and the property straddles 212, and ifI can get Kate to point that out for me that would be great.
Many Chanhassen residents are aware of the history of the site. In 1908 the original Mudcura Sanitarium
was constructed. There's an article included in your staff report that addresses that a little bit more
thoroughly. In 1995 the fen was designated the most important site by the Minnesota County Biological
Survey in all of Hennepin, Scott and Carver counties so obviously the people who do that inventory
believed it was very important. Fens in general are neat because they form only when ground water
seeps out from hillsides. Calcareous fens, like the Seminary Fen are even more rare because the ground
water seeps through calcium rich soils to the hillside. Only certain types of vegetation can grow in these
types of water and since the fens themselves and the vegetation they support are so rare, the fen supports
5 state threatened plant species and 3 state special concern plant species, and I'd give you the Latin
names but you don't really want them.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Lori Haak: No problem. If you want them bad we've got them. The Assumption Creek is 1 of only 15
streams in the metro area that still supports trout populations and it's my understanding that it supports
the only native trout population in the metro area, so that's pretty special. Each of these resources is
highly unique. That each of the resources has survived to this point in Chanhassen's history relatively
untouched is even more unique. The council may remember discussions regarding the Savage Fen and
the placement of a county road in that area several years ago. That's a similar situation. It was
threatened by the placement of a road. This currently is not under any development pressure to speak of
because the MUSA is so far north of this site at this time. As mentioned in the staff report, the city has
been involved in a working group comprised of many governmental agencies and several non-
governmental organizations. The goal of the working group is to begin the development of a stewardship
and protection plan for the fen and the creek and the sub-watershed as a whole in order to help the city as
the local decision making authority manage the sub-watershed with the future of the creek and the fen in
mind. Eventually the working group hopes to coordinate with local landowners to encourage the low
impact land uses in this sub-watershed and make them aware of the resources that exist on the seminary
property. As mentioned in the staff report, the city has repeatedly given protection of this area the
highest priority of all wetlands in the city. For more information on the past approach to management of
this area I would refer you to the Surface Water Management Plan and the Bluff Creek Natural Resource
Management Plan, as well as the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. To recap, I just wanted to give you an
38
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
opportunity to ask any questions you might have about the site. To give you a little bit of background
about what's going on as far as the management of the site is concerned with this working group, and to
just let you know that this resource is out there because as of course a natural resources person, I'm very
interested in this and I think as the MUSA creeps southward, that this site is going to be more and more
important and more and more threatened perhaps so, because there are some new council members I
wanted to give you a little bit of perspective so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that.
Councilman Peterson: The DNR was interested a few years ago. Are they any more interested now or
less?
Lori Haak: I would say that they're always interested. In the past the price has been very, a sticking
point let's say. This, different agencies have tried to purchase this property on many different occasions,
and I would say that that hasn't changed. There's always an interest. If you see the hydrologist and the
botanist out there, they just go nuts. They get out on the fen and they just love it. It's so diverse. It's in
great condition. There are very few invasive species and I think they really appreciate the resource
because really it is the highest quality in Hennepin, Carver and Scott counties, and that's something
pretty amazing so I think they're always interested. It kind of comes and goes with kind of with the
cycles of the moon or something like that but, it's kind ora perpetual interest. It's just whether or not
they have people to spearhead an effort to try to acquire some of it or not.
Mayor Jansen: So your analogy, you're checking to see if our moons are in alignment with this council,
right?
Lori Haak: I guess more than that, Ijust wanted to give you the opportunity to learn a little bit about the
resource because it is really rare. If it was identified as high priority by the city, and I want you to make
wise management decisions regarding the sub-watershed. That's my biggest desire in bringing this to
you is just to let you know it's there so that if you keep it in the back of your mind.
Councilman Ayotte: I will warn you though that I heard Councilman Labatt under his breath, are there
really trout there so.
Lori Haak: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor, can I just add to, maybe add to Craig's question and I guess that's part of why
Lori's here is the DNR has tried under several different branches, whether it's Fisheries or Botany, to try
to acquire this land through different types of legislative action. To date we've failed. Whenever we see
a window of opportunity to go for some money, we try it. Right now Lori's putting together some things
and we wanted to let you be aware of that, that there may be another window that we can try to go for
some grant money and we're always seeking that opportunity because we know as development still can
occur on this site. It is zoned agricultural. If somebody wanted to split off20 acres, they could do that.
That potential is out there. And there are some upland areas on this site. So we wanted to let you know
the significance of this piece and when we come back, kind of give you the background now so if there's
resources out there that we can get our arms around, that we're always going to try for that. Certainly we
have to get your approval, but we're going to seek those opportunities.
Councilman Ayotte: Thanks.
39
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Councilman Labatt: Lori, is it possible to maybe just some day walk down there and take a look at it.
Well first we'll have to drive down there but.
Councilman Ayotte: See I told you.
Lori Haak: Absolutely. We need to get the owner's permission before we do something like that.
Actually if you'd like to walk down there sometime, I even have a picture. I went down, if you go down.
I went down there and took a picture. This photograph is actually taken from the railroad grade. The old
railroad alignment of what's now the Hennepin County Regional trail corridor. And so if you go up there
you can just take a look. Of course this was taken before we got all the rain so it doesn't look very pretty
but if council is interested, if any of staff or anything like that, I would like to go. I haven't actually been
out on the fen before. I would recommend waiting until the water goes down, but after we make those
landowner contacts I could certainly set up something. We could get Hannah Dunevitz, who is a plant
ecologist with the DNR who knows all the plants out there backwards and forwards and she just glows
when she goes out there, so she would love to have the opportunity to give you a little bit more
background. She could also arrange for someone from the trout, Metro Trout Division.
Councilman Labatt: Take Todd with us. The Trout Unlimited guy right there. He knows the species.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. There's also a picture on the wall outside of Mr.
Hoffman's office of the Seminary Fen. A good aerial shot of the area. And to the point of our having
Craig having mentioned that the DNR was interested at one point, right within the Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan it is designated as one 0fthe high priorities for trying to acquire this property. The price
has just been prohibitive as staff has pointed out so, any other comments or questions from council?
Thank you for the background on this, appreciate it.
DISCUSSION OF THE CITY MANAGER TRANSITION PERIOD.
Mayor Jansen: One of the things that Scott is going to hand out, I went through the process and
documents that we had used to find Scott and I thought that this might be good background information
for everyone since it's relatively recent. I labeled it the 1999 process. However, this did start in
September of '98 as we went out with RFP to find the search firms. So in the original process we
definitely used a search firm, Sathe and Associates. They started with us on November 8th of '98. Mr.
Botcher started his first day in Chanhassen on May 3ra of '99. So that was a 7 month process, and I did
outline the different steps that I could still find the documents for. A major part of that time was
developing the position profile. It also fell over the holidays so it was in December and then into
January. Factoring this process, we had 72 initial applicants that were screened by the folks from Sathe
and Associates. They narrowed the field down to 12 candidates. Of the 12 candidates the city council
interviewed 5 of the candidates. And I outlined here the procedure for those interviews. It was a full day
of interviews, both one on one with the candidates who had just a city council member and then the
group interviews at the end of the day that then allowed for the public to be able to be present. As well
as there having been a buffet lunch so that the city staff could have lunch with the candidates and give us
some comments back. Not in a necessarily a recommendation form but we did receive some evaluation
notes on strengths and weaknesses and also received the same from some of the community members that
attended those interviews. And then you can see the remainder of the procedures that were used to get
down to the final decision and Scott coming on board, so I just thought this would maybe be good
background information as to the last set of processes that were used, in using also a search firm to do
this. One of the documents that I provided for you here were the steps that had been suggested so that the
40
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
outline from the search firm as to how we went about the process, and then also the position profile that
was drafted with input from community members, staff members, council, as well as trying to come up
with some of the issues that face Chanhassen and exactly what this individual would be charged with
doing over what we thought would be longer than 2 years, but it at least outlines some of the issues here
in Chanhassen.
Councilman Peterson: He ignored that one pretty well.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah. And of course not to overlook our current Assistant City Manager, Mr. Gerhardt
was included in that process and the, I think the rationale maybe for doing that again would be the same.
That we are looking for the absolute best city manager candidate and if he happens to be sitting right
under our noses, then you know all the better and that opportunity certainly exists for him to be able to
step up and be able to compete right along with the other candidates. So I'm throwing this out. ! think
one of the probably key issues that we would need to address, and you know jump in wherever you want
to. Whether we use asearch firm in the process, or Mr. Botcher had spent some time reviewing with me,
and we can certainly have him speak to the specifics if you would like, ora process that he was
suggesting where we maybe could pull together more ora committee to handle the search process and go
through the interviews and actually put some of the feelers out there to get candidates versus bringing in
a search firm. The original process I believe the bill was $22,000 for the search firm, for this.
Councilman Ayotte: Say again.
Mayor Jansen: $22,000.
Scott Botcher: It was 24. Yeah, it was in excess of 24.
Councilman Peterson: What percentage did they, they didn't use the whole 33. They discounted it.
Scott Botcher: That I wouldn't know.
Councilman Labatt: They took a percentage of his salary.
Scott Botcher: No wonder I didn't get much.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The standard is 33 so they must have dropped
down from there.
Mayor Jansen: I think within the contract they cut us a little deal. Yeah, gave us a little break.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I'm not adverse to looking at pulling together a group of people to do the
search itself. I mean we've got, by all standards this should be a relatively easy search because you're,
the group of people you're going to be pulling from are going to be, you know the research is easy. You
just go to the City Guide and you send out a letter. It's not quite as easy as that but.
Mayor Jansen: The first process was an nationwide search where we ended up with the 72 applicants. I
did call and speak with the mayor of Minnetonka, Mayor Anderson, and she reflected what had occurred
when we got down to our final applications, they were almost all just from the Midwest. And her
suggestion was, you know in hindsight we could probably all just look at the Midwest because one of the
41
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
things that we are up against is that salary cap because of the city managers can't make anymore than the
governor, correct?
Scott Botcher: 95%.
Mayor Jansen: 95%.
Scott Botcher: That's his governor salary.
Mayor Jansen: Of the governor salary.
Councilman Peterson: Do we have any cities in the metro area that just completed a search? I mean that
would be, I mean that can make the conversation pretty easy. I've done that before where my peers have
just conducted a search and I take the candidates that they didn't accept because there generally is more
than one good candidate to choose from.
Mayor Jansen: I had asked Mr. Botcher to pull together a recent list.
Scott Botcher: I think the practicalities are probably this. As far as reaching candidates, there's fairly,
there are fairly defined pipelines to reach candidates in this profession and you won't need to worry
about narrowing it down my region of the country. I mean there's a newsletter that comes out every 2
weeks that goes to every city manager, I think, in the country. Most of them anyway. That are members
of the ICMA. Everyone that's in ICMA gets a newsletter, guaranteed. Part of the membership. And in
there it lists positions that are open nationwide and some overseas. So in terms of reaching candidates,
that won't be difficult. In terms 0f alternative approaches, not using the search firm, and I did spend
some time with Linda indicating how Delafield utilized me when I came here, I think a significant
difference that needs to be considered, it can work. It was myself, one council member and two citizens
that really did the search and narrowed it down and then we gave a list I think of 5 candidates to the
council and they accept them and they did their deal from there. The differences that they had, at least
well the 5 years that I was there, a history of political stability and they didn't argue. They didn't have to
argue over who the appointees were to the committee, and I think just being real, that could very much be
an issue here and you'd hate to have that come up and taint whoever would end up being selected. I
mean because that's, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but that's going to be a reality. No matter
who gets selected, you know somebody on the other political side can say well, they picked the wrong
person on the committee and whatever can happen so you've got to really consider that. What kind of
baggage are you giving this person when they come in. I think the third thing, and Linda and I have
talked about this is, not every candidate fits in every organization. And that's tree in public and private
sector, but especially in this position where it's very public. It's very personal service sort of thing. As
an example, I won't name names because I won't but some of the candidates that were finalist with me I
knew. I mean, in fact I knew them all but Todd. Which is sort of weird. A couple of them I just frankly
don't see their personalities fitting in here. But they fit in well where they are. It's just, you know and
people, there's a fit. There's a linkage between the organization and it's culture and the person and the
attributes that they bring. So I think that that needs to be a very strong consideration as you try to meld
the candidates to the organization. Search firm processes can work well. They're not cheap and
Minnetonka I think used Mercer and you know if money is no object and you're really not, you want the
shotgun approach, you call Mercer. You call PAR out of Chicago. You call some of these guys and
they'll just do the blanket and they'll say oh geez, isn't this great. We're professional, we wear $500
suits and you get the same dang product when you're done. And quite frankly in Delafield they just say
you know this is stupid. We're fairly stable. We've got all these things going on. We'll just do it this
42
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
way and so that's what they did. What Minnetonka did is sort of what we all expected Minnetonka to do.
They like that. They have that stability. They'lljust go spend whatever it takes and they can say, part of
it is that dang it, we used Mercer. Isn't that great? Well that carries a certain panache, but I'm not sure
it's any more effective.
Mayor Jansen: Well and actually that's I believe where Mayor Anderson was saying it could be much
more focused and you could just focus on Midwest was more what she had really.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, but...geographically self selecting. I mean you will get people from around the
country, but when you get down to it you will have a self selection process that will by default almost
identify by region of the country. Now there are parts of the country people in this business may be
attracted to. There are states that city managers won't go to simply because of the reputation of the state.
Florida for example is one of those states that's just, you know it's got a split personality. People think
of Florida. It's warm. It's got the beaches and everything else but they have a long history of the Dukes
of Hazzard government and people get blown out down there. They don't want to screw around with it.
Minnesota has a long tradition of having fairly professional government, and the Twin Cities is attractive
because of that. But people here don't have to take somebody from another part of the country, and I
know in Delafield we had a gentleman who was a county manager in Florida and he came up and
interviewed. He was one of the semifinalists I guess and he simply just didn't grasp the culture. He was
a talented guy but he didn't grasp the culture. So I guess those are sort of, sort of my initial thoughts on
it. In terms of what to do.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate your input. And ! guess in having that conversation with Scott I
can certainly thing of numerous members of the community that could probably come to this exercise and
try to be unbiased and more neutral. However, I certainly can appreciate his advice as far as how
politically charged our community is, and I hate to see that push us into a search firm direction. As I've
tried to sit back and consider what's in the best interest of the community, I would just as soon take some
of our key community leaders and get this accomplished and the suggestion that you brought up and I had
asked Scott to list some of the more recent turnovers in the cities where they have done searches. You
know certainly there is things that we can learn from them and their candidates and the potential, but
having a more focused committee working on this and potentially making sure that they're the ones that
are reducing down these candidates and the personality types, you know Scott made a good point. When
we got down to the final candidates we really had a diversity amongst them and I would have thought
that we would have had a more focused set, if only because of the profile that I think we were looking
for. That it wouldn't have been quite so broad spread but.
Councilman Peterson: I didn't perceive Scott's comments about the political charged nature of
Chanhassen today as being a search agency versus us doing it ourselves. I perceived that your comment
being the applicant coming here is going to look at that as being a stability issue.
Scott Botcher: Well I think maybe a little of both. I mean the candidate, you know whatever selection
process you choose, the candidate's going to call me. It's just how it is. They're going to, I mean my
number is easily found in the directory and they're going to call me and you know do much like in
Delafield, we'll have long talks and they can decide it they want to apply or not. And once they apply
they'll continue to call me. That's just, that's the nature. It's much like if anyone else were to apply for
a job, if you knew who was there before you, you'd probably call them. What's this place really like to
work with? You know to work within. In terms of the selection process and the community leaders,
again no matter who you pick, you may be unbiased much like you know most of you when you consider
issues are unbiased, but perception becomes reality. Perception, citizen perceptions of every action you
43
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
all take, believe it or not, and whether or not you want to admit it, impacts what you do as well. And
that's just reality. And so even if you make the assumption that you can find people who are not biased,
that's not the point. The point is, there is a strong possibility that there may be a perception in the
community that they're not. And that perception can become baggage. That perception can hinder that
individual's ability to initiate his or her service to you all. And that's a terrible spot to be in and it's not
good for you all. I mean you don't want that. Now there is a third option. I'm just waiting.
Mayor Jansen: Other comments?
Councilman Peterson: I don't see it as an issue. I just, I'm missing something. Whoever we get on the
committee, if we do it through an internal committee, is going to pick the candidate that's best suited for
the job. I don't see a political charged nature, quote unquote, as being.
Mayor Jansen: Well and the committee would be reducing down the actual applicants before they come
to council. Council ultimately has the final vote, but it would be that person serving the functions on this
list that you know the search firm did, and would get your applications down to 12 with council getting it
down to 5 if you would. Whatever we decide the right number is, but I think what I'm hearing Scott say
is if there is a perception in the community that the committee that got it down to 12 was biased, and
potentially looking for a certain what skill said or leaning or political persuasion.
Scott Botcher: Committees are more effective when they're smaller and that's personal bias of mine, I
admit that. But if you had a 12 person committee, and that'd be just painful. But if you had a 4 person
committee, and say you had council member.
Mayor Jansen: 5. 5, we like odd numbers.
Scott Botcher: Well whatever. I mean I think the goal is not to come out of there with a 3-2 vote
regardless so we went with 4 in Delafield, it worked. You know if you've got 1 council member, a staff
member, you know and 2 other people. You know just for example. Say it's a Chamber of Commerce
person. You were here 2 weeks ago. You heard what they wanted to do. We want to, I mean my
opinion, we want to look at what the comp plan says. That's a particular position they hold and that's not
right or wrong, and they're certainly entitled to it but there are people who are not necessarily in favor of
expanding and opening the comprehensive plan to expand commercial development within the city of
Chanhassen. That's a reality. And because of, I mean you have such a diverse number of views on
things, and they can become politically charged, how are you, I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm
saying it's an issue.
Mayor Jansen: And do we control some of that if we have a very specific profile that we've all agreed to
that we're.
Scott Botcher: The perception of the citizens won't care if there's a profile.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah.
Scott Botcher: I mean part of the theory of having a search firm cut down is that they're not from here.
It's purely professional review based upon their experience in other cities and what you give them on
paper. So that's a benefit of going that way. But there is a third option.
44
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Mayor Jansen: I'm liking the committee idea. I have a tendency to, I've never let my actions be
determined by what I'm afraid the perception is going to be. If we're going to guide the committee and
we're going to do this correctly, and we're going to do it openly, then the community elected us to make
the tough decisions. Now, if we don't like the candidates that come forward from the committee, I don't
see council just accepting the candidates as they come forward. I see the committee as being the filterer
to getting us from what could potentially be 72 applications, down to a dozen. And final vote being
council. I would have to spend a little bit more time considering who actually would be on the
committee, and how to keep that from being too weighed one way or the other.
