1c Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
MAY 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Those in attendance
introduced themselves.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, and Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Ayotte arrived after discussion of item A.
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Matt Saam, Bruce DeJong, and
Andrea Poehler, City Attorney
A. RIDGEVIEW PRESENTATION.
Representatives from Ridgeview Medical Center provided background information on their company.
How Ridgeview serves Chanhassen presently. In the next '3 to 5 years they are looking to expand their
operations within the city of Chanhassen and are looking for a site in the downtown area for
approximately 20,000 square foot facility. They passed out a handout showing the results from a survey
taken of their patients. The number one issue is the expansion of the present clinic in Chanhassen,
possibly looking to locate on the bowling alley site. The second issue was ambulance service located at
Lake Ann Park. They expressed concern about providing service during construction of the West 78~
Street frontage road. The third issue was Ridgeview wanting to provide community service within
communities they are located in and expressed interest in becoming partners with the city tO provide
needed services, i.e. senior needs. A fourth issue was providing business health services to businesses
within the city.
Councilman Peterson asked where the discussions were currently with staff. Ridgeview representatives
stated it was in the very preliminary stages, but they would like to work with the city either expanding at
their present site or locating on a different site such as the bowling alley site.
Mayor Jansen thanked Ridgeview Medical Center for all the work they've done in the county so far and
stated the city was looking forward to working with them in the future.
The City Council took a short break at this point in the meeting.
B. INTRODUCTION OF LESLIE VERMILLION, MNDOT.
Leslie Vermillion introduced herself and two other members from MnDOT to the Council. Maps were
passed out showing the reorganization of the Metro Division of MnDOT. This was done to better serve
the communities in the metro area by having one contact person available to answer all questions and
concerns. The council was updated on projects MnDOT is currently working on in the city, i.e. West 78th
Street/Highway 5 and Highway 212 right-of-way acquisition. Councilman Ayotte asked for explanation
on the fragmented action on right-of-way for 212. Kate Aanenson explained the differences in land
values inside and outside the MUSA line and how that has affected the appraisal process.
City Council Work Session - May 29, 2001
Larry Goss updated the council on Highway 212's impact on the Bluff Creek corridor and what MnDOT
is doing in that regard. He distributed a handout on MnDOT's web site for Highway 212 construction.
He then showed a map and explained where bridges had been designed into the project to preserve
sensitive areas within the Bluff Creek corridor. Kate Aanenson asked for clarification on what MnDOT
was doing to protect the Seminary Fen area. Leslie Vermillion explained that the State is in the process
of studying river crossings in the metro area. The Minnesota River crossing in the Chaska area is their
No. 2 priority. They will begin studying the river crossing in late summer/early fall and what is decided
upon there will affect what happens in Chanhassen as far as road connections and design.
Larry Goss then provided the council with an update on the Highway 5/Arboretum Drive project.
MnDOT is planning on providing a left turn lane on Highway 5 into the Arboretum. Councilman Labatt
asked if MnDOT had any plans to upgrade the intersection of Highway 5 and Minnewashta Parkway.
Todd Gerhardt also expressed concern with sight lines on Highway 5 at Minnewashta Parkway and asked
if MnDOT could incorporate that into this project.
The fourth issue discussed was the old Highway 212 turnback. MnDOT stated it is in the preliminary
stages of studying the areas affected and will also be studying Highway 101 south of TH 5.
Scott Botcher asked MnDOT to keep in mind the intersection of Highway 212 and County Road 17 when
they are doing their final designs to see if the number of intersections currently proposed in that area are
necessary. Leslie Vermillion stated that the study of the river crossing would be completed before final
design on Highway 212 and that could be addressed at that point.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session at 6:50 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson and
Councilman Ayotte
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Andrea Poehler, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Matt Saam, Todd
Hoffman, Mahmoud Sweidan, and Bruce DeJong
Public Present for all items:
Name Address
LuAnn Sidney
Rich Slagle
John Siegfried
Janet Lash
Fred Berg
Deb Kind
Linda Landsman
Debbie Lloyd
2431 Bridle Creek Trail
7411 Fawn Hill Road
Carver County
7001 Tecumseh Lane
6910 Chaparral Lane
2351 Lukewood
7329 Frontier Trail
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen presented the Maple Leaf Awards to the following
people and thanked each one individually for their years of public service.