Scott Botcher: ... done, just be aware of it.
Mayor Jansen: I appreciate your pointing out the pitfalls. Always appreciate you doing that. Other
comments. It makes me nervous when you're so quiet Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: I like, first of all you're the expert in this sort of thing so I look to Councilman
Peterson as having his head on straight with respect to selecting professionals. And he was nodding his
head yes. The committee idea. I think we ought to look hard at it. I don't like, for whatever reason, the
process was so long last time when we picked up Scott. We got Scott. It was great that we got Scott.
Took a long time. I don't think we have that luxury. We've got to move fast.
Mayor Jansen: A lot of the timing will have to do with council flexibility as far as being able to schedule
multiple meetings which is going to lead to my asking everybody to pull out your calendars and check for
next Monday night so we can sit down and decide.
Councilman Ayotte: What's the date on that? Is that the 30th?
Mayor Jansen: I'd have to pull my calendar out. Because we'll need to come up with a time, now that
we've got this issue that we're kicking around. If we end up going committee, what is the consistency of
that committee.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm out of town next Monday night.
Councilman Peterson: As am I.
Mayor Jansen: All week?
Councilman Peterson: Get back Wednesday.
Mayor Jansen: You're til Wednesday?
Councilman Peterson: I'm gone, leaving Sunday and back Wednesday.
Mayor Jansen: See, here's when the time ends up stretching out.
Scott Botcher: Oh it will. Yeah, it's going to be 7 months. I don't care if you screen...and you're going
into summertime folks.
Mayor Jansen: Yep. Councilman Labatt.
45
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Councilman Labatt: There's a third idea out here, and he's right underneath our nose and he's Todd
Gerhardt. He's been here 15 years. 16 years. He got us through a tough times last year when the
change. I think we've got to take a good hard look internally before we waste too much time looking
outside.
Mayor Jansen: I'm certainly in favor of Mr. Gerhardt participating in the process, and there will certainly
be ample time for him to demonstrate to the entire community if he can act as the city manager because
as Scott leaves June 1-~t and I certainly wouldn't have a problem.
Councilman Labatt: He proved himself last year Mayor for 7 months so.
Mayor Jansen: If we want to sit and debate this publicly we can do that but I don't think that's fair.
Councilman Labatt: Well you said here's a chance for him to prove himself when Scott's gone and
there's already a chance, you just asked for my input and I said it. He's underneath our nose right now.
And you know.
Scott Botcher: I would simply, and frankly I'm, my position has been stated to you. I agree with Steve.
And I'll give you the reasons why and then you guys, I don't care to debate either. I think Linda's right,
it's probably not appropriate to do it but I think I can lay out the reasons and you can ponder them until
next week. I think there is, I have little, and I know a lot of people in this business. A lot. And I think
that there is not a technical skill that this gentleman does not have.
Mayor Jansen: If you wouldn't mind, I'm not comfortable with our presenting one side and not having a
full discussion around this matter and this feels very inappropriate in a public meeting for us to be in fact
doing more of a candidate evaluation if you would. If we want to sit and evaluate hiring, then I think
council needs to have that in a different forum. ,
Scott Botcher: I'll stick to the non-personal things though. You have the ability to have someone start
June 4th. You have the ability to do it without the expense of $24,000. And you have the ability to do it
with someone with institutional knowledge that will not have to ramp up. Now those are non-personal
related issues, and your other point was well taken.
Mayor Jansen: And I would only just throw out that it is our responsibility to make sure that we put the
right person and the best candidate in the position.
Councilman Ayotte: Let's do it this way. We need to take a look at the structure for this whole selection
process and we have to carry this on in a work session, correct?
Scott Botcher: You've just got to post the meeting so you need to tell me when so I can post it.
Councilman Ayotte: And we have to select the date so.
Mayor Jansen: If we want to hold it before the next council meeting.
Councilman Ayotte: Well would you be available sometime between Wednesday and Sunday?
Mayor Jansen: There's another Monday between now and the next council meeting, if you check May
7th. You'd be in town?
46
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Councilman Labatt: What date?
Councilman Peterson: If you want to wait that long.
Councilman Ayotte: I'd prefer moving faster.
Councilman Peterson: We're going to post it anyway. If we post a special meeting, we can do it
tomorrow if we want to.
Mayor Jansen: So the soonest would be Friday, is that correct? Counting the day you post it?
Scott Botcher: Yep.
Councilman Labatt: I'm out of town. I leave Wednesday morning...
Scott Botcher: We're not posting tonight Roger.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so Friday's out. Tuesday was out, you're back Wednesday did you say?
Wednesday night?
Councilman Peterson: Yep.
Mayor Jansen: So Thursday the 3rd or Friday.
Councilman Peterson: I'm coming back Wednesday. I can do Wednesday night if we need to.
Mayor Jansen: Oh okay. Wednesday night is the 2"d.
Councilman Ayotte: No, I can't do it Wednesday night. I can do it Thursday.
Mayor Jansen: We've got housing forum Thursday night.
Councilman Peterson: What time does that start, 7:00?
Scott Botcher: Yes. I think.
Councilman Peterson: What about 5:30?
Mayor Jansen: Do it before that?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Steve, Thursday the 3rd?
Councilman Ayotte: Steve, 5:30 on the 3rd?
Councilman Labatt: I have to be in Shakopee at 7:00 flint night for another engagement.
47
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Councilman Peterson: Housing forum.
Councilman Labatt: I have to be in Shakopee for another engagement that night. Family related so I
could do it at 5:00 and leave by 6:30.
Mayor Jansen: 5:00's tough.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah because with the traffic as it is, I leave at 4:00, 3:30 or 4:00.
Councilman Labatt: From Gelco?
Mayor Jansen: So we're back to May 7~.
Councilman Labatt: Take the back roads. The river will be down by then.
Councilman Peterson: If the river's down, I can be here.
Mayor Jansen: So 7th of May, Monday. 5:30 everybody? Okay.
Rod Franks: Point of information. Is this scheduled for a public hearing?
Mayor Jansen: No.
:
Councilman Labatt: That's even worst.
Councilman Peterson: All the meetings are open to the public so.
Rod Franks: Right. But this is not being scheduled for a public hearing.
Councilman Peterson: No.
Jan Lash: So you wouldn't entertain public comment?
Mayor Jansen: You can always call.
Scott Botcher: Or e-mail.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: May 7th is even worst for me. Why don't we go back to the 3rd and.
Councilman Peterson: Let's call a special meeting to work on our calendars. So the 7th is Out?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Councilman Ayotte: Who did the 7th out? Who did that?
Councilman Labatt: Me.
/
48
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Steve. Tuesday the 8th?
Councilman Ayotte: Tuesday? Yeah, I can do it.
Councilman Labatt: I'd like to do it the week before because I can be gone that whole week of the 7th.
Mayor Jansen: Okay but your 3rd was out, correct?
Councilman Labatt: Well by the 3~a is out, we can meet at, I mean you know. How long do you need?
Mayor Jansen: Figure we'll be an hour and a half or two.
Councilman Ayotte: Well if none of you argue.
Mayor Jansen: We're doing so well tonight. We're just working right through this.
Councilman Peterson: See if you guys would agree with me more often, it goes a lot smoother.
Councilman Labatt: Well what's the earliest people can start on May 3rd?
Mayor Jansen: 5:30.
Councilman Labatt: Well I've got my son's birthday in there too sometime, boy. 5:30. Well, let's start
at 5:30 and I'll leave when I have to leave.
Mayor Jansen: We're back on the 3rd. Thursday the 3rd, 5:30 but we lose Steve probably an hour into it.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, 3 May. Only if we can skip the last item.
Mayor Jansen: We sure could, or do you.
Scott Botcher: This can go back. I just had one other quick to add...
DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PLAN.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I wouldn't mind tabling discussion of employee incentive plan.
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: Is there a second7
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Peterson: I don't think we even need to. I think we've talked about it and it's been changed.
I'm ready to approve it.
Mayor Jansen: ! didn't review it much so I don't mind tabling it. I had a couple questions. If you don't
mind.
49
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table action on the Employee Incentive
Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Scott Botcher: I'll just jump in here. We had a library building committee meeting today and I just want
to give you an update on May, is it the 15th? 14th? Whenever the next meeting. Whenever the next day
is.
Mayor Jansen: The 14th.
Scott Botcher: The next Monday. I think it was the 14th. There will be a presentation made to the
council. The building committee did hold one more public meeting and we had a meeting today. We're
sort of narrowed down the conceptual site identification. The committee wants to present to you that.
We went from 3 last time, if you remember. Now we're down to 1. I recommend they need to come in
and get conceptual buy in from you. Obviously we don't have full plans and specs. There are a couple
issues that I think you need to be aware of that are promulgated as part of the site plan decision because
irrespective of the building committee, irrespective of the public input, the final decision is always
your's. And if you're not happy with some of those issues you need to tell us before we send Barry and
Pat to 4 to 6 weeks of design work. So May 14th they'll be in and they'll do their deal so please try to
make it.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Scott Botcher: You bet. That's all I have.
Mayor Jansen: Was that it?
Scott Botcher: Yep.
Mayor Jansen: Motion to adjourn.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at
10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
50
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the Board of Review and Equalization meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, and
Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, and Bruce DeJong
2001 BOARD OF REVIEW.
Angie Johnson: I'm Angie Johnson, Carver County Assessor. And with me we have staff of both Carver
County and Hennepin County. From Hennepin County we have Tom Scherer.
Mayor Jansen: Hi Tom.
Tom Scherer: Hello.
Angie Johnson: Steve Clay from Carver County. Tom'Kunick from Carver County. Emil Bueller from
Carver County. Steve and Tom have been the ones that have been doing the appraisal work for the C~
of Chanhassen. The residential properties this past year. And Tom of course took care of the Hennepin
County side and that's why he's here. And so basically we review one-quarter of the properties every
year is what Steve and Tom have done this past year. The rest is based on a 12 month sales study of the
sales that have occurred in Chanhassen this past year and based on that, I think there was about an overall
increase around 8 to 9 percent on the properties in Chanhassen. Basically we brought a laptop tonight. I
don't know how, if it's going to help or not resolving questions based on what we have on here. It is our
appraisal information and it might help some questions. Otherwise of course we'll have to review the
properties and come back and report in 2 weeks I do believe it is.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. So unless there are council members with questions, we'll open this up
for the public hearing. Great, no questions. We'll open this up for the public hearing. If there's anyone
who would like to come forward and address the City Council on.
Angie Johnson: Excuse me Mayor. We do have appeal sheets. Please make sure you've filled one out
so we have your names, your PID's and your phone numbers so that we can contact you for review of
your property. I know some of you have already filled them out and handed them to me so just make sure
we have these before the end of the night.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, wonderful. Is there anyone who needs a copy of the form still?
Angie Johnson: There's some up here and some way in the back too.
Mayor Jansen: Good evening.
Board of Review and Equalization - April 23,2001
Keith Bedford: Good evening. My name is Keith Bedford. I live at 405 Del Rio Drive. The property is
in my wife's name. It's a single family residence. I have a sheet. What we have done, we thought our
taxes have been too high for the last several years but we've been unable to make the meetings. So what
we've done in the past year is we've compared other properties within just a few block radius of our
residence and these have all been recent sales and they've sold rather fast so we know the sales price is
right. Their taxes average from $1,729 to $2,576 for 6 properties. There's a seventh property that the
taxes are $3,100. My taxes for the last 4 years have been in excess of $3,000. I have applied this.
Angle Johnson: Excuse me. The one thing we're talking about here is values. Your estimated market
value for 2001, payable 2002. We're not going to take taxes. Taxes have nothing to do with this.
Keith Bedford: Okay. I applied the same dollar per square foot to every property. Mine included so I
think my taxes are about $700 in excess of the other 7. I wonder why.
Angie Johnson: Okay, we're talking property market value. Do you feel your market value is in excess?
Keith Bedford: I feel my market value is in excess of the taxable market value, yes. And I think that's
true of all properties.
Angie Johnson: His property currently is at $184,100. Last year it was at $169,300.
Keith Bedford: I'd like to leave with you the comparables that I have and my tax records going back to
1996. Thank you.
Steve Clay: Sir?
Keith Bedford: Yes.
Steve Clay: This phone number, could I call that during the day to set up a time to come and view the
property?
Keith Bedford: Yep.
Steve Clay: Make sure that we do have the right value to the house. Is this the home number or work?
Keith Bedford: Yes, home. I'd like it compared to the other 7 properties also.
Steve Clay: Yeah, we'll inspect it first so I'm sure that our data is correct and then I'll look at these and
any other properties that would be good comparables.
Keith Bedford: Sounds good. I've got the same price per square foot, they were all built approximately
the same time as one big development.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much for bringing that forward. So at this point, so we're clear, staff
will now be doing a property visit and taking a look at the assessment and doing another evaluation.
Steve Clay: I'll be doing that with most of these.
Board of Review and Equalization -April 23,2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then we see that information back for the next meeting. Wonderful.
Angie Johnson: Right, we'll make sure we get it back so you'll have it in your packets so you can review
it prior to the meeting. If you have any questions. That way you can call and possibly have the questions
answered before the next meeting, yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. For those council members who haven't sat as the Board of Equalization, I
appreciate your giving us the background.
Jean Larson: I'm Jean Larson, 3609 Red Cedar Point Drive on Lake Minnewashta and my valuation last
year was $178,400 and this it went up to $278,800. And I'd like to know the value of the house and the
value of the property separately because the house was built in 1917 and we updated it, it was a cottage
in '53 and there's really not been anything much done to it since then. And our basement, our bathroom
is in the basement. It's the only bathroom we have and you can't be over 5 feet 10 to live in it because
the ceiling is low. So I really question that we could ever sell it for that unless the people are under
5'10". We were ali short people. We had all girls so it was fine for us.
Steve Clay: This number I can call you tomorrow and we'll set up a time and come out and take a look at
that. I chatted with her briefly beforehand.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Steve Clay: Everybody went ooh ah about the $100,000 increase. I should mention that her home is on
Minnewashta. Lake Minnewashta, and now these last couple of years we finally got enough sales data of
homes on the lake. You know people who have homes on the lake don't tend to sell them very quickly.
Once you've got it you want to stay there for as long as you can. There have been enough sales now
where my core tile inspected all the properties. Tom and I did around the entire lake and basically
revalued all the lakeshore of Minnewashta. $100,000 increases weren't that uncommon.
Jean Larson: This house would almost for sure be torn down.
Steve Clay: Yeah, and I'm guessing our value, the majority of it is in the land.
Jean Larson: Well it's a nice house. I love it. My kids, all 3 want it but I don't know whether they'll
ever get it but it would almost for sure be torn down.
Steve Clay: I'll bring some knee pads and we'll crawl down there.
Jean Larson: There's no water in it. No water in the basement. No sump pumps. We've been lucky that
way. That's why it's short. If we had gone down another foot, we'd have water.
Mayor Jansen: It just seems like such a significant leap to take all in one year that if it had been stepped,
and I realize I just heard you say that it just has not been really checked.
Angie Johnson: And we did almost all the lakeshore property throughout the whole county this year so it
wasn't just this lake. All the lakes increased by a large amount.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well appreciate your coming in this evening.
Board of Review and Equalization - April 23,2001
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you ma'am.
Todd Gerhardt: Angle, could you explain limited market value and how that would impact a home like
this? This is a good example to kind of explain how limited market value kind of helps out an individual
like this.
Audience: And if you would please, what a home sells for and the taxable market value and how these
differences work out.
Mayor Jansen: Okay Angle, if you wouldn't mind maybe addressing Mr. Gerhardt's question first, I'd
appreciate it.
Angle Johnson: Okay, first of all the limited market value of course is a legislation decision and it's a
calculated figure based on what last year's value is versus this year's so it only can go up a certain
percentage of market value. And that's all calculated within our system, and actually it's not a value that
can be appealed or anything because it is a calculated figure. And yeah, it would take, market value
would stay the same. It would take, is it 4 years now? Every year they change the limited on us so you'd
take 4 years for it to catch up with it now or is it 5? They've changed it a couple times. For the
calculations.
Steve Clay: Well ! think as many years as it takes, depending on how much your's was raised. It can
only go up 8 ½% per.
Angie Johnson: 8 ½% or 50%, which is the lesser of the two. So it's a calculated figure so it's never, I
mean although her's went up that $100,000, her taxable market value, and that's probably what you're
asking about sir is the taxable. Your limited and taxable base...your market value is what we're saying
the sales are saying what your property is worth, but because of the legislation decisions, which includes
either the limited or what is called this old house on older properties, that they can have excluded values
if they update their properties and do some new construction with them. These are excluded for tax
purposes and so that's why your taxable market value is usually is what your limited is.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Angle Johnson: Does that help?
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Bruce Amundson: Good evening. My name is Bruce Amundson. I live at 7643 Nicholas Way. Those
are the townhouses that are overlooking Byerly's. I'm an original owner there. I've lived there since
1994. I live in a 2 bedroom unit. There's 90 units in the development, 40 of them are 3 bedroom units.
50 of them are 2 bedroom units. They're basically all the same. There's only 3 options that were
available. Air conditioning, gas fireplace and a garage door opener. I have the air conditioning and the
garage door opener. The townhouses on either side of me, 7641 and 7645 both have finished basements
and gas fireplaces and my taxes are the same as the one and $44.00 less than the other one. I certainly
feel like I could sell mine for the same as their's with the finished lower level and gas fireplace.
Angie Johnson: This takes a little while to work.
Mayor Jansen: I can hear it spooling. Staff will take a look at the comparisons for us.
Board of Review and Equalization - April 23,2001
Bruce Amundson: And there have been problems, which I'm sure the City Council's aware of at that
development. We had a lawsuit against the builder which the City was also joined us and we spent 3
years in litigation with the builder.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Steve Clay: What were the issues there?
Bruce Amundson: Bad construction, among other things.
Roger Knutson: The city is well aware of those problems.
Bruce Amundson: Yes I would think so.
Roger Knutson: Well aware of them.
Angle Johnson: And you purchased this in '94 for $91,155.
Bruce Amundson: Yes.
Angle Johnson: Right now we're at $106,600 but.
Bruce Amundson: I've made no improvements since I moved in.
Angie Johnson: On here we do have that you have central air, that's about all it has. So we'll take a look
at it and make sure that we got the correct information on it. ,
Mayor Jansen: Okay, wonderful. Thanks for coming in this evening.
Councilman Labatt: Angle, did you say that 91,155 was what he purchased it for in '94?
Angie Johnson: '94.
Councilman Labatt: And it's at 106,600.
Angle Johnson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Anyone else who would like to address the City Council. Please come forward and state
your name and address for the record.
Robert Summers: Robert Summers, 6239 Chaska Road.
Angle Johnson: Do we have a...
Robert Summers: Yes I do. What I wanted to mention is we have a taxable market value for 2000 taxes
of $137,700. The taxable market value for 2001 taxes of $149,100, so well over a $10,000 increase.
Board of Review and Equalization - April 23,2001
And now for the 2002 they think it should be $159,800. It's a 2 bedroom home that was built in 1941
and it isn't worth that kind of money, that's all.
Mayor Jansen: Do you have all the information that you need or do you need the form filled out?
Appreciate your coming in this evening and bring that to our attention. Angle, do you need me to pause
still? Are you ready for the next application?
Angle Johnson: Do you want any information on this one or?
Mayor Jansen: That's okay. Thank you.
Jean Savitt: Hi, we're Scott and Jean Savitt and we're at 408 Highland Drive and we've seen small
increases year by year and then this year we took an almost $10,000 increase on our home. And in
speaking with other neighbors in our area we're not seeing similar increases in the neighborhood so
we're curious as to why the big jump and kind of how the houses are chosen. If everybody else in our
area was looked at at the same time. So here's my form. We haven't had any improvements over the
past year.
Angle Johnson: Is that a daytime phone number?
Jean Savitt: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Pause for technology.
Angle Johnson: ...any other information. Otherwise we'll just contact her and get back.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you very much for coming in this evening with that. Appreciate it.
Anyone else who would like to address the City Council this evening? Okay, going once. I don't see
anyone else coming forward.
Angie Johnson: Is there anyone that does want a review of their property that wants to fill out the
information to set appointments. If you don't want to address City Council, you don't have to.
Mayor Jansen: We're a pretty scary group.
Steve Clay: Just the camera.
Mayor Jansen: You're probably right there. Okay, so we will close the public hearing and I'm looking
for a motion to continue the Board of Review to May 14th at 6:30 again here in the City Council
Chamber. And that the County Assessor provide a written recommendation for each objection received.
Councilman Ayotte: Motion so moved.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to continue the Board of Review and
Equalization meeting to May 14, 2001 at 6:30 and direct the County Assessor's office to provide a
Board of Review and Equalization -April 23, 2001
written recommendation for each appeal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4
to 0.
The Board of Review and Equalization meeting was continued until May 14, 2001. The meeting
ended at 6:55 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 3, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson, and
Councilman Labatt
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt and Roger Knutson
PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Berquist, Vernelle Clayton, Susan McAllister, and Kevin McShane
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF CITY MANAGER TRANSITION PERIOD.
Mayor Jansen recapped where the City Council left off at their meeting on April 23ra and asked if the
council could come to a consensus on where to proceed from this point. She stated she had been in
conversation with Sathe and Associates and asked them, due to the short amount of time since the last
search process for City Manager, if they would be willing to compromise on their fee. Mark Sathe stated
that he would be willing to deduct the fee to $12,000, or negotiate an hourly fee. Mayor Jansen then
asked for council's thoughts.
Councilman Ayotte stated he would like to see a task force set up meeting the following criteria. That
the search be conducted over a short period of time, heavy citizen involvement, staff involvement,
outside agency involvement, i.e. Carver County, or agencies that a city manager would be interacting
with, one council member, and one to two citizens. Then bring in a personnel agency to back up the
committee's findings. Mayor Jansen asked for clarification on what was meant by outside agency and
personnel agency company. Councilman Ayotte explained that he would like to see what a task force
could come up with before going to the experts.
Mayor Jansen then explained she had been in conversation with people from School District 112 and got
input on the procedure they had used in their search.
Councilman Peterson stated his priority is speed. Finding candidates as quickly as possible by piggy
backing onto searches conducted by other communities and finding candidates from those searches. He
would like to see if the city could find 6 to 10 applicants without incurring expense, and if the council
felt no viable applicants could be found, then at that point go with Sathe and Associates at the $12,000,
which he felt was a reasonable amount.
Mayor Jansen stated she had asked Scott Botcher to pull together a list of communities who had done
recent searches. A list was compiled with such cities as Minnetonka, Roseville, Anoka, Andover,
Waeonia, Long Lake, West St. Paul, Farmington, etc. Roger Knutson clarified that the cities of Anoka,
West St. Paul and Farmington, as far as he knew, were still in the process of hiring and had not yet
completed the process. Mayor Jansen stated she had also been given a name of a possible applicant who
was a current city manager of a smaller town.
City Council Special Meeting - May 3, 2001
Councilman Labatt thought the processes being discussed were a great idea if the city didn't have a
person available that possesses all the skills, education, and talent that the City is looking for. He stated
what the City needs right now is stability. Mayor Jansen stated she would like to see Todd Gerhardt
participate in the process and give him a chance to show whether he is the strongest candidate for the job.
Councilman Labatt stated he felt Todd Gerhardt has already shown that he's capable of running the city
and didn't want to waste any more time.
Councilman Ayotte stated he would like citizen input for affirmation of whom they choose. He stated he
would be in favor of hiring Todd Gerhardt, especially if the process goes to 6 to 7 months again, but felt
it needs to be validated.
Mayor Jansen asked if there was consensus for the following. Forming a small committee, moving
rapidly, and that the search not be as broad as last time. She stated she would be in contact with the
mayors from'the list of other cities. She stated that the formation of the committee proposed by Scott
Botcher included the existing city manager, city council member and two residents. Councilman
Peterson felt the committee should not include the existing city manager. Councilman Ayotte asked how
the selection of citizens would occur. Would an outside agency decide? The other three council
members felt the City Council could find citizens for the committee. Councilman Labatt suggested
having one member from the Chamber of Commerce and one member from the Rotary. Mayor Jansen
asked if Councilman Peterson would like to be on the committee since he has expertise in that area. He
stated he would, but felt there should be two city council members on the committee and two citizens.
Councilman Ayotte felt there should be three citizens to make the committee an odd number.
Councilman Peterson cautioned that the more people on a committee, the longer the process takes.
At this point in the meeting Mayor Jansen asked the members from the public for input.
Susan McAllister stated the City needs stability right now.
Steve Berquist stated if not hiring Todd Gerhardt by default, and he was not in favor of that, then the city
should just bite the bullet and hire Sathe and Associates for expediency sake. He felt Sathe and
Associates will be involved in the process at some point anyway.
Kevin McShane explained his experience from business in the hiring process. He stated the first thing
that needs to be done is to look at what it is the City wants. If you know what you want, then you look
internally first to see if there's someone that meets that criteria, while at the same time starting to look
externally. Mayor Jansen stated that the city has the profile that was prepared by Sathe and Associates
2 years ago. Kevin McShane cautioned that when you are looking at the candidates from other cities, are
they looking for the same thing that the City of Chanhassen is, and therefore will the candidates from
those cities be what you're looking for.
Vernelle Clayton stated that stability needs to be added to the city. She expressed concern that due to the
political climate of the city at the present time, she was not sure any group could be put together that
wouldn't be considered controversial. She suggested that the City Council hire Todd Gerhardt and at his
annual review if the council was not happy with his performance, they could get rid of him at that point.
She stated that even if the council goes through the process of forming a committee, hiring a professional
search firm, ultimately the council may still not agree on an applicant. If Todd Gerhardt is a favored
candidate, then it may not be fair to the other candidates to put them through the process when ultimately
Todd Gerhardt will be chosen.
City Council Special Meeting - May 3, 2001
Todd Gerhardt asked to provide input from staff's perspective. He cited the pros and cons of using
candidates from other cities, not necessarily fitting the criteria established for the City of Chanhassen.
He stated that if there is a profile, he will take a good look at it before deciding on how to proceed, and
suggested that the council get input from the department heads on what they feel should be in that profile.
He stated he has 100% support from the staffand business people he's spoken with and that staff is
looking for a quick resolution to this matter. Mayor Jansen stated she would pass the profile around to
the department heads for their input.
Mayor Jansen then stated she would like to address the issue of stability. She felt that the strength of city
hall was due to the fact that strong department heads were currently employed and will look to them to
keep stability with the staff in their departments. She stated that the profile she has in mind does not
necessarily fit Todd Gerhardt. She is looking for someone who is externally strong and can be a "fire
wall" to the political climate in the community.
Councilman Ayotte stated that some people have loud courage and some have quiet courage. He feels
Todd Gerhardt has quiet courage, due to the way he guided the city through the 7 month transition 2
years ago.
Councilman Labatt explained his idea of stability as hiring somebody with a long term commitment to
the city. He then read a number of requirements from the profile provided by Sathe and Associates and
stated he felt Todd Gerhardt met all those requirements.
Councilman Peterson stated in his business he looks to hiring internally first, but externally at the same
time to save time. He suggested placing a time restriction, and at the end of that time, say 30 to 45 days,
wanting to have a list of candidates from which to choose.
Councilman Labatt asked for legal input. Roger Knutson stated there were no legal requirements
regarding public notification or the process of hiring a city manager. The City Council votes, and if the
vote is a tie, the Mayor appoints.
Mayor Jansen summarized the consensus of the group as wanting to set a time limit of 30 to 45 days to
get candidates and get together as a group as soon as possible to evaluate the profile. Councilman Labatt
stated that the agenda on May 14, 2001 was fairly light and asked that it be discussed that night. It was
decided to place forming the committee and approving the city manager profile under Visitor
Presentation on May 14, 2001. At that point, setting a date approximately 30 days later to interview
candidates.
Vernelle Clayton stated on the positive side, she said the business community has been impressed with
the City Council's performance during the first quarter of the year. The council members thanked her for
that comment.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Submitted by
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17, 2001
Chairwoman Sidney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Karlovich, Deb Kind, Craig Claybaugh, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn
Sidney, Rich Slagle, and Uli Sacchet
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Acting Chair LuAnn Sidney administered the Oath of Office to Alison Blackowiak as Chairperson
for the Chanhassen Planning Commission.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER REGARDING LAKESHORE
PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES.
This item was pulled from the agenda and will be considered at the May 15, 2001 Planning Commission
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 INCLUD/NG DEFINITIONS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, does anybody have any questions for staff?. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have a question for Bob. under the definition for story we talk about including a
basement use for the principal use. I'm not sure if we're opening ourselves up to enforcement
nightmares by determining what a principal use is or not. Tell me a little bit about why we think that's
important to have in there.
Aanenson: The principal use is defined already, such as the living structure. The accessory structure
such as a dock, a fence, a storage building, that sort of thing could be, would be the accessory structure.
And our ordinance says now you cannot have a, without principal structure you cannot have an accessory
structure on site. You have to have the principal structure first. For example a garage cannot go up
unless the principal structure's in place.
Kind: I'm talking about under the definition of story here. I'm wondering why we care how the
basement is being used. If it's exposed, it's exposed and should be counted as a story, and whether it's
being used for the principal use or for storage.
Aanenson: It's come up on some commercial development where it's actually, I know the Legion was
looking at this where they were actually looking at creating a walkout type, even though the topography
may not work that way and using it as actually usable, and that's a definition ora story would be when
it's usable square footage as far as not storage but tenant space or finished space.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: So staff's okay with totally exposed basement that's used strictly for storage and would not count
that as a story?
Generous: No, that would still be for the principal use, the commercial use on the building or whatever.
For the retail operation is principal use of the building. It's almost redundant in this sense because you
wouldn't use it. Kate mentioned there might be instances where you have a crawl space and it's not
really usable space and it's not for the principal use and so that instance you wouldn't have.
Kind: How about in the case of underground parking, would that be considered a story? Because that's
not technically a basement but there could be exposed foundation.
Generous: Well how much of it is exposed and that's where the definition comes in to determine that.
Kind: And do you think the word basement is clear for underground parking? I'm wondering if
foundation might be a better word choice or.
Aanenson: Because I believe even if it's underground parking it counts as a story building code wise.
Kind: Just food for thought.
Blackowiak: Okay, other commissioners questions. Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Picky one. In the story wording, at the end there, 50% of the perimeter of
the building than. Then, not than. Right.
Kind: It should be then. ~
Sacchet' Okay, then. It's a typo.
Blackowiak: Okay, anything else? No? Okay, I have nothing. No comments at this point and no
questions. I'.d like to open this item up for a public hearing. This item is open for a public hearing so
anybody wishing to speak on this item, please come up to the podium and state your name and address
for the record. Seeing no one, I will close this item for public hearing. Commissioners, Uli why don't I
start with you. Do you have any comments?
Sacchet: I'm fine with the definition of those terms.
Slagle: As well.
Blackowiak: LuAnn.
Sidney: Ditto.
Claybaugh: No questions.
Kind: I'd like to change the language of story to clarify. I just think the term basement can be
misconstrued and I'd like to see the use of the word foundation instead. Otherwise I think it's swell.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 200 !
Karlovich: My only comment with that is where are you measuring on the foundation then for your H's
or your big H.
Aanenson: Yeah, foundation is an architectural and a building code definition too so I guess I'd want
some clarity on that.
Claybaugh: Yeah, they imply certain structure elements that don't pertain to the square footage. So
whether it's lower level, basement, I would think the UBC addresses that specifically in terms of
architectural definitions.
Kind: Madam Chair, just point of clarification. So are you saying that foundation is a good word choice
or not a good word choice?
Aanenson: My opinion it probably wouldn't be because it has a different meaning than basement.
Basement I think is more generic. Foundation has a narrower interpretation. I think basement would be
broader by the building code.
Kind: Because we're talking about just exposed foundation. We're not talking about the.
Aanenson: Basement has a height to it. Foundation is generally, footings and foundation.
Kind: Oh I see what you're saying.
Aanenson: When you get a footings and foundation, it's on the ground. It's a different meaning.
Sacchet: If I may ask the question Madam Chair. Deb, are you concerned that we want to clarify that it's
the part that sticks above ground, right? ~
Kind: Yes.
Sacchet: I think what I hear you say, that's your concern. Whether it's foundation or basement, you
want to specify that's the piece that sticks out.
Kind: Exactly.
Sacchet: Maybe we can find a way to make that clear.
Kind: And I feel like people who have underground parking, I'm thinking of the apartments, the Lake
Susan Apartments. I don't think they would refer to that as the basement, but maybe definition you
would.
Sacchet: Lower level.
Aanenson: So what you're looking for is a definition, kind of in parenthesis, something behind basement
clarifying that.
Sacchet: Okay.
Aanenson: Is that correct?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Sacchet: That's what I hear her saying.
Kind: That's my concern. Because I want to make sure that we prohibit really, or count as a story at
least, ifa lot is showing of the foundation wall or basement wall. Ifa lot of that is showing, it should
count as a story.
Sacchet: I would consider that a valid concern.
Blackowiak: So how do you think we could improve, could we improve this language then is my
question?
Kind: I would love to improve this language so we could pass this tonight. I don't want to table it for
this.
Blackowiak: I agree.
Kind: And my idea was to, I'll read offmy idea and then we can discuss it and decide it should be the
motion or not. Would be to change the second sentence to read, or if there is no floor above it and the
space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. Strike the end of that sentence and then start a new
sentence, if the exposed height of H of a foundation is more than 12 feet at any point, or if the foundation
height (h) is more than 6 feet for more than 50% of the perimeter of the building, then it is considered a
story. This definition refers to non-residential properties only.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I don't like foundation in there but could we say lower level?
Kind: Lower level? I like that.
Sacchet: I like your language except for the word foundation. Foundation to me is the concrete that the
building sits on.
Blackowiak: Footings.
Sacchet: It's not a floor or a story. Basement is more close to that but if we would say lower level, is
that a better term? It's certainly better than foundation as far as I'm concerned, but is it good enough?
Claybaugh: I have a question for staff.
Karlovich: If it has no floor above it then is it the lower level?
Aanenson: Right, that's my point.
Claybaugh: Is it easier to leave the language intact and just add parenthesis at the end, basement is
defined as.
Aanenson: Right, that's what I was recommending, or get a legal opinion from the attorney to make sure
that's it. If that's the concern, does basement include anything below, or certain amount exposed. Which
was our intent.
Planning Commission Meeting - April ! 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. Well Deb, would you feel comfortable if we just moved along with that instruction
to get an opinion from the attorney to clarify that before it moves to City Council, or are we feeling a
need to.
Kind: Yes, I'm comfortable with that. I don't want to see this again.
Sacchet: IfI may add a comment. It's really two aspects I think that we need to define. Just defining
basement is not enough. I think we need to define basement that is above ground. I mean I think that
caveat needs to go in there. Whatever we define as basement. Do you understand what I mean? There
are two elements. The basement needs to be defined from a legal side, but then the part that is actually
above the ground is what matters.
Kind: In this case.
Sacchet: In this case.
Kind: But we could tackle that by leaving the language, if the exposed height (H) ora basement is more
than 12 feet at any point.
Aanenson: That's the purpose of the drawing, and maybe the drawing needs to be enhanced.
Kind: No, I think the drawing is swell.
Aanenson: No but I'm saying you could also call that basement or label something else if that enhances
what the intent is.
Kind: Okay. '
Blackowiak: Okay. Did you want to make a quick comment? Would you come up to the microphone
please.
Vernelle Clayton: I'm sorry, I should have spoken but I haven't seen this ordinance but if it's more than
12 feet at any point you need to clarify then that that wouldn't, that the portion where the doors are for
underground parking would not be considered because you have to have the doors, you may slope down
but they'll be exposed and it will be more than 12 feet. So just don't get caught in the trap.
Kind: You're right.
Saechet: Good point.
Blackowiak: So.
Kind: And make an exception for garages for underground parking, it just seems so complex.
Aanenson: We're making this way.
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. I think we just need to move it forward.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: The City Attorney did review these so, I understand where you're having a little bit of
ambiguity and maybe that can be enhanced by adding the word basement somewhere in the drawing or
another word that defines the space that we're trying to talk about.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well with that, can I get a motion.
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I move that we, the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council of the following code amendments, as defined with the added that it's, then it is considered in
the story definition. And I would ask that staff puts a reference to the drawing. Kind of link the two
together a little clear, because the drawing does explain it. The language if we have hooked in the
language, that would be fine. That's my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council the following code amendments, (with clarification by the City Attorney of the term
basement):
Section 20-1 Definitions, add:
Body shop is an establishment primarily engaged in the repair of auto bodies, automotive painting and
refinishing.
Standing Seam Roof is a deck roof consisting of flat metal joined by vertical or overlapping seams.