Jim Sloss, Public Safety Commission
Greg Weber, Public Safety Commission
Fred Berg, Park & Recreation Commission
Jim Manders, Park & Recreation Commission
Instant Web Companies Representative
REVIEW CURRENT STATUS OF COUNCILMAN KROSKIN.
Mayor Jansen read the following letter of resignation submitted by Councilman Kroskin and asked that
the Council discuss the process to appoint a new council member under Council Presentations.
To the Mayor and City Council. From Councilman Mark Kroskin. Date, May 28, 2001. Subject
Resignation. As I will be closing on property outside of Chanhassen, I will at that time be disqualified
from serving on the Council. I feel it is in the best interest of our city if I resign now instead of waiting
until the closing date on my purchase. This will allow the Council to fill my seat now and thus have the
full compliments of five members on the council as soon as possible. I have enjoyed working with all of
you as well as staff on some tough issues and I'm proud of the results and what we were able to
accomplish. I thank you for the opportunity to serve our community along with all of you and I'm
City Council Meeting - May 29,2001
disappointed that I will not be able to finish my term. It has been a privilege serving our residents. I
again thank all of you who have allowed me my due process and did not jump to any premature
conclusions. May God bless all of you and guide you in your future decisions and may God bless
Chanhassen and all of its residents. Regards, Mark Kroskin.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution ~2001-29: Approve Resolution Establishing No On-Street Parking on Century
Boulevard-Project 97-1C.
b.
Approval of Ordinances Amending City Code Chapter 20 including:
1) Definitions
2) Wetland Setbacks, Accessory Structures
3) Off-Street Parking
c. Approval of Bills.
do
Approval of City Council Minutes:
- Work Session Minutes dated May 14, 2001
- City Council Minutes dated May 14, 2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated May 1, 2001
- Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 24, 2001
h. Appointment of Uli Sacchet to the Planning Commission, Three-Year Term.
Request for Site Plan Review Approval for the Construction of a Two-Story Office building with
a Parking Setback Variance, 7811 Great Plains Boulevard, Burger Office Building, Derril
Burger.
Resolution ~V2001-30: Approve Resolution Declaring Intent to Exercise Local Transit Option
for Taxes in 2001.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0,
(Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.)
Fo APPROVE APPOINTMENT OF TODD GERHARDT AS ACTING CITY MANAGER.
!
Mayor Jansen: ...appointing of the new city manager so.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that.
Mayor Jansen: So we do understand and we have established that we want to move through the process
as expeditiously as possible, but we certainly can't put an ending date on the acting position without a
feel for how quickly that will move forward. We've said that we want to move it quickly as possible.
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that. What I'd like to do is put a milestone on it, let's say 90 days so
that if we do not have a city manager hired by that point in time, then we have an opportunity to revisit
the appointment of Mr. Gerhardt as acting manager. I just don't want this to last for an extended period
of time. So in my view I'd like to have a specific period of performance stated in his assignment so we
do not allow it to go too long. I know we all want to have this process go through as expeditiously as
possible. Nonetheless I think it's important that we put a milestone on a piece of paper so we don't let it
go too long.
Mayor Jansen: Other council comments.
Councilman Peterson: I'd not adverse to putting down something. I think 90 days is too short but
probably 120 is a logical time. I don't know what we're going to gain by putting that in there.
Councilman Ayotte: Well it'd make me happy.
Councilman Peterson: That in and of itself is worthy of a motion.
Councilman Ayotte: I just want to make sure that when we feel that crunch, that we get to a certain point
and we haven't done all the things we need to do to expeditiously get a new person on board, that we
have that mark in the sand.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I've made my feelings pretty well public.
Mayor Jansen: Is 120 days acceptable?
Councilman Labatt: Frankly I'd like zero days and I'd just make him the city manager if I could. But
seeing I can't do that, you know whether it's 90 or 120, I don't care. You know let's just get it done as
quick as we can. I think 90 days keeps us more focused and pushed to get it done quicker and 120 might
make us drag things out a little bit longer. You know 7 months was when we hired Scott last time and we
all complained about that. How long that took so.
Councilman Ayotte: I'd prefer the 90 day mark personally. And also point of clarification. We have
made sure that he gets paid commensurate with the duties, right?
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: I'd go for 90. Keep us on track.