Story means that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the
floor next above it. Or if there is no floor above it, then the space between the floor and the ceiling next
above it and including a basement used for the principal use. If the height (H) of the basement is more
than 12 feet at any point, of if the height (h) is more than 6 feet for more than 50 percent of the perimeter
of the building then it is considered a story. This definition refers to nonresidential properties only.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: This will go to City Council with our comments on the definition.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, WETLAND BUFFER
STRIPS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, any questions? Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, real quick question. So the purpose is that we control the amount of
impervious surface. I mean that's how it says in your language. Now, we run into that before is a deck
impervious surface or not so basically we won't get into that swamp anymore? Deck is part of it and
that's that?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Generous: Well a deck is a structure and a structure must meet the setback.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay.
Generous: A playground equipment would be a structure. That would have to meet the.
Sacchet: Okay, even if it has holes for the water to go through.
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: I just want to make sure we're clear about that, thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions?
Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. I guess I should have looked in the code book but, like if somebody would
want to put in a volleyball court or something of that nature, an asphalt paved portion and by the buffer
strip, is that considered a structure or how do we address something like that?
Generous: They don't come to us for permits on that.
Aanenson: I don't believe that for the sand structure, sand blanket, something like that.
Sidney: Pardon?
Aanenson: I don't believe for a sand blanket you'd need a permit. You need a permit if you're putting in
a fence. A dog run. That sort of thing. ,
Sidney: Something like that would be okay to do?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sidney: Really?
Blackowiak: I don't think I'm, you asked specifically asphalt. Paved.
Sidney: Definition of a structure.
Aanenson: This ordinance is addressing structure setback. We started going down the path of
impervious. This ordinance doesn't talk about this. This is strictly talking about accessory structures.
That's a separate issue.
Sidney: So structure is not, doesn't encompass then an asphalt, paved or anything like that? I guess I'm
trying to understand when you say structure.
Aanenson: No. No. I think the building code defines a structure as something over 2 feet in height or a
foot and a half in height or something.
Sidney: Oh okay, like a fence.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: You may need a permit because you're increasing your impervious surface but that's separate
from this topic right here.
Sidney: Okay, so it's more focused toward decks and sheds and things like that?
Aanenson: Correct. Swingsets, because we have that come up all the time. Someone wants to put,
we've had people that do batting cages in the buffer strip so there was ambiguity in the language
regarding what's a structure and what's a setback. What can and cannot be in the primary, secondary
setback. The buffer strip, excuse me and the setback. So that was the intent of trying to clarify this. It's
separate from the impervious calculation. But when a deck is attached to the house, it's considered part
of the principal structure and that must meet the setback.
Sidney: Does the city, or do we have any protection against like what I was saying, if somebody wants to
put asphalt right down into, no you're saying?
Aanenson: Well, then we would look at the impervious. The impervious. You know we've had people
that want to do woodchips and a batting cage or a dog run or something like that...case by case basis.
Claybaugh: I guess what you're referencing is two different things. For the setback, that's pretty much a
stand alone requirement and depending on what they're putting in, they may or may not have to conform
to the hard cover requirements.
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: So that's where the language for the impervious surface is, okay.
BIackowiak: Any further questions? Okay, this item is open for a public hearing. If anybody would like
to come and make comments about this item, please step up to the microphone and state your name and
address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, why don't we
start down at this end this time. Do you have any comments?
Karlovich: I don't have any comments on this one. It looks straight forward to me.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Kind: Madam Chair, I do have one question I thought of as we were going along here. I looked up the
definition for accessory use or structure, and it says it means a use or structure subordinate and serving
the principal use or structure on the same lot and clearly and customarily incidental thereto. If I had a
swing set, I'm not sure ifI would be allowed with that definition to put it in the buffer strip or not. I
guess I would have to assume no.
Aanenson: No. Not in the buffer.
Generous: And that's in the wetland setback.
Kind: I shouldn't say the buffer, I'm sorry. In the setback. In the wetland setback.
Generous: You can't encroach in that. That's an accessory structure.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: If you recall this discussion before, we went through and tried to decide what would be
acceptable. Would a swing set? But what if it had asphalt underneath? What if it had a rubber...
Kind: My recollection of the discussion was that some of us were okay with swing sets being in that
wetland setback. And so I'm trying to decide ifI agree with this ordinance the way it's written right
now.
Aanenson: But then the question came up back to batting cages. Again when you built one, there's just
dirt underneath it. Do you allow things if there's impervious?
Sacchet: IfI may jump in. I like the fact that it's relatively clear. Once you start making an exception
for a swing set, it gets messy right away so there may be nothing wrong with a small swing set but is
something wrong with a real big one with all the different towers and things? I mean it just becomes a
mess right away so I'm leaning towards let's leave it crisp and go with it.
Kind: I agree. I think this is the clearest way. That's the only exception I can see and I think if we make
exceptions, then we're just going to muddy it up and I agree with the way staffhas proposed it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any comments?
Claybaugh: I think it's acceptable as is.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sidney: Seems fine.
,,
Sacchet: Let's do it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I'd like to hear a motion please.
Sidney: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council the
following code amendment adding accessory structure to the setback requirements as shown in the
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated April 17, 2001.
Blackowiak: Alright, there's a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: Second.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Karlovich: The only discussion I have is, I'm not sure if my swing set conforms with this or not.
Aanenson: You're non-conforming. Just don't expand.
Karlovich: Yeah, it's a pre-existing non-conformity.
Slagle: Jay, you'll report back to us won't you?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Karlovich: What?
Slagle: You'll report back to us after you measure.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well it's been moved and seconded.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the
following code amendment adding accessory structure to the setback requirements:
ARTICLE VI. Wetland Protection.
Section 20-406 Wetland buffer strips and setback (a)
Wetland Type Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
Principal and 100' 40' measured 40'measured O'
Accessory from the from the
Structure Setbacks outside edge outside edge
of the buffer of the buffer
strip strip
Buffer Strip 20-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0'
Buffer Strip 50' 20' 10' 0'
Minimum Average
Width
% of Native
Vegetation in Buffer
Strip
Entire Entire Optional Optional
Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, OFF STREET PARKING.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, are there any questions for staff?. I guess I just have one Bob. This 22 feet versus 24
and 26, can you have me any examples of recently where it may have made a difference in how things
were handled, or has it traditionally been 24 and 26 feet?
Generous: Well it's for the two way operations. It says if it's one way you can have a 22 foot aisle, but
if we had parking on both sides, you can't have a 22 foot aisle, even if it's one way. And so that's where
we were concerned that someone would come in and say well, there's a, I'm really constrained on my site
and this is the only way I can do it ifI picked up that additional 4 feet of area. And so that's the purpose.
We were looking at, it was the Emplast building actually that came out and we were looking at it for that
one and we noticed that there was that issue.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 200 !
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: So basically the 22 feet would not be an option anymore? It would have to be, the minimum
would be 24.
Generous: Well it is an option if you only have parking on one side and it's a one way drive.
Sacchet: That is still a possibility?
Generous: That's still in there in 1101.
Sacchet: Because I was wondering why with the 20 foot, why it came in in the first place but that is the
reason.
Generous: That's it. For one way operations you can go smaller, but if you allowed it on one way
operations with parking on both sides, then it's a little too cramped for the back out movements and
turning movements.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, did you have a question?
Slagle: Yes Madam Chair. Bob, on the first one requiring the stalls for handicap parking, since we are
now changing or leaving that with the State's recommendations or requirements, has that placed any sites
that we've approved, okay.
Generous: No, because we've required them to meet the State standards even though our's said 1 per 15.
Slagle: Okay. No other questions.
Blackowiak: Other questions? Alright, this item is open for, oh I'm sorry. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'm sorry.
Blackowiak: That's alright.
Kind: Bob, I never really looked at this until just now but 22 foot would be allowed if it was one way
traffic. Our aisles don't really account for one way traffic for a 90 degree situation. On that table. It
says 26 feet, and then it's got a double asterisk and then it says it may be 22 feet wide if there's no
parking spaces across the way. It's just a one sided situation. I'm wondering if we should have a double
asterisk say, if it's one way traffic you would be allowed to have the 22 foot.
Generous: Yeah, that's on page, well 1246 of the ordinance, Section 20-1101 has one way traffic and
business, a maximum of 22 foot driveway width.
Kind: So would it be conflicting with, on page 1248 if we changed the aisle width to 26 feet? Period,
and no asterisk, no nothing.
Generous: Well that's what, we're taking those asterisks out.
11
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
Kind: I'm suggesting that if it's one way traffic we would allow 22 feet, and this table would be
conflicting and require them to have 26 feet.
Generous: No .... they already have one side parking then we would permit that.
Kind: Or some how it's designated as one way. I mean do we ever designate 90 degree parking as one
way?
Aanenson: No.
Generous: No, usually it's angled parking that we permit. Or would have one way.
Kind: So that's the assumption we're making is that it would not be one way situation with 90 degree
parking.
Blackowiak: Staff, are you comfortable with that then?
Generous: Yes. And the engineers actually do this one.
Blackowiak: Alright, I don't mean to put you on the spot but, okay. So we've had a public hearing. Any
other comments? Okay, I'd like to have a motion please.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council of the following two code amendments, delete the Section 20-1118(a) ** and the corresponding
note, and delete the first sentence of Section 20-1124(1)(f).
Kind: I'll second that. '
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City
Council the following code amendments:
Delete Section 20-1118(a) "**" and the corresponding note.
Delete the first sentence of Section 20-1124(1)(f).
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN
REVIEW, PUD AND HWY. 5 OVERLAY, REGARDING USE OF MATERIALS AND DESIGN.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Any questions for staff?. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, how would you like to approach this?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Well I think there's a lot here and I personally have lots of notes so I think maybe we
should just give everyone a chance to make their comments and then maybe have a brief discussion. We
have to open for public hearing too but let's just let everyone take their time and make any comments or
ask any questions they need to right now. And then we'll just kind of go on from there. See where it
leads.
Kind: I think the way I'll start is, give thumbs up to the concept of applying the Highway 5 overlay
district city wide. I like that idea and if the rest of the commission agrees, then I will get into my specific
comments about what I'd like to see tweaked in this plan. Does that make sense?
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Kind: Do you want me to start or do you want?
Blackowiak: I think so. I think we all have some comments. I think maybe you should just start and.
Kind: Just start? But what if everybody else doesn't like the overall idea? I'll be...that everybody likes
the overall idea.
Blackowiak: Well then they'll just have to state the reasons why.
Kind: Okay. Okay.
Blackowiak: Do you have any questions for staff right now though?
Kind: Yes, I have many questions for staff. Under the purpose section, the Highway 5 corridor district
version had 4 items listed under purpose and the first one was protect creek corridor, wetlands, etc. What
was the reason that was left off of this version?
Aanenson: Most of the stuff going along the Highway 5 corridor probably also went through
subdivision. Certainly we could put that in.
Kind: It was not intentional to leave it off?.
Aanenson: Yeah. I felt that it was probably more in areas outside the core of the city, and because this
now applies to a lot of development within the core. I'm not sure that there's wetlands or, but it certainly
can be added back in. We could make it. Maybe some of the nature features of the community. Some of
the existing topography or word it that way so it's not specific just to wetlands.
Sacchet: If I may add something to this. I had the same question Deb, but then I realized that the third
paragraph under Intent covered somewhat the same stuff.
Aanenson: That's what I would say too Uli. It's kind of preservation of the natural conditions and that's
what we're looking at. Kind of the uniqueness of Chanhassen.
Kind: And you're right, the difference between purpose and intent can be kind of fuzzy sometimes so, I
liked it in the Highway 5 corridor. I noticed it was missing so I just was wondering if it was intentional
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
or what. Under the intent, is there a reason why we don't spell out at that point that these standards are
for commercial, industrial and office, institutional specifically?
Aanenson: I think that's probably appropriate, what our intent is.
Kind: I'm thinking it might make sense to do it early on in the document. In fact I'm wondering if the
title of the whole thing should be Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial, And Office
Institutional Developments. Just to make it really clear that we're not talking residential here. Just an
idea.
Another question. On page 2 of the design standards we talk about that idea that single family residential
lots are exempt from the standards. If I am a developer coming in with a multi family development, do I
need to.
Aanenson: That should also have been exempted. I originally had put that in but if you look at, most of
the ones that we do multi family, except for Powers Ridge, still has site plan review. You start looking at
the window percentage, you really are developing differeht standards when you start talking about 50%
transparency. It may make it. Some communities do do it that way. Brick, stucco, wood.
Kind: So it makes sense to add multi family and single family residential lots are exempt?
Aanenson: That's a discussion you should have is whether you want multi family in there. There may be
some people, you're going to affect affordability issues too so.
Kind: Okay. So we'll leave that up for that, but I wasjust wondering if that was intentional to leave that
out or not. And it was your intent to include multi family as being exempt.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Under let's see. In that same paragraph, this is on page 2 under district applications. The first
paragraph. The sentence says single family residential lots are exempt from the design guidelines. I'm
wondering, just for consistency throughout this document if we should refer to it as the design standards.
Just so that we know what we're talking about throughout the document, because it comes up as design
guidelines some places. Design standards other places. I know it's a picky thing but I'd like to see it
used consistently throughout and it happens in other locations which when we get into the picky stuff I'll
go over it. Oh, on page 3. The monotony of design under architectural styles/building character. The
second paragraph talks about monotony of design. In the Highway 5 corridor ordinance, district we had a
visual at that point, and I thought it was really helpful to have the visual. Were the visuals in this
document left out intentionally or were you going to put them in where they were before?
Aanenson: Well I think what I'd like to do is put actual buildings in Chanhassen that worked that are
good examples that would show that same, you could do a good and bad design, if that's. I guess I'm
looking for direction from you but I think if we show a good example of the relief of a building, I think
that's better than a picture. This one has good and bad.
Sacchet: It'd be kind of tricky to have an actual picture.
Aanenson: We can show a bad from somewhere else.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: For what it's worth, I liked the visual. I thought it was really clear and helpful. At this point
Madam Chair I'm not going to over typos and things.
Blackowiak: Okay. You could maybe just submit those.
Kind: Yeah. Oh, question on page 5. We talk about material and detail and stucco is allowed as an
exterior finish. And then on the next page we state that EFIS, Exterior Insulating Finishing System may
only be used as an accent. Do you think that the term stucco and EFIS are used synonymously these
days?
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: And we should clarify that?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Kind: Then on page 6, under the long, well that's not a long list but a short list of materials that may not
be used except for as, let's see. May not be used in any visible exterior application except when
specifically permitted by the city in areas without, with limited public view. And then there's a list. On
the Highway 5 version we had exterior brick that is painted over as something you could use and that's
not on this list. Was that deliberately left off?.
Aanenson: Yes. Yes. If you want to put it back in but that has some of some controversy. Again the
reason why we checked, we looked at what's not visible. We felt that if, if it's out of public view it
seems onerous, especially when you're looking at a large industrial building, and we've had this
discussion on some projects that come up. That it may not make a lot of sense to have the investment on
that side of the building in terms of the other.
Kind: But this allows for that. Because of your language, the following may not be used in visible
exterior applications except when specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view.
Aanenson: Right. So as they come forward and make their presentation...correct.
Kind: I guess I'd like to see the painted rock face block and brick and concrete panels put back in there
as a prohibited material.
Aanenson: The tilt up concrete panels would be prohibited if it's?
Kind: Oh no, painting it.
Aanenson: Oh, the unadorned plain or painted.
Kind: That's unadorned plain or painted concrete block. We could add, no. No, I would add as a
separate bullet that the following may not be used in any visible exterior application and I would add to
the bottom of that list painted concrete panels, painted rock face block, painted brick. Up for discussion.
And then Kate you touched a little bit on Section 20-1067 about height and roof design. That we may
want to consider a taller building in the central business district. What height would you recommend?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: Well I guess what I would say is, leaving the height and roof design to the underlying zoning
district because that's really what's guiding you and leave it at that. The Highway 5 specifically said 30
or 40 feet so if you want to leave that in place, we could leave that because that's referenced in the
attached map, but otherwise I would just leave it with the underlying district and, every district I believe
except for the CBDG would be 40 feet. 3 stories. That's why.
Generous: In IOP.
Aanenson: In IOP, correct. Those would be the only ones so if you want the underlying district, except
the Highway 5 overlap district, which we have referenced so it's up to you. The problem is we have a lot
of IOP in the Highway 5 within that.
Kind: What's the rationale for the 3 story limit for?
Aanenson: If you go back and look in this document, there was some talk about topography and view
sheds and it was just a decision of looking at some slides and what the height. We haven't had a lot of
requests I don't believe. If we were to get a corporate user on the corner of 5 and 41, that may come up
at that point.
Kind: So it's not a fire department ladder reaching?
Aanenson: No. No, no.
Kind: Issue.
Aanenson: That was it. Just aesthetic.
Kind: I'm sure I had more questions. Oh again on Section 20-1070, this is on page 8. Franchise
architecture. The last sentence says franchises or national chains must follow these guidelines to create a
unique building sensitive to it's context. When I first read that I was looking for the guidelines, and I
think that's another example of where, if we use the words design standards or these design standards.
And there's other spots in here too but that's where it first came to my attention that it'd be nice to have a
common...
Aanenson: I think that's where a picture of Wendy's in too besides the...
Kind: And these next sections all had visuals in the Highway 5 section, which I liked. I mean they really
helped explain things to me so I'd like to see those put back in. The landscaping section, specifically
has, let's see it's 9 paragraphs. I'd like to see each of those numbered so that when we're referring to
ordinance we can refer to a number. A paragraph number and then the check. Put the visuals back in
there.
Aanenson: Yeah, and when it gets codified it will certainly, but that's a good point.
Kind: Oh and lighting. Was that somewhere where I couldn't find it in here? I noticed there was a
lighting section regarding site furnishings. Lighting in connection with site furnishings shall meet the
criteria applicable to the site landscaping buildings and signs. That's on top of page 8. And then there
was nothing else addressing lighting. In the city code book on page 1285, number 10, talks about
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
exterior lighting shall enhance the building design and adjoining landscape, etc. Is that paragraph in here
somewhere?
Aanenson: I left that out because I think our new lighting standards, and maybe we could reference those
are actually better because since this was written we redid our lighting to require downcast lighting,
shielded lighting and we spent a lot of time reviewing that. I think that's actually a little bit stronger
language and if you wanted to incorporate that, I would recommend that. But I guess where it was silent
you'd go back to the rest of the code book as far as standards. But that would be my recommendation.
Kind: Yeah, that makes sense. So good answer. And then the next section 20-1073, parking lot
location. Again I think it'd be nice to have each of those paragraphs labeled a, b, c, d as kind of
subsections of 1 and e I guess happens on the next page, just for future use in the code book. And that's
it. Oh, I do have one more question. The original memo addressed site plan review and PUD. I'm
concluding that staff is not recommending any changes to those sections to the code book?
Aanenson: Originally I was looking at just amending Chapter 20 but it was his recommendation to add
this division so it would apply to the districts you wanted to under supplementary regulations, and then
also the other approach would have been just to make the Highway 5 but it seems kind of, Highway 5
again addressed specifically. There were a lot of districts that, how do I want to say, included a lot of
districts within Highway 5. Every district and this again would be very specific, narrowing to the
commercial industrial districts.
Kind: Makes sense to me. And then I do have some minor typo kinds of things. Does that make sense
just to submit those?
Blackowiak: I would say just submit those. Photocopy your notes, that would probably be easier for
staffto follow. ~
Kind: That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, I'm going to go to Uli next. He's been chomping at the bit over there.
Sacchet: This became very colorful... I will try to take a similar approach. Things like missing periods
and like that to an e-mail. First of all the recommendation that you're making is that we recommend
repealing the Highway 5 corridor district and pointing to design guidelines. I'd like to make that very
specific. I mean what we're repealing is the Article, what is it, 19, Highway Corridor District? That'd be
clearly identified what that is. And at the same time that we clearly identify what we are replacing it
with, which is that article of the 14, General Supplemental Regulations and so forth. That we spell that
out. Now I have a lot of questions but I want to preface it that I basically like what you did. I think it's
an improvement over what the highway corridor thing was. I mean a step in the right direction. However
I do have a fair amount of questions. There is a lot offluffterms in there. Excuse the term, that is rather
subjective. I think that's okay in the purpose and the intent, and it's probably okay in the rest too but I'm
going to try to shake some of those. Like for instance page 3. The quality of design, the first paragraph
in the first one. In a later part, designs are incompatible with the surroundings. Intentionally bizarre,
exotic. Well maybe bizarre, exotic is not that fluffy but what's incompatible? What's compatible? I
mean that's a very subjective thing. Quality of design. The start of the size, portion and placement part.
Designs and configurations that tend to catch and accumulate trash. I wanted to ask you, is that like
comers where the wind blows in?
I7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Yes.
Sacchet: So then we actually try to have them stick out rather than stick in? These are easier to define
than the types like compatible. Quality.
Aanenson: I can only state that this ordinance is based on models that are used throughout the United
States and with the City Attorney's approval. It is very hard to be very specific and yet allow the
flexibility that you want because each project is unique as we see as they come through the process so I
can understand some of your concerns about that but.
Sacchet: Colors shall be harmonious?
Aanenson: Yeah, that's currently in the Highway 5 ordinance too.
Sacchet:. Let's look at some other things. I mean I'm at ease with it. I just think these are things that are
going to come up.
Blackowiak: Yeah well this is the time.
Sidney: May I make one comment Uli?
Sacchet: If you want to jump in there, yes.
Sidney: I guess when I look at it as Article 24 is it? I can't tell with my glasses here.
Blackowiak: 24 should be...
Sidney: 24, okay. And in the general supplemental regulations, I think we're looking at things very
broadly, am I.
Aanenson: Yes.
Sidney: Yeah, so I don't know that we're getting into the definitions at this point.
Aanenson: No, but if there's something that you feel that needs to be defined, that there isn't again,
majority of this language is taken out of the Highway 5 and put in broad brush to it. Then also with that
we went back and said what specific things, looking at models of other communities didn't we have.
Again looking at articulation, we specifically said how many feel in the current, in the Highway 5
ordinance it says articulation, there's nothing about a minimum footprint or spacing between buildings.
A lot of other communities have that. Looking at Chaska, Wayzata, they have a specific articulation and
they break it down between industrial. They even have 3 or 4 districts now. We were trying to keep this
as user friendly as possible because we could have done downtown and we wrestled with that internally
too. Do we want to just talk about a specific downtown district? Do we want to have different standards
for the industrial district? Again the Highway 5 encompassed a lot of different districts so we want to
take that same philosophical approach. So keeping it broad brush, but yet allowing for some of that
flexibility so in some areas they were specific.
Sidney: Now would it make sense, sorry I'm jumping in.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Sacchet: Go ahead LuAnn. I'll get it back.
Sidney: I guess I'm wondering in some cases would it be appropriate to site sections of code or do you
feel that that is getting too thick in?
Aanenson: Well the code is still there. Where it's silent you still have parking standards. You still have
within that district, these are supplementary so within the code you still have standards as far as the uses
that are allowed. The setback that's allowed. These again are supposed to enhance that by again talking
about embellishment of the design. And that's where we're going with that. So the two weave together.
The sign ordinance isn't addressed in here either. So again that stands by itself already.
Sidney: So we're giving a philosophy really to.
Aanenson: I would compare it to how we look at, with the residential district. There's supplementary
regulations. The supplementary regulations in the residential district says if you have a rambler it has to
be this many square feet. If you have a 2 story it has to be this many square feet. If you have.
Generous: Split entry.
Aanenson: Well I'm just thinking of some other supplementary regs that are in there. So it's additional,
if you have a porch or a deck, these are your side yard setbacks. It has additional standards besides
what's in there. So it would apply to all districts. So while you'd first go to your district if you're in the
neighborhood business, these are your uses, these are your setbacks. Okay, that's your starting point.
Then you would go to these, okay this is how high it can be but it's got to walk and talk like this. These
are some additional things they need to do. If that makes sense.
Sidney: Yeah.
Blackowiak: Uli, do you want to continue there?
Sacchet: Yeah, it's a tricky one and I don't think we can really settle this thing. Like for instance in the
landscaping I have another really highlight. It says harmonious to the design of good appearance. Yeah,
of course we all want good appearance. We all want harmonious but what's harmonious to me might be
something totally different from what it is to somebody else. And I don't say you can't do this but I want
to make sure we do this consciously. We're aware of it and we're prepared to deal with that when there
come different interpretations. That's what I'm after. That's the fluff. Now a little more specific I have
a number of Highway 5 context that I'm a little concerned about. Like in even already the purpose in the
second paragraph it says throughout the corridor. This doesn't apply to a corridor anymore. You're
talking generally.
Aanenson: No, it should be taken out.
Sacchet: So it should not say through the corridor. Then in the second paragraph of intent it says of this
district. At the time this was written this was meaning the Highway 5 corridor district so I don't know if
the district still applies. Not really. Then in the 1, 2, 3, in the fourth paragraph of the intent, also the last
word, entire corridor. So that's remnants of the Highway 5.
Aanenson: It should be entire city is what those should say.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Sacchet: Yeah I think we need to make sure, and there are a couple more of those. Like on page 6,
height and roof design. Building height shall be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet in the Highway 5 corridor
district.
Aanenson: And that brings it as a point, because that's what it currently is and if you want it to remain
that way, and I did reference the Highway 5 map for that.
Sacchet: In other ways it shall be consistent as standards. So in that place it's actually on purpose that
you say Highway 5 corridor?
Aanenson: Correct. Unless you wanted to change it because I felt that that was a decision that was made
strongly that you.
Sacchet: No that makes sense. I understand that. Okay. Then on top of page 8, with the appearance of
the highway in the vicinity. Is that a remnant from the Highway 5 part where we're talking about site
furnishings? I think that's probably not just in the vicinity of the highway.
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Then the bottom of that page I was wondering, in addition they shall provide an inviting
and stable appearance from walking. I don't know.
Kind: For walking.
Sacchet: For walking, okay. My linguistic framework failed me there. Now where I really got confused
is with the parking location. In your original Highway 5 thing it was actually building orientation,
parking orientation. Parking location and building orientation. Now in, and I'm doubly confused. One
confusion in that section is that we first saying that Highway 5 corridor district. So we're still referring
to Highway, do we want that there?
Aanenson: Well I left it there specifically because those were standards unique to Highway 5 that people
felt strongly about is that being the main thread of the community that have a specific look. So I left that
standard in place.
Sacchet: So your intent is to have that specific...
Aanenson: That would be my recommendation, certainly whatever you.
Sacchet: Now, and then the other part where I got entangled is, we make the statement that this design
standard or guideline applies to all commercial, industrial and office institutional and then in here we're
talking about single family residential.
Aanenson: No, it's excluded. It wouldn't apply to single family.
Sacchet: Other than single family but then as we go through the paragraphs, it again is excluding other
than single family, okay. No new or existing single family, so that is actually just meaning it's not, but if
the whole thing is not residential do we still need to say that here in every paragraph?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April ! 7, 2001
Aanenson: No. Again, that was in the Highway 5. It currently is in the Highway 5 standards regarding
parking location. The city ordinance reads you cannot have direct access onto a collector street. This is
a collector street so that was left in. While it doesn't apply, what the intent is is that you do not have
direct access onto a public street. So it's just carrying forward that same statement. The standards don't
apply. It just talks about a driveway and I'm not sure it's still applicable or not.
Sacchet: I didn't have an issue with what it says. R seems to clash with the context. And then my last
question, those l0 ingredients for a great city. Are they meant to be part of the ordinance?
Aanenson: No. That was just for discussion. Just kind of to get you thinking, not just, because some of
the discussion in the past has focused just on materials. We had a hold on that and my position is that
there's some other factors that go in place. That's location, design, articulation, that sort of thing.
Sacchet: Okay. Now and then my final question in the supplement piece, actually I think you wrote up
for council in January a year ago. You list for design control or design mitigating things. One is site
plan review. One is the PUD thing. One is the landscaping tree stuff and then the fourth one is the
highway corridor district aspect. So we're basically saying, what you're proposing is that we repeal the
fourth one, the highway corridor?
Aanenson: A portion of it.
Saechet: A portion of it.
Aanenson: It gets embedded into this, but correct.
Sacchet: What?
Aanenson: The height.
Sacchet: The other portion that we don't.
Aanenson: The height would still remain as it is at 40 feet or 3 stories. And then the other would be
parking location.
Sacchet: And that's in here also.
Aanenson: They'd still be embedded in here because those are some of the, I would say the core kind of
guiding principals of that, besides the, you know the materials.
Sacchet: So basically this new document would replace the highway corridor thing, so the whole
highway corridor piece comes out and this new guideline goes in and it includes those two aspects, the
parking and then the height piece. Still the way it was in the corridor. Okay. Well that was important to
me to understand what exactly we're repealing and what we are placing. I think that's it for now Madam
Chair. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, how about you? Do you have any questions for staff?.
Slagle: Couple of questions. Kate, if you'll allow me just a few questions more from a history
standpoint. When you showed the central business district, or the downtown area on the map, I noted in
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
my notes that there were some locations where we had setbacks where the buildings were located
towards the rear of the land with parking in front, especially Byerly's and then the two buildings or the
building next to Office Max. And in looking at this design standard that you're asking us to consider,
were those special circumstances where we deviated as a commission or a council away from those?
Aanenson: Well these standards weren't in place when that came in. When Byerly's came in there was a
lot of discussion on that because it had significant loading docks on the back side and so we pushed it in
the hill and made the decision. Certainly we've talked about warming up the corner, letting somebody
else come in because you don't have to travel across that large parking lot. As far as the Office Max and
the other retail building, the bank ended up setting back. It had to do with grades. We went through a lot
of discussion on that, different designs. Different iterations but based on the grades, it was impossible to
make that work. Bob spent a lot of time on that but it is steep right through there and if you look at, even
at the corner of Office Max you can see the changing grades through that building and that was the
transition problem. You had to meet a certain slope on the parking lot to make that work, so that was the
down side of that.
$1agle: Okay. And then the last question I had, which by the way I just think it's a great effort what
you've put forth, is landscaping and when we get into the design and recommendations under Section 20-
1072, and there again, just history for my own learning. But do we get into specific recommendations to
developers or those who are requesting to build on that site, landscaping plans that are detailed?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Okay, so it isn't just we're going to plant some evergreens along this corridor and god we hope
they're 6 feet and.
Aanenson: You will see that on, we have two site plans that are coming forward in our next meeting.
The City Forester reviews those and gives recommendations based on where they're located, durability
and a street, with the salt tolerance, all that sort of stuff. And there's a mix of use. Again this
embellishes but the specific landscaping ordinance is still in place, and they have to call out types,
quantities and all that, and we do review that. And we often make recommendations for changing species
and locations for better screening. And I guess that's kind of what we're looking at too. Again, trying to
focus on that list here. It's not always materials. Sometimes you can, the building materials, but
sometimes through landscaping, again talking about when you don't, what is public view. What are the
things you can do to change the scale and the look of a building? Landscaping softens and I'm sure you
can see that driving through residential neighborhoods. People that have done landscaping. The change
it has. And so that's one of the other things that we're saying is an option to look at good design.
Slagle.' Okay. That's all I had.
Blackowiak: LuAnn.
Sidney: I like the way this reads. I think we needed a general type of discussion on what we're looking
for in terms of design standards. Commissioner Kind did a good job in finding a number of points that I
agree with, but as Deb said, as some of the additions and comments, I had a couple that I'd like to add. I
guess on page 4 about articulation. I felt like I wanted to clarify that a bit more as to what the purpose is
and maybe staff can work with that. It sounded more like a code than.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: And that one is specific. And so was the materials that we called out. Those were very
specific.
Sidney: I guess to say something like, you know the reason for this is because we want to discourage or
prohibit large expanses of unadorned walls or something to that effect. Is that people understand and
don't want it.
Aanenson: Yeah, again that was an instance where that's what it said before and we tried to be more
specific looking at again Wayzata, Chaska, Minnetonka, and specific. And again in the commercial
district, a lot of it's 20 feet so that's why we put the range in there. We actually went out and looked at
some buildings and measured and then to see how that would reflect on what we've got in place and it
seems to work pretty well with what we've been approving. But again it's good to have a specific. But
so you're looking at more of an intent statement or purpose?
Sidney: Yeah, or some clarification as to why we're concerned about articulation. Not just calling out
numbers but explaining it a bit more.
Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. LuAnn, where are you?
Sidney: Page 4, articulation.
Kind: Thank you.
Sidney: But other than that I guess, the only thing, and I guess this is up for debate about prohibited
materials. This is on page 6 1 believe. And this is a list that has EFIS called out. I guess I'd also like to
add besides unadorned plain and painted concrete block, unadorned painted, unadorned plain, let's see if
I can get this right. I should guess. Plain poured concrete panels oepainted poured concrete panels,
something to that effect. Because block is one thing. Concrete block is one thing but then when you get
into these very broad.
Aanenson: Right. That's what we were trying to get with the tilt up panels. If you just have the ribbed.
Claybaugh: Cast in place.
Aanenson: Yeah, if they have, you can get them ribbed and you can get them varied in texture. So we
were trying to move from that but I guess, yeah. Tilt up concrete panels that are ribbed, plain, or.
Sidney: Okay. That would probably be a better way to approach that.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: Craig, any questions?
Claybaugh: Yeah, just piggy back on what LuAnn had said. With respect to the tilt up panels, probably
also cast in place.
Kind: Prohibit?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Claybaugh: Yes, unadorned cast in place. Backing up to what Uli touched on. The compatibility issue
that's referenced in the report here, mine ends up being kind of a moving target depending on what the
adjacent properties are so, I just wanted to comment a little bit on the hierarchy of the between the
general conditions, supplemental and specific conditions so we better understand what those different
levels or stages of specificity apply and in terms of one superceding the other, in case there's a conflict
between the general and the supplemental, the supplemental being more specific would prevail and as
such the specific would prevail over supplemental and general so. Could you educate us on?
Aanenson: Well I think that's a good question and I think that's something that could be put in the intent
statement too. This is supposed to be, the general standards are in the code as far as parking,
landscaping. This is to supplement those in addition to.
Claybaugh: Right. Anytime you introduce something supplemental like that, it's implied that it's more
specific than anything general so just was wondering what the statement was in the city documents with
respect if there is any conflicts, that one is going to prevail over the other. Just like best effort, any time
drafting documents, in the first past through and either second and third draft. It's inherently difficult to
try and foresee all the different ramifications with every decision that you make, especially when you're
talking different stages of specificity.
Kind: Madam Chair, I think there's something in our code book, and I'm not sure if I can lay my fingers
on it, where it says that where there appears to be a conflict, a more restrictive rule applies.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Would that address your concern?
Claybaugh: It does but when you get in, if you have a supplemental~condition or standard that you're
identifying and it ends up being less restrictive than a general condition, the implication is that the
supplemental's intended to be more specific than the general so that in and of itself is a bit of a conflict
so, that's just something I want you to consider. See kind of where we landed on that and that there was
consistency that it was graduating and being more and more specific and I think that gets back to what
Uli was saying a little bit and also touches on what Deb was saying in terms of consistency. If we're
going to go from general to supplemental, then we need to be that much more specific. We don't want to
create a contradiction in something that's implied to be more specific. With respect to the different
standards, the only one that really caught my eye was the roof pitch. Establishing the minimum of 3:12.
What building's do we have in town where we currently have a minimum roof pitch on it? 3:12 is
anything but aggressive and it doesn't strike me as terribly attractive.
Aanenson: Are you on page 6?
Claybaugh: That would be on page 4, on your roof. I'm sorry, page 6 under. I'm sorry, on your height
and roof design. Second paragraph. Second sentence. Pitched roofs should have a, yeah.
Aanenson: 1 to 4. One quarter rise.
Claybaugh: Yeah, a 1 in 4 rise of is a 3:12 pitch, so on a 3:12, I'm just wondering what buildings in town
that we had that we're looking at a 3:12 pitch. Anything outside of say a cap on a bay or something
along that.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: Awnings.
Claybaugh: Yeah, awnings and stuff like that...
Aanenson: Yeah, but that's still allowed. If it's a pitched roof, it doesn't prohibit a flat roof or other
type.
Claybaugh: No, I know it doesn't prohibit it. What it states is that it's a minimum. I was just
questioning that with respect to an overall roof, that a 3:12 roof is anything but attractive. Whereas I see
a flat roof with parapets or something that's a 5 or 6:12 pitch at a minimum from there so. The 3:12's
very weak.
Aanenson: Too fiat?
Claybaugh: Yeah, exactly. One or the other. You're better off going flat with a parapet wall or going
with more aggressive pitch on the roof so.
Aanenson: Okay.
Claybaugh: That's the extent of my questions for staff.
Blackowiak: Okay. Jay.
Karlovich: I don't have any additional comments. I'd just like to defer to my fellow commission
members with a little bit more history and more building knowledge because I personally am a little bit
overwhelmed with the amount of information and past history on this one.
Blackowiak: Okay, well I'd like to just add a couple questions before we open it up for a public hearing.