Mayor Jansen: My only hesitation, and I'm certainly committed to doing this as quickly and
expeditiously as possible, but I don't see where having a certain number of days in this agreement does
anything but make you feel a little bit better but if we end up going slightly beyond this, I'd see it as
being a very flexible target. As long as it's a flexible target, so we're not just rehashing something.
Councilman Ayotte: We can revisit it but if we target a period of performance than we push ourselves to
get through the process efficiently, quickly.
Mayor Jansen: If I can have a motion please.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to make a motion that we put a period of performance of 90 days on the
acting manager position, to revisit it at that milestone if need be.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion and a second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the appointment of Todd
Gerhardt as Acting City Manager for a period of 90 days. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Steve Berquist: My name is Steve Berquist. I live at 7207 Frontier Trail.
Mayor Jansen: I would hope that you're not going to put us through any more public spectacle Mr.
Berquist. I would certainly appreciate it.
Steve Berquist: Now that we are again facing a selection process for council member, I would propose a
method that would allow a relatively broad cross section of Chanhassen residents to participate. Our
volunteer commissions, planning, senior, environmental and park and rec, along with the city council are
made up of roughly 30 community members. Each member could participate with an equal vote in the
process. This would be a broader democratic method more closely representing the electoral process,
and would of course preclude us from the expense and time consuming special election. I would urge a
new application process as well. There may be other folks who would like to apply that did not the last
time. An initial selection down to 5 or 10 by all commission and city council members would be
followed by interviews before the entire body. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would care to address the council?
Audience: If there's an item coming up for discussion, will we be given a chance at that time to.
Mayor Jansen: We have numerous public hearing items, yes.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM
SGT. DAVE POTTS.
Mayor Jansen: Hello Sergeant Ports.
Scott Botcher: And Mr. Wolff was unavoidably detained and he will not be here tonight.
Mayor Jansen: And no representative then?
Scott Botcher: At this point we don't have anybody. If someone shows up, they show up.
Mayor Jansen: Alright, great.
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, council members. What I just gave you was a letter from the
sheriff that he wish to be enclosed with the monthly area report. However the letter wasn't ready in time
to get it into the council packet so that's why I've given it to you this evening to read at your leisure. But
once again the area reports are being published and that is in your packet. What I did is I gave you the
January through April summary rather than just the month of April normally comes out on pages of it's
own. I thought reduce a little paperwork in your council packets, I'd just give you the summary of that.
Also the area citation listing. Beth's crime prevention, public safety education report for March and
April. Jeff Mixner' s community service officer report, and then a couple of items that came up for
discussion down at our office recently. Southwest Metro Drug Task Force was able to obtain the 2000
annual report. I wasn't sure if council was familiar with that report or had seen that previously so I had
that put into your packets. Also the 2001 first quarter report. It was a rather lengthy report and I pulled
out the items in that report that I thought may be of interest to council to include in your packet for
review there. And that's what I have this evening. I don't have any other items to bring to the council's
attention over the last month of great significance unless council has specific questions or comments.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Council? Questions.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, how ya doing?
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good.
Councilman Ayotte: With respect to the crime free multi-housing program that is going on, and I hate to
. use the word profile with all that's been discussed in the media, but has there been any demographic
profiling of the activity associated with the multi-housing effort? Has there been any look see at trends
with respect to incidents with the crimes that you've broken out?
Sgt. Dave Potts: We've taken the different apartment complexes and looked at the calls for service to the
various apartment complexes, and narrowing down where our problems are, what problems a particular
complex might have versus another and addressing those with the individual managers of those
complexes.
Councilman Ayotte: Any conclusions at all with any trends that you've seen so far? I know it's pretty
new but.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Yeah. I couldn't comment on any trends or anything. That's again something that
we're just getting started on.
Councilman Ayotte: Another question if you'd bring back to Sheriff Olson. I know he's very interested
in the task force that he had talked about, and he was going to have it project oriented. Has he come up
with any programs or efforts or issues that would generate the need for that task force to be activated?
Sgt. Dave Potts: We haven't begun any in depth discussions on the task force at this time.
Councilman Ayotte: Do you have an idea of the time line wise when they're going to start looking at
that?
Sgt. Dave Potts: Not specific, no.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for Sergeant Potts?