To start, we talked about repealing the Highway 5 corridor district and adopting the design standards, or
guidelines or whatever they're going to be called. I would like to make sure we have the word in there
concurrently so that it's happening simultaneously or at the same time so there's no type of a gap
between the time that something is repealed and something is adopted. I want to make sure that
something doesn't get repealed and something not put in it's place immediately. Onto district
applications, Section 20-1062 on page 2. We talk about commercial industrial and OI districts. We're
not talking about the BF, BG, is there a reason for that?
Aanenson: Those are all commercial.
Blackowiak: Those are all considered in the commercial.
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: So we don't need to specifically spell those out?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Section 20-1064, page 3. Size, portion and placement. Third section or third
paragraph within there. All buildings shall be located as close as possible to the building setback line,
and I assume that's to the front building setback line. Or which one is it if it's not the front?
25
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
Aanenson: Well we spent some time in that but it may be, if the building's oriented sideways, the front
door may not be on the front street. For example Office Max. For example Target. It depends, we have
to give some flexibility so that's, I struggle with that myself.
Blackowiak: To a building setback line or, I mean how do we, how can you?
Claybaugh: Wouldn't it be the principal or...
Aanenson: I would say principle or primary, that might be.
Claybaugh: Whatever's the primary.
Blackowiak: Okay. I can do that.
Aanenson: Or street frontage or something like that. Street frontage may be, or primary. Yeah.
Claybaugh: Like you said with Target or whatever, necessarily for them it'd be the side setback and
other's it'd be the front. That could either be the side or the front but it'd be the prominent or principal
or primary.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. Page 5, Section 20-1065. Material and detail. We've got the list of the
permissible materials and it doesn't tell us why we have this list in here. So how would you, I don't
know how we want to phrase that but are these the accepted materials or how, I mean how can we, what
are we trying to get across here?
Aanenson: You go back to page 5 at the beginning if you want to expand that intent statement. All man
made architectural, landscape, paving materials shall reflect the highest quality possible and should be
used in a manner acceptable to the nature of the material. That's general durability and expect a level of
use. So if it's in a high traffic area, it's something that's a discussion we had with EFIS before.
Sometimes when it's in a high traffic area, how it handles. Weathering characteristics, that sort of thing
so that was the intent. And if you wanted to expand on that, prohibited...
Blackowiak: Or do you want to say these materials meet those requirements? I'm just saying that there's
no reason why you have that list there. It doesn't tell us why that list is there.
Aanenson: These materials are acceptable.., is that what you're saying?
Blackowiak: I mean yes. I need some...
Aanenson: Include, right.
Blackowiak: Tell me why these are here and why we should look at those.
Aanenson: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Page 6, Section 20-1067. Back to the height and roof design. I'd just like to get
your feeling. Do you feel that we should leave 3 stories, 40 feet or what is staff's recommendation on
this?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: I don't know. I think if you go with the underlying district, we've already stated that those
work. I think I'm comfortable with the underlying district. The only issue I could see where it would
come up would be at the corner of 5 and 41. That's kind of the piece we've left out for a large, kind of
corporate office sort of thing. If someone was to go in taller there. If you had strong feelings about it's
imposition on that intersection.
Blackowiak: But wouldn't that come in for review?
Aanenson: It would allow it go higher. This is restricting it.
Blaekowiak: Right, but could they ask for a variance or I mean what?
Aanenson: Certainly. Certainly.
Kind: But would they have a hardship?
Blackowiak: Good point. Okay. Boy, I think that's it for my questions. I think everyone else covered
them. So this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to come before the Planning
Commission, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Vernelle Clayton: Hi, I'm Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle. Some new faces here. I
haven't been here for a while either but have been around for a while and I do bring, I think a different
point of view from what I've been hearing tonight. Although I'm not unsympathetic for the reason for
your enthusiasm for getting this underway and hopefully behind you. I've been through a lot of site
plans, from those that are getting TIF. Those that are in PUD and those that don't have any and I've
worked with staff, and we've wrestled with some of the same sorts of things. I like nice looking
buildings, but I also come down the side of the argument which says, among other things, that that
government is best which governs least and that the city's role is to protect the rights of private property,
not usurp them. When we did the Highway 5 corridor overlay, and I don't know, was anybody involved
in that that's here? That was a horrendous task. People are still upset with the city regarding that.
You're laughing. You've talked with some of them. They hired attorneys. They met in smoked filled
rooms, although I think that probably was when smoking was allowed, but they had arguments over such
things as where they could sit in the room so they'd have a chance to talk. Some of the attorneys and
many of the landowners felt, and still fee, that they didn't have a chance for adequate input. That's not
of course the way the council feels that, that sat at that time. They felt that they gave, had a chance.
Now we're talking about repealing that and adding something more restrictive, not only to that area but
to all of the rest of the undeveloped area and in fact in a way that would impact anybody's building
should they change it from it's existing use, or change over a certain percentage of the building. Some of
the guidelines that are being suggested are vastly different from many of our buildings. For example in
10 years say the bank, which either any of our banks, so as not to be criticizing any one of them. Let's
assume that all 3, or all 4 of our banks are very nice looking buildings. We all know that some look
better than others and some are really nifty looking buildings. But if they came in in 10 years and wanted
to change it, change their building. Put a different face on it or add onto it, that's more likely. Maybe in
less time because everything's expanding. Now with that in mind, take a look at some of the restrictive
language in the covenants, such as the amount of glass, facing the street, the band along to define the
lower level. Some of those things would make those buildings look really awfial. I am very glad that Bob
sent this to me. I really appreciate it. Before I'm done, I'm going to run through a few things and before
I'm done, what I am going to ask that you do is give sort of, perhaps discuss where you're going with this
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
from the perspective, maybe hopefully of some of the things I say, but then set it aside and have some
notices to the landowners that are affected. Explain to these owners of current buildings what exactly
this will mean, and maybe you'll change it so that it won't be quite so onerous but I do think that there
has to be a lot more exposure for this because this is far, vastly farther reaching than most of the changes
in the ordinance that we've been considering so far. So I read through first the memo that was sent out in
January of 2000, and I thought I was excited. I thought this is really nifty. We're getting at, we're going
to study, determine together what is the character of our community. It suggested that design standards
should reflect the character of our community. We talked about that in many different ways. Several
different, several comments talk about that. And it talks about the community as the work of many. And
says, refreshing things to people that might be wanting to spend less time in site plan review rather than
more such as, well we examine design review. It is important not to lose focus on the overall character of
the community. The right to regulate is not, oh wait. That's another comment that I wanted to make.
Tailored to a specific community's history, the type of location, you can expect great works of
architecture for every building. Be realistic. Does it follow the very few basic rules of urban design? If
so, grant the permit. So then, and it goes onto to say, well one of the things in the report that I guess I
disagreed with was that, there were apparently many but it says, suggested the right to regulate is
contained in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. I think rather the cases are tried against what's
stated in the Fifth Amendment and if you're allowed to regulate, it's because you're not in conflict with
the Fifth Amendment. It then comes to a point where it says, indeed design review has acquired a
negative image in some quarters due to ordinances and reviews that dwell upon superficial characteristics
of buildings such as materials and colors. This is "wallpaper" approach to design review. Just make it
pretty and does not address more fundamental issues. I love the wallpaper comment.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: That's great. And then it goes on and lists some things that are basic design review
and then aesthetic control. I think under aesthetic control is where you get so much negative feedback on
why should they tell me whether it should be blue or green or if ! should have my door here or there.
We're trying to overcome your town. The next thing was then that in, as I was reading through this is
then there's some excerpts on some things, some standards that have been set by other communities and I
was also encouraged there because while it listed some neighboring areas, which is reasonable. What do
our neighbors have, it also listed some really neat communities like Wayzata, downtown Chaska,
Northfield downtown. Areas where there was a perceived cohesive and intended image. Which harkens
back then to I think we'd better try to really focus and define what is the image that we have here in
Chan? But then the next report, it seemed to be a little bit of a disconnect in my mind because having
said all of those things and set the stage, we now come forth with removing the Highway 5 corridor
district, which is fine. And writing a whole new one with much wallpapering, if you get my drift. I
guess in, and I'll just mention a few areas here where there are some specific concerns, and I guess in my
mind I'm having a hard time feeling comfortable with an overall design standard that fits office
warehouse and our downtown. There's so many differences. But so barging ahead then, looking at for
example entries and you use the Ridgeview building as a picture, and that's a good example to use
because that building works with articulated entries on the street because it's an office. But if it were
retail it wouldn't work. The owner just brought that to our attention. I'll explain why that is but he's
really concerned if there were a couple tenants to leave, he'd be hard, in kind of a hard spot because he
can't convert it to retail. The reason that specifically identified and described entries doesn't work for
retail is basically for every successful retail building that you have, multi-tenant retail building, which is
most of our buildings, the windows and the doors are interchangeable. For one tenant you have a door
here. That tenant moves out and needs more space and now he wants a door in a different place. We've
moved doors and windows 3 times at Market Square and that was just built in 1992. But it was
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
specifically designed so that every window pane was the same width as a door so what you do is put the
concrete block on the bottom of the door. Put a window in. Take a window out over here and put the
door in and now you've got a door for the tenant where they want it. Radio Shack wanted a door in a
different place from that which was what Crossroads wanted for example. So just watch for that. I mean
that's a part that doesn't fit and you need to, I think we're doing, I think that talking about architectural
articulation, describing it as that and not being quite so specific as to what exactly will work and leave
the design to the architects is a better approach. Articulation, I had lots of thoughts on that but suffice to
say, watch out for the mass of the building. Sometimes 1 every 40 feet would be too little and sometimes
it would be too much. If you have for example, on that corner that Kate was referring to a very large
building. I don't think you want something occurring on that building every 40 feet. This ground level
of any multi story structure should be visually distinct from the upper stories. I saw in the Northfield
one, you know what is really the ground level? What is the mass of the building? How does that work?
Again I think that's wallpaper. Would siding of no greater than 7 inches? I get nervous every time I see
something this specific. I know where you're going with the 7 inches. I know it's...to have the wide
siding but 10 years from now it might be the cat's meow. The specific materials, I would strongly
encourage you to use some language that used to appear now, or will if this was passed, is in the
Highway 5 corridor where you have or equivalent. One of the things that we can assume to be absolutely
true is that people will continue to create new and better materials and it would be nice if we could use
them. There's a new material on the market now that is very attractive, or from what I've seen on that
new building out in Eden Prairie. I forget what that's called. I keep, I just totally forgot between
yesterday and today what it's called. But it looks very nice. It's kind of basically a concrete material.
You talked about the fact that EFIS was not listed on that not permitted column and you said it was used
more or less interchangeably with stucco. What was the answer? Is it or isn't it used? Is it permitted? Is
it your recommendation that it not be permitted?
Generous: As a primary.
Aanenson: As a primary.
Vernelle Clayton: Well, let me suggest that lately while we tend to get in our office an awful lot of
comments on basically what Chanhassen looks like in general, we also get comments on specific
buildings and until a few years ago the operative word was charming. That Chanhassen downtown was
really charming. We don't hear that quite as much with the addition of the western end of downtown.
But here is a building now that we're hearing all the time what a great looking building. This is a
brochure that Anderson Windows prepares. They choose only 4 buildings that they've supplied windows
for and prepare these brochures and from all over the country and Bookoo Bikes was one of them so Ed
is very proud of that. But if you take a look at this building, this is an EFIS building. So I think you
need to think about whether or not you really want to preclude EFIS. We have other EFIS buildings in
town too. They're, let's go back to the bank thing again. If Americana Bank wanted to add on, would
they have to change their exterior of their entire building or not? So all of these things are the pitfalls
that you fall into when you get too specific and I'm sympathetic with your job but boy when you can be
general, it's much better. Height and roof design, there again if we're doing standards that include
downtown, this is affording us all a great opportunity and guess what? Even though we still have some
areas that don't have buildings and we just finished building a few buildings, we're very close to getting
to the point of redevelopment and in redevelopment, in tearing down older buildings, now we have to
think about density. Once we fill in our area that's defined as our downtown, the only thing we can do to
make our downtown more successful, and one of the things that's important to the success of downtown
is having a lot of people around it. That's what the Southwest Metro wants. That's what the retailers
want. That's what all the people at the conferences are saying. The only thing we can do then is build
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
up. So think about why really are we limiting the heights and where should we limiting them? Height
and roof design. Each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. And then it talks about
the 1 to 4. Flat roofs should be defined with an ornamental parapet or cornice. Now here's a great
opportunity to answer some questions that I've had. We say that we require pitched roofs, but we build
flat roofed buildings. We require pitched roofs from some people, others we don't and here it says you
can't have one or more elements of pitched, but then it says flat roofs should be defined with ornamental
parapets. To me there's a conflict in those two sentences being contained in the same paragraph that's
attempting to define what we do with our roof looks. Fagade transparency. 50% of the elevation shall
be, viewed by the public shall be designed here to include transparent windows. You're going to get to
one of my pet peeves here in solving that I'm sure. I don't have to talk about that right now but fake
windows are one of my pet peeves. If we have, fake windows particularly, I'll just pass this along. In
restaurants are something that should not be done. It makes the restaurant look dead and a restaurant
needs for success to look lively. And first floor fake windows look like Disneyland, but anyhow. Now
let's take back to, it's 10 years from now and St. Hubert's wants to add on. Or we have a new church
that wants to build a church like St. Hubert's, this is right up to the street. Not a single window. So
again it's tough. I know how nice a lot of windows look, but we can't, we have to see the whole picture.
I don't know why this building is in here and I hope that either I've talked so long that the space is out
now for our time slot and I hope, or I hope this building isn't watching, but this is just an abomination
what was done to the front of this building. And this could reoccur over and over under your guidelines.
Now that's subjective. You may disagree with me. You may think it's wonderful, but we're suggesting
things here on the basis of an assumption that it's going to look good. Franchise architecture. Don't
believe that all franchise architecture is bad, and don't believe that all franchisors come in with their first
shot. Now how do you define what is their franchise architecture? Is it what they bring you first or is it
what they bring you last, as in the case of Wendy's? It's still Wendy's. It's still franchise architecture.
And why should we offend all of the people who invest in franchises and so that means all the franchisee
and franchisors that want to come here, many of whom have very good looking buildings. Here is one of
our best citizens in town from the perspective of having built several hundred thousand square feet of
buildings here and paying, and will be as soon as they're fully assessed, an awful lot of taxes to our city.
This is a franchisor. He's also a franchisee. He has Americlnn and he has Houlihan's and he, an
individual, we think this is great. Two of our newest businesses in town made the front page of the
Business Section. I don't know that we want to offend them like that, and I don't know what's so bad
with some of what they do. So I think we need to think about that. Landscaping, somewhere in here
there was an example of what you do and don't do on landscaping. That changes with the tides of public
opinion as well. It used to be they clustered some things together. Now for the downtown look, the
traditional look, we do it like gramma did. Rows of trees. Maybe diamonds or something but in rows
spaced every few feet methodically so that it has that particular look, but that's one of the things in here
somewhere that said shouldn't be done. On the parking, I'll lump that together and try to be done here.
On the parking and the setback and where you have retail, we have a commitment in our PUD at Village
on the Ponds to have the retail up to the street. I can't tell you what a battle we're having with the people
who are telling us, are going to be going after the national tenants. They want the parking in front of
their door. You know from our experience how difficult it is as well and I would suggest that it would
not be appropriate to insist that a retail establishment have, be required to have their doors at the front
door if, at the front sidewalk along the street unless there's parking on the street. For a couple of reasons.
They can't afford to have, and neither are their places designed to have entrances at both the front and the
back. There's shoplifting if they have it at the front and the people come in the back and vice versa and
they aren't set up with cash registers at both ends. And secondly, and that gets to my other point here on
the parking lot guidelines. Now this is a copy from a 1993, I think it says 1993, a while ago, and before
all of the studies as to how it is that people will walk along the street. People only want to walk along the
sidewalk of a street if there is a row of parking to protect them and it's best if it's head in parking, but it's
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
okay, better than nothing if it's parallel parking. And this is a relatively new sort of thing but these are
Andre Duwane and so forth have done for the nco-traditional. People maybe want to argue with that but
that's what's being said. That's what we're being told. They only want to walk 300 feet and they want
that protection. So you know I think this needs more work and it needs more input. I think, the staff is
doing what they, everybody wants to have a set of guidelines so that something comes in for review, they
say you met this. You didn't meet this. Go back and finish this and you're fine and be sure to go through
and you can look at it and say gee, you met all of our guidelines, but design is very subjective. I think it
needs to be general and I think you need to let the landowners and property owners know what you're
doing and what the impact is on their property. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you Vernelle. Is there anyone else who would like to speak regarding this item?
Okay, then I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you have any comments, now's the time.
Uli why don't I start with you.
Sacchet: Well it was very interesting Vernelle, thanks for the input. Definitely because it's important to
be careful and be aware of who are we actually affecting. Now I was coming from the understanding that
really the content, the way I compared it with what the Highway 5 overlay was and what these are, the
content didn't really change except some small stuff. Now maybe I missed something there. I actually
went through and pretty much almost word for word tried to paral, tried to see what went where and it
seemed like some of it was actually condensed. Some of it was a little altered but I didn't get the
impression that the contents was significantly changed. So on that basis I wasn't exactly...the same
concern that you did Vernelle because it seemed to me that we were basically taking what's in place and
put it slightly in a different phrase or shift the necessary alteration in context. I think what's very
important, and you pointed that out very well Vernelle, and I think that was clearly stated in the intent in
terms of that study that was passed in City Council a year ago, that what we are trying to put in place is
not an aesthetic control but a design review aspect. And in that context if we go back and forth between
the terms standard and guideline but I personally prefer the term guideline. Because it acts in a little bit
more the aspect that we're trying out the framework, but we're not trying to... We're not trying to play
control thing, but we're trying to have some guidelines. Some framework. Again, I mean some of the
things you brought up Vernelle actually emphasize my initial concerns about what I call the fluff terms. I
mean somebody might think something is a great building. Somebody else might think it's an
abomination. I mean it's that's what we all... Now personally I feel comfortable moving forward with
the direction we have. I don't know whether we can actually nail it down and clearly conclude it tonight
because we brought up a lot of things. I know Deb has some punctuation things and I do too. So I would
think that considering the amount of things that we discussed, things that we want to fine tune and some
wording and some more specificity, and at the same time also make sure that what we're doing is
sufficiently made public that the people that could potentially be affected by this get to know about that.
So that maybe there are more people like Vernelle that would want to be heard in this context, I would
like those people to have an opportunity to do so. Personally, just speaking for myself, I do like the idea
of having a defined framework. I grew up in the Swiss Alps. There's one house that's allowed and that's
called a chalet and a house that is not a chalet cannot be built. Now it can be a big chalet with 3 stories.