Councilman Labatt: No, just a comment from a resident. I got a phone call from a homeowner over on
Stratford Ridge thanking him for your fine response of the deputies and the fire department for their
medical situation over there. Thank you. The only problem was the muddy footprints in the carpet. I
told the lady that that' s just the cost of doing business at 4 days of rain.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Sometimes it's unavoidable, but appreciate the comment and I'll certainly pass that on.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for sharing that. Thank you. Appreciate your report. Okay we're moving on
to public hearings, of which we have several this evening. We have 6 public hearings. And why don't I
say before we get started with these, what we would appreciate, and we realize we've got a couple of
issues here involving neighborhoods and neighbors. As you are hearing comments being made before
you, if you could avoid standing up and repeating the same information. We have obviously received the
packets that include the minutes from the public hearing and neighborhood meetings that occurred on the
trail connection so we do go through all of those comments and any of the e-mails and letters that we
receive. So if there's new information that you would care to share with us, we obviously appreciate
your approaching the microphone and sharing that information with us. So why don't we go ahead and
we' 11 start with the first.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUINN ROAD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, CITY
PROJECT 01-02.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Skalb
Amy Schuette
Tom Schrupp
Jeff Reitan
Sherry Blosberg
Nancy Fults
510 Lyman Blvd.
8990 Quinn Road
8990 Quinn Road
8900 Quinn Road
3000 West 44th Street
8913 Quinn Road
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. Staff is recommending approval of the
feasibility study to install sanitary sewer to the failing septic system lot at 8955 Quinn Road. This
project was petitioned for by the property owners at 8955 due to their failing septic system. They have
until, by law, November 27th of this year to either repair, replace or hook up to city sewer. The original
feasibility study for the project looked at extending the street, the sewer and the water the length of
Quinn Road. Staff' s feeling was that instead of waiting around for each of the septic systems to fail and
piecemeal the project we would look at serving the entire neighborhood at once. A neighborhood
meeting was held a couple weeks ago. The majority of the neighbors were against the project due to
proposed assessment cost. This project now, the one before you would be to just, as I said, extend sewer
to serve the property at 8955 which has the failing septic system. The estimated cost as found in the
feasibility is $25,000. The project is proposed to be assessed to both benefiting property owners on each
side of the street. Again we are recommending approval of the feasibility study. I'd be happy to take any
questions.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Before I open this up for the public hearing, does council have questions for
staff?
Councilman Ayotte: What's the basis of estimate for the assessment? I think you call out 50%. Is that
it?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Why not 75? Why not 107 Why 50%?
Matt Saam: Each of the lots which abut the street where the sewer would be put down will benefit from
the installation of the sanitary sewer costs.
Councilman Ayotte: In the future would anyone potentially benefit from the installation of the system?
Matt Saam: Yes. Yep, the one on the west side would in the future. Currently there's no house on that
lot but in looking at it, it could sure be divided.
Councilman Ayotte: Well then, is there a potential for any other advantage to anyone else besides the
two home owners for that sewer system in addition to that potential site? So there'd be a total of 3?
Matt Saam: There would be 3 sewer stubs, yes. 2 to the west side, 1 to the east to serve the failing septic
system lot. Your question, could you repeat that for me. Is there any?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, what I want to know is, here what we're proposing is that these folks would
incur the assessment today. Down the road there may be others that would profit from the installation of
the system.
Matt Saam: Correct, sure. We have a policy, well not a policy. It's in the city code set up where there
are connection .fees and hook up fees charged to two lots. Lots that haven't been previously assessed pay
the connection fee. Every lot that hooks up pays a hook-up fee. So that would address any lots that we
forgot about maybe if that' s what you're.
Councilman Ayotte: But they would incur the front end cost.
Matt Saam: These lots now?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Matt Saam: Yes. Yep.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: So just following up on Bob, so how do you make it fair and equitable for the future
homeowners comparable to the current homeowners that are getting assessed?
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Matt Saam: Set up in the city code where this connection.
Councilman Labatt: So is that connection fee the same as what these people are being assessed?
Matt Saam: No. No, it does increase each year with inflation and construction costs but.
Councilman Labatt: So these people are going to be assessed half of $25,000, correct?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Scott Botcher: I think the theory is that that will be recouped at some point if there's a transaction
involving the property. I mean if you don't do it now, and say I was going to sell you my house, you'd be
stuck with the same expense and same hassle getting sewer to your property as I would. It's just that you
would defer it. If you did the time value of money put on top and you'd have the expense.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the council on this item,
please approach the podium and state your name and address for the record.