It can be a small chalet with I story but it has to be a chalet. There's no discussion, and you can say well
that's terrible. What ifI want to build a square house? How about flat roof house? Well can't do it
there. And then people are proud because they have the character. They live in a place and everything is
a chalet and it gives it character so I do think that we do have a reasonable balance in front of us with
these guidelines as long as we emphasize they are guidelines and approach it in that context. That's my
comments.
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagle: Madam Chair, I would just throw out, I almost feel like Jay has commented earlier. It's a little
overwhelming given the tenure time I've been on this commission but I would say that I believe that it
sounds like at least that they're valid concerns and I would just have a question to ask of staff. Have
there been discussions, the pros and cons of what has at least been brought up tonight? I assume there
have been internal, the pros and cons of this design.
Aanenson: This has been batted around for.
Slagle: A year or so? Or years?
Aanenson: 10 years since I've been here, and I can give you examples specifically citing each specific,
you know for example franchise architecture. Famous Dave's came into the community. We wouldn't
accept this crooked smokestack. We just wouldn't accept it so we went back, and while that is a
franchise architecture, and this goes back to the character of Chanhassen. We wanted to reflect more of
Chanhassen. Now what they would build in another community. If you look at the one in Minnetonka, it
looked different than some of the other ones. So while it is franchise, we want it to also reflect, so that's
the intent. And maybe we need to be adding a little bit, embellishing the language to be clearer what
we're saying...so it happens. Again trying to make a different look so we'd be happy to work with some
of that language but we're aware of the discussions that are out there and we did also, to clarify, besides
sending it to Vernelle, because certainly they have a vested interest. We did send it out to some other
developers in town to get some feedback but we certainly recognize that we want to get input on this. It's
been a dialogue that's been going on for a long time.
Slagle: And I guess I would just encourage that input from multiple sources, but I'd also like to see what
some of that input is. If that can be included in notes from developers and what not. That's about it.
Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn.
Sidney: I agree with the intent and going forward and I took notes on Vernelle's comments and I guess at
some point I'd like to go through the design standards and really look for differences that might appear
between how we treat office industrial and commercial retail. Vernelle really brought up some good
points, especially about entries which are applicable to which kind of building.
Aanenson: Pardon me, the which?
Sidney: Entries, for example but there must be other aspects. There might be concerns.
Aanenson: Sure. Sure. I've put together numerous slides in trying to, but I think if we want to spend
some time doing that we can show you how. We looked at that and why we ended up putting them all
into one and why we think it makes sense instead of having 3 or 4 different layers. Again, taking the
approach that you're saying is trying to make it generic in the sense that it works for everybody but yet
adding some specificity. I think if you look again, it is very similar to the Highway 5. There were a few
areas that we always felt we were missing and we'll go back and show you that and it may take 2 or 3
more times before we get it fine tuned.
Sidney: Yeah and I guess that brings up a point and I was a little bit remised in wanting to suggest this
but I guess in some of these cases, and certainly we've been going through this, considerate to the
process as many, many times, but I almost feel like it might be appropriate to go back into a work session
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
concerning this because you know we're here and we have a public hearing but we're still doing what I
would consider more of a work session kind of dialogue. And I wonder if it would be more appropriate
to have that kind of session to discussion this, since this is such a massive issue.
Aanenson: Sure, I'd be comfortable with that.
Sidney: I'd submit that to the Chair for consideration.
Blackowiak: Any other comments?
Sidney:. That's it.
Blackowiak: Jay. Anything you'd like to add?
Karlovich: The main thing that I would like to add is that, I just want to go back to the Swiss Alps. I
thought that was... I have a house with aluminum siding on 3 sides and I think it's terrible compared to
the Swiss Alps. Maybe it can all be simplified if everything was a chalet. I think you'd have some real
character but no, at this stage I think I'm still in a learning mode and I don't have any additional
comments besides humor but the Swiss Alps I thought were beautiful.
Blackowiak: Deb.
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I definitely think we need to table this item this evening. And direct staff to
address some of the concerns that have been brought up by the fellow commissioners and earlier this
evening. I would like to add to the list that staff research and make recommendations regarding height,
building height. Specifically consider increasing the height in the central business district. And give
rationale for why the height is the way it is in other business districts as well. Also I am intrigued by
considering locating parking in front of the businesses. I'm not talking about massive parking but maybe
allowing one row of parking. Something like that. Along Target we have one row of parking. Along
Office Max we do too.
Aanenson: Two rows.
Kind: And I think that comes under the heading of let's get realistic about what people want. And I
would like to see something about that addressed in this. And then when this comes back to the Planning
Commission I think we need to notify current business owners in Chanhassen. And I agree with LuAnn's
suggestion, maybe the next time we take a look at this is a work session. Get it a little closer to the way
we want it to be before we bring it back for I think another public hearing.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I thought the most poignant thing that you brought up was the or equal statement.
There's a lot of things out there. A lot of different ways of looking at old things and putting them
together in different patterns and such that they can look very different so, in an effort not to pin
ourselves in a comer, I think that's paramount to whenever that can be inserted. Certainly it's very
difficult when you come in with a one size fits all approach, and I know that's not your intention but it is
to try and bring some parameters to the process so it's a little bit more manageable. And there's always
going to be exceptions, and that's a difficult aspect of it to address. I think the premise is good in trying
to establish those parameters but I think it's also important that there is some language incorporated in it
33
Planning Commission Meeting- April 17, 2001
that allows some degree of flexibility without people having to come in and go for a variance and
ultimately prove a hardship in order to accomplish that. I'd like to see something inbetween that. I think
the one size fits all and having to prove a hardship and nothing inbetween on something as broad as this
is too comprehensive at best. I agree with Uli that at least at this juncture, and I'm not any different than
some of the other newer commissioners. This is only my second meeting but I tend to identify better
with guidelines than standards and there may be an argument that you could justify the use of standards
and if that's the case I'd certainly be interested in hearing that but again, when you're coming in with a
broad brush like that, I think that's an important distinction. Like the nuances between those two words,
standards and guidelines is, it sends an important message. There isn't necessarily any order to my notes.
The point on public discussions, I think that's paramount. Specifically because you did say it's been
kicked around for 10 years. People tend to turn a deaf ear when something's been around that long. I
think that it certainly needs to be brought to closure and I understand why it's being pursued and agree
that it's very necessary but I think it's imperative that after that amount of time and that degree of
discussion in different groups over those years, that it's important that the notice does go out that this is
the definitive meeting or this is the definitive workshop so people have had adequate notice to try to
mitigate some of those complaints that basically was snuck in through the back door. I guess I disagree
in part with some of your comments with respect to the specificity. I think on some level that we have an
obligation to develop, or as architects to give them an idea of what is and isn't going to be acceptable.
There's nothing more frustrating than going through 80% design and submitting that and have it
completely red lined and sent back. And basically start from scratch. I think that people need to have
some idea and some vehicle to research what's going to be required. Now that being said, it's very
important in how that language is presented. That it isn't completely restrictive but, and it encourages
creativity so on and so forth, but doesn't out and out restrict things that have some room for promise.
There's some things that I agree that should be prohibited and stated as such, and there's other things that
need to find again between that far left and far right some language that invites the creativity but doesn't
open the door to it if they don't pass a certain, can't meet the acid test. The parking, again my mind set is
more towards the split along the lines of what Deb said. I think that'a certain allotment needs to be put to
convenience. I mean that's pretty much what drives the marketplace right now. That it shouldn't, I agree
that we don't necessarily want to position the buildings with respect to setbacks and the rest of it that just
completely cater to the 100% of the parking. Due to the appearance that it gives but I think there's a
certain allotment of parking stalls that need to be accommodated for reasonable amount of traffic where
people can have good access and that it's an inviting parking stall and an entry into that building. So
again it's not a far left or a far right solution. I think that there's certain guidelines and then once you get
past, outside of those parameters and guidelines, that there needs to be some flexibility in being able to
take a look and entertain what the use of the business is. What makes sense for the parking? What the
orientation is to the other buildings? To the street, so on and so forth. So again I agree with the broad
brush but it can only go so far and then we need to watch the language that we're putting there and I
think that we do want to have some degree of consideration I'II say rather than control about what's
going to go in. What it's going to look like and how it's going to fit with the adjacent buildings with
respect to compatibility, but I also agree that we don't want that language to be so restrictive that we
painted ourselves in a comer and then we're back reinventing the process every time somebody comes in
and we want to be able to help them so. I'm going to wrap up here. The EFIS or the stucco, I guess I
don't know where you came down on that. I definitely draw a distinction between the two. All you need
to do is subscribe to Wails and Ceilings and find out the amount of lawsuits that are going on around the
country specifically with retailers and you'll never call them the same again. So with it being an accent,
I'm in favor of that unless if they wanted to entertain EFIS. EFIS is a fantastic product but you've got to
have the right installer, and you've got to have the right drainage process and substrate in place so either
you do after drafting specific guidelines about who you're going to let put it up and how they're going to
install it, or you prohibit it. So that's your two choices. Now with respect to buildings like the banks that
34
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
you referenced, they can certainly do a tie in in the future with two coats of stucco and you're not going
to see the difference, and you're still allowing it with it to be an accent up to 15%. So you can still
achieve the architecture details in a cost effective fashion and that's what EFIS brings to the market. And
still accomplish the primary exterior with stucco, if that ends up being the case but again that's not an
either or but if it is EFIS, then there's certain things, guidelines that need to be put in place, or safeguards
I'll say. They need to be put in place so, it's a baby bath water type of thing. It gets a bad name and it's
a good product, and it's done some horrendous things. All you need to do is go to Las Vegas to see that.
It's incredible what they've done. But there's also a ton of horror stories out there so, it's again it's not a
far left, a far right. We just need to be informed about the decisions that we're making and provide for
the pitfalls so, that's the extent of my comments.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well Kate I think we've given you a lot to mull over. LuAnn did suggest a work
session. Do we have one on the schedule in the near future?
Aanenson: Otherwise we can move to like an open discussion part of the meeting too. The May 1st
meeting is a full agenda, and we'd probably have to look at the second one in May. I'll have to see when
we get the... We do have slides of pretty much every building in the city so what I'd like to do is back
up, show you how we got to this point and we can do some of that and some of the problems. How this
has come about. Again, this was directed to the staff because of some ambiguities already in the
ordinance that are definition. What we're struggling trying to say, what does this mean? That's how we
got to this point over the last few years so, we'll go through that discussion with you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, do you have another question?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I have one more question. You said you put out to a number of developers and
realtors in the area. Typically I kind of gravitate towards the 80/20 rule. I would expect that probably
80% of the comments can fit into 20% of the categories. What information have you compiled in terms
of categorically what kind of things are coming back?
Aanenson: Well we haven't gotten any comments back. Over the period of time the biggest discussion
has always been, and when we've looked at this has been, if we required all brick, because there's always
been a discussion about all brick. Staff has always been against it and that goes back to my wallpaper
comment. I mean just getting brick doesn't mean you get a better building. Some communities have
that, for example Eden Prairie. Well, we can all differ on that, right. Well again, I'd ask you to go look
at the difference between the Chaska and the Minnetonka Target. One has brick, one doesn't. Then the
other one is windows. Those are, have been an ongoing, orientation, amount of windows. Again, there's
fake windows on the Americlnn. There's fake windows on Houlihan's. That's always been a discussion
as far as the staff's concern. How do you get articulation and windows has always been an important
thing that we felt gives a different look to the building so, we kind of know those are two hot buttons.
Sometimes color.
Claybaugh: Well I think the comments with respect to relief, depth perception, offsets, jutting.
Aanenson: Right, so we'll go through all those slides. I think that will be helpful for you to see some of
what's working. We didn't even talk about like Applebee's, which is all brick.
Blackowiak: Kate one more comment. We were talking about noticing people, maybe we could send out
meeting notices to Highway 5 corridor people. Is that too much? Is that overkill or? I know we've given
you a lot to think about.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Aanenson: I think I'd like to strategize that. I don't remember those same smoky meetings myself since I
was involved. Don't remember that same thing. As a matter of fact, Eckankar came through with their
office buildings under the Highway 5 standards. I think it went through very smooth. As a matter of
fact, they came back. We had a different orientation. The Planning Commission approved something
else. They wanted to come back and make a couple minor changes. I don't see it as being so onerous on
anybody that we've had a lot of problems with the Highway 5 overlay district myself. I'm not sure where
we had a big rub with that. We can certainly do it. I mean I guess I'd have...
Blackowiak: Well it has been published in the paper so I mean.
Aanenson: Yep. No, I think there's an obligation to get more input, certainly. And we intend to do that,
especially with repealing, but I can strategize individual notices.
Blackowiak: Right, okay. Well I guess what I'm asking for is some direction. Do we want to do it in a,
you know do we want to wait for a while and send this notice out or when are we going to see this again
because I'm certainly not comfortable with moving forward on anything tonight.
Aanenson: I think what I'd like to do is put it through a work session, or open discussion, depending on.
I don't know ifI can block out a whole meeting. Then get some better direction of where we're headed
and then be able to give somebody a draft. Another draft.
Blackowiak: Alright, that sounds good. Uli.
Sacchet: Would that work type session or discussion, would that possibly lend itself to inviting people
other than us here? I mean like people like Vernelle. People that have a particular interest and maybe
have had an involvement in this in the past? I just wondered. '
Blackowiak: Well unless we just want to have a work session to hash out more of what we're looking for
and then have another public hearing.
Aanenson: Let's go back and look at the format of the Highway 5 corridor study. That was a group
specifically put together with a cross section representing different constituencies. Okay, so you have a
smaller management group. If you were to send out notices to a couple hundred people, how do you
manage that? Generally in the past we've tried to get someone from the Chamber. You know we sent
this to a person that does a lot of industrial in the community. Tried to look at those sort of businesses.
You know so there's a lot of different ways to strategize that. I guess I'd like to give that some thought.
Blackowiak: Okay, well why don't you give us your thought. Craig, did you have another comment?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I didn't know if you had post notice to like the Board of Realtors or realtors
association and things. Certain entities and I think it's kind of hard to select who's going to get
specifically notified and who doesn't. People that don't, there's always going to be somebody that isn't
happy. The other thing if there was a future work session to be planned around that. The need to bring
closure. I've been involved in a fair number of them without a specific agenda and some very definite
parameters in terms of what's going to be discussed, and closing the door behind you, they tend to
mushroom more than they bring closure to anything. So I think it'd be important to back up and get some
of those specific comments that are coming in so we have an opportunity to prepare for those in advance
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
of that work session. And then try to do it in a fashion that you can close this out so it isn't an ongoing
discussion over a period of months or.
Blackowiak: Yeah, that's a good point. Like I say, it is published in the newspaper and any further
discussion that we would have on this would be in the papers, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: If you wanted, and you noticed it as a work session, it would be published.
Blackowiak: It would be published, okay. That's, I just want to make sure that that would be clarified.
Slagle: Madam Chair, just one last question. Just so I'm clear, from an ability to get any written
documentation from, what would represent viewpoints from others other than staff or commission
members, is there anything?
Aanenson: No. Unless someone was to send us something back.
Slagle: Okay, so we've not done a survey over the last 5 years or 10 years that have asked questions
regarding these questions?
Aanenson: No, I can just tell you the projects and the problem areas and again, this was directed to the
staff to. I guess if you're going down that path, then you're almost going to have to stop and do a study
group.
Blackowiak: And I don't think that was the intent was it? It was just to clarify a few things on Highway
5?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: I mean okay.
Sacchet: I don't think I would want to suggest to do like a study group type of thing. I'd like to keep on
track with this and try to move forward but at the same time I think we want to make sure we make every
possible effort within that framework to include people in and solicit their participation. That's basically
what I mean.
Aanenson: Well I guess I equate it to the same thing as when you do a public hearing for a
neighborhood. You try to have 1 or 2 spokespersons and I guess that's kind of what I'm looking for. If
we can somehow synthesize a couple, you know some industrial builders. Commercial builders, that sort
of thing.
Claybaugh: Right. That gets back to Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce.
Aanenson: Yep.
Claybaugh: Alerting the entities so they can get out to members so you're not hand picking different
people. Let them designate a couple spokespersons, right.
Aanenson: That was where I was going with that.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. Well then at this point I think we need a motion to do something or not do
something with this tonight. So I would like a motion please.
Sacchet: Well Madam Chair I move that we table the repealing of the Highway 5 corridor district and
adopting the design guidelines pending evaluating the discussion we had and moving it forward in the
way that we discussed.
Kind: Second.
Blackowiak: There's a motion and a second, is there any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to table the amendment to Chapter 20 including site plan review,
PUD and Highway 5 overlay regarding use of materials and design. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: So this is tabled and I think you've gotten lots of comments Kate so, move forward.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: Just to let you know the meeting on the first, we do have two public hearings. We will be
following up some code amendments. The public hearing should be the Holiday gas station, which needs
a variance. And the Berger building which is a realty office building.
Blackowiak: I'm sorry, which building?
Aanenson: Berger building. It's a realtor office building in the old town.
Blackowiak: Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Kind: Madam Chair, I have a comment about the minutes. I think that we should have a separate
category for Council liaison, present or not present instead of lumping the Council liaison in the members
category. So I would note that change on the last minutes and for future minutes.
Blackowiak: LuAnn, I'm going to ask since you've got your Robert's Rules there, do we need to make a,
does that need to be a motion or, I'm sorry. The Minutes are noted with the following suggestion. I
think we can more that forward.
Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 3, 2001 as amended.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Slagle: Madam Chair, I don't know if this falls within this ongoing items but at the last meeting I had
mentioned to staff, or at least encouraged staff to meet with the, and I forgot your names in the back, with
a number of their concerns regarding the code and just wondering if there's been progress on that.
Aanenson: We're still working on trying to get some clarity on what we're working on but we haven't
met yet, no.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagle: Okay. But the intent is to do that, correct?
Aanenson: I'm not sure what the intent is yet from staff.
$1agle: Who would determine what the intent is?
Aanenson: Do you want us to go through page by page with them or what?
Slagle: Well I think it would be, at least from what I gathered at the last meeting, there were a number of
points that brought up perhaps contradictions and maybe asking for input, written first to just have you.
Aanenson: Staff is aware of the conflicts, but we can sit down and meet with them. That's.
$1agle: Well I hope we're encouraging an open participation.
Blackowiak: Well that may be something between you and then the City Manager. I mean I supposed
would he ultimately direct?
Aanenson: Sure.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: We'll just have to assume that it's, it will get handled. You're aware of the issues and
okay.
Aanenson: Yes. I think we've agreed we've disagreed in the past. I'm not sure what.
Blackowiak: Is that it Rich? I don't know what you're looking for.
Slagle: Well here's what I'm looking for is the folks presented a number of contradictions or potential
contradictions in their minds. My recommendation was that they have the ability to sit with staff or
present something to staff that highlights those contradictions or concerns and just asking for an update
as to whether that's happened.
Aanenson: Sure, if they want to set up an appointment with us, we'd be happy to do that. It's been done.
Slagle: Super.
Blackowiak: Great. Alrighty. Well, we go onto open discussion which is I guess, according to my little
rules here, off, not recorded as minutes. Is that correct Kate? Open discussion items.
Aanenson: Correct.
Karlovieh: I think I have an open discussion item but there's no problem with it being on the minutes.
Blackowiak: Okay, well I'm just following my little.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Karlovich: And maybe it should be on the minutes. I talked with Kate about this as Madam Chair and
commission members. As you all know I'm the City Attorney for the City of Mahtomedi and the City of
Mahtomedi has recently decided to move their council meetings from the second and fourth Monday to
the first and third Tuesday. I was made aware of this on April 5th and I called Kate and then the 6th
through last Sunday I've been out of town. So that creates a little bit of, at least a problem for me as a
city attorney and have a contractual obligation to perform that function. Kate said I should bring it up at
this time for discussion. I know, or I guess there's some past history of moving it from Wednesday to
Tuesday. You know I'll just throw it out for discussion. It is my problem. When I did apply and
interview I had no idea that they were going to change. I think a few days before that I knew they were
thinking about Tuesday but they were going to go to the second and fourth Tuesday and then one of the
council members in Mahtomedi serves on a church board that she did not want to give up so, I had some
discussions with my city administrator and I guess it worked with everyone else. The city engineer, the
city planner who are both not employees but also contractors like myself and so I kind of got the short
end of the stick. And so that's what's before us right now. The other issue I did have a telephone
conversation with Craig Peterson today and he said well, you'd better decide what you're going to do. I
think on Monday they're going to decide whether they fill my Park and Recreation Commission spot so, I
don't know. I know everyone's got to have families and different schedules but I don't know how
flexible everyone is and I sure will not take offense to, if anyone does not have the flexibility to change.
I know Kate has already mentioned that she has, does something on a Wednesdays that she prefers to do.
I think she has some activity or even another church activity that she does with her family and her
children so, I throw it out for discussion. If the commission, if there's any other flexible dates that could
possibly work. Otherwise it looks like Jay's out of a job.
Blackowiak: And which job would that be? Okay. Well, I suppose we start with commissioners I guess.
Sacchet: I didn't bring my calendar. I claim indecision.
Blackowiak: Okay, you can do that. And I don't mean to put anybody on the spot I guess but, and I
guess in consideration to the newer members too, I think everybody signed on. I mean I've been on it
both on Wednesday and Tuesday nights. Newer members signed on as Tuesday night function so maybe
I'd like to hear from you first.
Slagle: I think I'd have to talk to my better half before making any decisions.
Blackowiak: Alright. I'm going to ask Craig since you're relatively new.
Claybaugh: I'll go with a hybrid ofUli's. I need to talk to my wife and I need to check my obligations.
What would be the alternative? Is it in fact Wednesday evenings, first and third Wednesdays or what?
Blackowiak: Kate, why don't we go through the options.
Aanenson: Well Mondays may be difficult if the council has a special meeting on a Wednesday.
Generally they're on the second and fourth, so you could do first and third Monday.
Blackowiak: Okay, does City Council have a work session every other Monday?
Aanenson: Now they're trying to do the work sessions before the regular meetings, but in the past they
have so we could check on that. Otherwise you could switch Tuesdays to the second and fourth, except
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
that conflicts with the Park and Rec. They meet on the fourth Tuesday I believe. Otherwise go back to
Wednesdays.
Karlovich: The City of Mahtomedi is not changing their schedule til June so I have some time there, but
I don't know...
Aanenson: He couldn't get back on the Park.
Blackowiak: Now is that something that you would be considering? I mean are you thinking that you
would like to stay on something? In other words, if Planning Commission couldn't move, would you ask
council to hold your Park and Rec spot?
Karlovich: As a city attorney I had more interest in Planning Commission and the planning issues
because it was kind of more of what I do as a job and talk with our city planner. The Park and Rec
though, you know that was a struggle too and I'll consider them friends and...
Blackowiak: Oh definitely but I'm just kind of curious what kind of timeframe you're working on
because if they're trying to move forward on Monday, you know if you want your name in consideration.
Karlovich: I guess that would be one question for maybe Kate is that, if they have, and maybe Todd. I
know Todd's been out of town, and when is he coming back?
Aanenson: Either Thursday or Friday I believe.
Karlovich: If they have to take action on Monday, or if they can hold off until everyone checks the
schedules a little bit for the problem that Jay has caused.
Blackowiak: Okay Kate, so Wednesday we have done it in the past. You do have a conflict though, I'm
hearing you say.
Aanenson: I will serve it, you know whatever.
Blackowiak: What about Thursdays? Has that ever been an option?
Aanenson: The nice thing about having it earlier in the week is if we do have a quick turnaround, which
sometimes we have to when we're running short on the 60 days, is if we have to turn around the packet.
The packet for the council goes out and it doesn't give us time to get minutes so the earlier in the week is
always better. Thursday would you know, it can be accomplished on Wednesday. Thursday would be
tough.
Blackowiak: Okay. No, I understand. If it's got to go in the council packet I understand. Okay, Deb do
you have a?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I think Jay brought up a good point that I'd like to consider too is that, in
Kate's conflict also, is that Wednesday is traditionally church night.
Aanenson: That's what I do.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: And the public would also be traditionally busy on church night so that would affect our public
hearings and that sort of thing. Create a conflict for people so I guess I would be in favor of sticking with
Tuesday, no offense Jay. That happens to work out better with my schedule.
Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, how about you?
Sidney: Actually I preferred Wednesdays, sorry about that. To be able to look at the material one more
time, you know after looking at it on the weekend and maybe going through it a couple more times. But I
guess I'm flexible. Tuesday seems okay, but I still would like that extra day to look at things, you know
for a Wednesday meeting.
Blackowiak: Well I too, I mean like I said, I've done both Tuesday and Wednesday nights. I guess I
could do either. I understand that Wednesday night is traditionally church night so I hate to put Kate on
the spot since you know, we love to have her here. And I understand that we have some people that need
to consult with schedules and spouses. It appears that Monday is not an option. We can pretty much
eliminate that.
Aanenson: I can check that but I think that...city manager that they like to keep those open for special
meetings.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of Mondays. Mondays starting back up at work are
tough in the evening to have any time to get prepared.
Blackowiak: Well I just want to make sure that we're not in conflict with the City Council. And then
Thursday, I understand the turn around factor so it looks like Tuesday or Wednesday are the options right
now. And so I would hope that all the commissioners could think about this and maybe e-mail.
Aanenson: Just let me know and I can.
Blackowiak: E-mail Kate within the next few days after you've checked your schedules and we'll see.
Sacchet: And wives.
Blackowiak: And your wives and spouses, that's right. And see how things look. And Jay, I don't know
what to tell you.
Karlovich: No, I appreciate any consideration and whatever way it works out I'd be happy. And if it
doesn't work out, I'll know that in my two meetings that I've shaped the city of Chanhassen.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Any other open discussion?
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I just want to briefly mention something of interest, Deb and I we went to
this, the Basics last week and first of all I want to very much recommend it to everybody. It was really
fantastic. It was far beyond just the basics. It was really the basics. And some of the highlights that
came out, just wanted to touch on 2-3 little things. Some of them general, some of them specific for our
particular framework. One thing that keep, kind of at the heart of the whole thing is that everything is
based on the community values. And for something to work it has to be on the basis that everybody is
treated equally. That we have to try to define the conditions up front, the way we're working on these
design standards or guidelines. That we have something in place but then we apply equally across the
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
board. That everything needs a rational reason. Every rule needs a rational reason, and if there's a rule
in place and we can't find a reason, then we should do away with the rule. If you put a rule in place, you
should have a good reason to do so. That's more the general part. Now in terms of some of the specifics,
one very interesting thing that was pointed out was particularly the Edina blending rule would not hold
up in court. It's basically not a legal thing, so I bring this out since at our last meeting we were very
much pushing to go that route. If the context was put in at that training made it relatively clear that it
would actually be contrary to the uniformity law so we may have to do a little rethinking with that.
Another very interesting specifics was coming up in the context of conflicts of interest. It was made very
clear, the conflict of interest is basically when you have a personal financial interest in a situation.
Things like knowing somebody or being friends with somebody or being a member of a church, on a
church council and that, is not. But in legal sense a conflict of interest, so I thought that was interesting
to point out because I certainly wasn't clear about that before hand. In terms of variances, it was
emphasized that a good thing to look at variances, how much is a variance? Is it deviating 5-10% from
the rule or is it 50-60-70% as an important factor to deal with it. And then another very interesting
aspect, since we're struggling so much with the aspect of hardship. There was actually not a very clear
consensus even between presenters of the training but at least one of them very much emphasized that
it's not so much just the hardship aspect, but also the aspect of reasonable use. That the aspect of
hardship needs to be balanced with the aspect of reasonable use. Now the other presenter on the other
hand was relative crisp. Hardship is hardship so, take it for whatever it's worth but I just want to point
out. There are different philosophies in that context. That's about the highlights. I thought it was
worthwhile spending a quick minute throwing some of these things out.
Blackowiak: Thank you Uli. And for our newer commissioners, Kate you would have information on
those, and the flyers get passed along in our packets periodically, don't they?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes. GTS training. Government Training Service.
Blackowiak: GTS training and I've attended. LuAnn, you've attended so yeah, I would say definitely
worthwhile. Any other open discussion items from commissioners?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair, is this where Rich gives a great summary of his last city council meeting?
Blackowiak: I think that would be, this would be a fine place to do that Rich.
Slagle: Well I'll certainly paraphrase it since all of you received, I believe except for Craig and Jay but I
didn't have your e-mail addresses. But I provided some minutes and I'll paraphrase it. Basically I was
the attendee if you will, and the meeting began at 7:00. 4 of 5 councilors present. There was a consent
agenda, approved 4 to 0. Good news. Tonka Soccer Association donated $2,500 for I believe the upkeep
of fields and what not. There was a gentleman, I believe the President of Southwest Metro presented
status of Southwest Metro and sounds like things are just great, as you can see in the note. City Council
considered raising liquor license and a motion was approved to raise I believe the beer license only, but it
could be my notes were not total. Fire Relief Association proposal was approved 4 to 0. I'm not sure
what that was. The library update was I think very educational and it will, I believe at some point come
to us and there are issues that were raised about entryways. Whether it's front facing, side facing, and so
forth so I thought that was really interesting. Bill Morris, who's going to be the, is the President of the
firm Decision Resources is going to poll the city. Is it the city residents Kate?
Aanenson: Correct.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagle: And I've got a copy of his initial draft of the questions so whoever wants to see that, you're more
than welcome. It's 172 pages. Or excuse me, questions and I believe that the City Council will be
working with them to refine them a bit but great questions and I think that will go a long way to maybe
eventually answering questions that I have about public input. And ordinance reviews, I think they were
happy with what our progress is. Affordable housing, Kate mentioned the creation of open houses. She
sent us that e-mail on the 3 sites. Discussion of high waters. Section 8, income limits have been revised.
Can't add any more to that than just that. And then, what I thought was important was Scott talked about
sending a letter to Carver County asking for relief of $91,000 for the bowling alley site, and again not
getting all the details but that's quite a lot of money that the city's asking for. And then the meeting was
adjourned, and I don't remember what the vote was for that. I'm assuming 4 to 0.
Kind: Good job.
Blackowiak: Thank you Rich. What you said about the library, that reminded me of something that I
wanted to mention. I'm hoping that we do, as a Planning Commission get to see the library plans. You
know I think that would really offer an opportunity for more open discussion about the building review,
site review. So I do hope that we get a chance to add our two cents worth as that goes through the
process.
Aanenson: You may want to speed up your design review.
Claybaugh: Yes, it will be interesting seeing how it measures up against what we have right now.
Kind: Well that Kate, I'm sorry Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Kind: Will that come to us for a public hearing or what is the process for public buildings?
Aanenson: I guess I'd defer that to the council liaison. What their expectation is. My understanding is it
may not at this point but ! need clarification on that. That's why I asked you to come through at the work
session before.
Blackowiak: Yeah, because I'd like to see that. I know we saw the new building. The new park and rec
building out at Lake Ann and I think that we added a few positive things to that design process and so, I
think it's important that we see things. That's our job.
Slagle: Well and especially if, as I saw the 3 plans, with respect to parking and entryways and I mean at
least from my viewpoint it directly follows along with what we're talking about. Especially for the
business district or downtown.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Kind: So Madam Chair, what's the next step on that? This is not in the minutes right now, right? Or is
it, I'm not sure. If this discussion is being recorded or not.
Blackowiak: I don't think open discussion is on minutes but maybe we could.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Kind: So what's the best way to communicate that desire to the City Council? Is that Madam Chair's
role to.
Aanenson: I guess I would make a motion that the council outline the process or something to that effect.
For review.
Blackowiak: Okay, could I have a motion please?
Kind: I'll make a motion that the City Council outline the process for the library building and strongly
encourage them to have it come through the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Blackowiak: Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Kind moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
outline the process for the library building and strongly encourage them to have it come through
the Planning Commission for a public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Okay, motion carries unanimously so we would encourage the City Council to send the
library building through the public process so we can get a hearing and public input on the proposed
library building from all the concerned citizens. Okay, any other open discussion items?
Slagle: I've got one. As I shared briefly before the meeting with Madam Chair, I was up in Fargo for
Easter and the city is I think managing given the high waters but when I was there I was just pleasantly
surprised to see the number of neighborhoods in the south area of Fargo which encompass sidewalks.
And that is on, in most of the neighborhoods I was in, it was both sides. And it was interesting, in two of
the neighborhoods which were probably 200 and some homes, it was concrete as well as all the
driveways. And these were very, I don't want to say very nice homes but certainly among our higher
end. But my question is this. In looking through the codes, talking to staff this morning on the phone,
I'm not sure I understand what the Planning Commission or the city's perspective on sidewalks are. Are
there requirements? Strict requirements? Loose requirements? No requirements? It almost like gives us
the ability to require them in certain developments but I guess I'm just confused and I'm Wondering if
staff can provide guidelines or if fellow commissioners can provide guidelines on sidewalks?
Aanenson: Sure, in the subdivision regulation it addresses where there are sidewalks. And generally it
follows, it's been reviewed by either the engineering department or Park and Rec is what they look at as
generally they follow collector streets. If you were to look in, for example like Lake Susan, the streets
that are the wider ones carry more traffic have sidewalks and I believe some of those are concrete.
Separate from trails. You'll see through some of the site plans and some of the subdivision for example
Pulte Homes we also not only require interior trails but we also required a collect on West 78th Street.
There's other places with sidewalks, but as a general rule in the suburban areas, if you look at lot size and
the requirement as a general rule on all streets, it's not a standard. It's also, if you look at Edina,
Minnetonka, Chanhassen as a general rule, we don't require them in every subdivision. It's used again as
a discretionary, the way the ordinance reads, sidewalks may be required and again looking at parks input
and engineering. They kind of make that decision with some of our input too.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
Slagle: Okay, let me ask you this Kate. I've always, I shouldn't say always but as long as I've been
thinking about this, I've sort of assumed urban, more inner circle communities that were brought up with
sidewalks and what not, and I understand the rationale. Now that we're further out, but when I saw this
in South Fargo, we are talking suburbs. I mean it's, there's no ancient, yeah. And so when I saw that my
question I guess, is there a council perspective or has there been on sidewalks? Because in the
development that we live in, Forest Meadows I think it is, adjacent to the Longacres, the only sidewalk is
on Longacres Drive.
Aanenson: Right, and that's the collector street, right. Were kids are walking to the bus on that collector
street. Otherwise the traffic volumes and that's another criteria to be looking at volumes of traffic.
Certainly if you want to propose a change, you can do that. Recommend alteration to the standards of
where you want sidewalks. We can also put together for you showing where there are sidewalks
currently in the community and where there's not and kind of look at the overall philosophy.
$1agle: Is there any development that's been proposed in the last 2-3-4 years that we've required, except
for maybe Pulte or maybe not even Pulte but additional sidewalks?
Aanenson: Oh sure. Yeah, I mean if it's for example on, access to the Gestach-Paulson. Ashling
Meadows. Gestach Paulson where we put a sidewalk in there because kids can walk up to the junior
high. We put a connection up there, so again we look at linkages. We're always looking at that. We
even do it in industrial where maybe they want to cut across to another property. To a walking trail.
They may have a trail in place but we still want a sidewalk where people can get out and go to a
restaurant to get something to eat. So it's always kind of on a case by case. That's why it's left, may be
required. As a general rule we put them on collectors but then also if there's a school or another place,
for example the industrial park that has the church. We put sidewalks on that church. Remember there
was a discussion on that...to the front. We wanted them to have a sidewalk to get out so again we always
look at linkages, connecting people. ,
Slagle: And I'm following along and this is good.
Aanenson: But not for every lot. I'm not sure how well that would also be received out here. I mean
we'd certainly be willing to have a hearing on it and get some input.
Blackowiak: Survey item.
Slagle: Well exactly and I didn't see if it's in there or not.
Aanenson: But residents sometimes also object to the public intrusion. And the maintenance issue, it's
an ongoing problem with shoveling sidewalks and some of that sort of issue too. So there's other people
that would also have input if you want us to either look at doing an issue paper or something. But get
Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director's input on that and then also engineering.
Slagle.' But as a city or the council, last question, do they have a viewpoint? I mean because again I
don't want to bring up an issue that council might...
Aanenson: We've been using a policy. Has there been a problem with it? I mean certainly there's a
difference of opinion on where it should be applied and we do look at that, and even amongst yourselves
sometimes when we're looking at projects. Gosh, maybe we should have and someone things I don't
think that's necessary. We may or may not agree. Or staff recommends it and you think it's onerous. So
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 2001
we kind of look at it on a case by case basis so, but engineering has that information. We can look at
that.
Slagle: Just contact them?
Aanenson: Yeah, or I mean we can put something together for you too.
Slagle.' I'd like to see that. Okay.
Aanenson: Sure.
Slagle: That's all.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other discussion items?
Kind: I have one quick one, really. I would like the e-mail addresses of the new people.
Aanenson: I can forward that to you. The only one I don't have is Craig's. I've got everybody else's.
Blackowiak: Okay, Kate will you do that? Thank you.
Aanenson: You bet.
Blackowiak: Okay, anyone else?
Chair Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
47