JeffReitan: My name is JeffReitan. My address is 8900 Quinn Road. I think there's a missing
component here in that Outlot A is simply that. It's one lot. The majority of that lot.
Councilman Ayotte: Sir, could I ask you to pull the mica little bit closer. I don't hear very well. There
you go.
Jeff Reitan: Sorry about that. Is that better?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Jeff Reitan: The majority of that lot will likely be annexed to the adjoining properties to the south and to
the north. My lot is the lot to the north of Outlot A. So it's likely that there may be a future subdivision
resulting in one lot being developed and the remainder annexed to the adjoining properties. I'd like to
explore opportunities to modify the scope of the staff' s recommendation based on that information. It's
not clear to me if there's a final decision that' s irrevocable or something that we can work towards a
common resolution.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, Matt. Can you address that for us?
Matt Saam: I guess I'm not sure what your question is. What exactly are your concerns sir?
Jeff Reitan: Your recommendations I believe include 2 connections to the west.
Matt Saam: Correct.
JeffReitan: I'm stipulating that probably only 1 will be required. So I'm asking that we work to modify
the scope of the recommendation.
Matt Saam: Okay. Basically eliminate a service stub.
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Jeff Reitan: Yeah.
Matt Saam: Can I speak to that now or should I wait until after the public comments are closed?
Mayor Jansen: If you'd go ahead and speak to that now I'd appreciate it.
Matt Saam: Okay. Staff' s thinking in stubbing 2 services to the west is the developable potential of that
outlot to the west. We're just planning for future service connections. We just thought it's good
planning. Inevitably if we don't put one in and the lot would sell, they would come back and say why
didn't you give me a stub. Here you assessed the property but I didn't get a stub. Now I have to rip, go
into the street, rip it up, connect, so that's what we're trying to avoid.
Councilman Ayotte: You could blame him.
Matt Saam: If he owns it.
Jeff Reitan: I can't refute that. I'm just trying to help the council understand what our expectations are.
Mayor Jansen: Sure, okay. Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: Point of clarification though. Is the assessment issue a craw for you? Is that?
Jeff Reitan: We'd rather not see an assessment at this time. There's obviously no benefit to the owners
of the outlot. Future benefit as described but no current benefit. If our expectations pan out we're just
going to annex the north and south portions and perhaps develop the center lot.
Matt Saam: Madam Mayor, if I could follow up quick.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Matt Saam: The cost of the actual service stub to the property to the west. One additional stubis
$600.00. The total assessment is $12,000. So we'd be talking about deleting something that's $600.00.
Mayor Jansen: And the future cost to do that, you were stating is then ripping up the road and then
providing so incremental much larger.
Matt Saam: Much more than $600.00.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, understood. Thank you for clarifying that.
Jeff Reitan: I think there's an existing premise that this was going to become 3 lots. There was a
preliminary subdivision done by the previous owner and I just wanted to clarify that issue.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wanting to address the council on this item? Okay, I'll
bring this back to council. Matt, let me just pursue this and take one more shot at this. Where we're
showing the two stubs going off to the west, is there any way to have it be one and service all 3 lots in the
future? If it were to subdivide.
City Council Meeting - May 29,2001
Matt Saam: No. Not just a service stub. Then you're talking about a trunk or a sewer main.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So I think that's what we need to understand is that now is the time to provide that
option or we end up doing it at a much higher cost in the future.
Matt Saam: Exactly.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Let's bring this back to council. Any additional questions for staff?
Councilman Ayotte: I'm going to state my concern, and we can react to it that way. Maybe a question
will come out of it. I'm not for septic. I don't like, it's not whether I like or dislike. It seems to me that
we do not have predictable algorithm for assessments. We had talked about this before. What
exacerbates the problem is because of our water situation we do not have the mechanism to generate
more revenue because of our meter situation, which would help offset part of this problem. And because
we don't have those things in place, I do not feel comfortable in giving a nod for the assessment levels
that we have. And I don't know if there's a way of working through that.
Scott Botcher: Except that, I don't get the tie between the metering and the assessment. Because it's not
an algorithm. It's simply here's the cost of the project. Here's the determination of benefit on a
percentage basis...
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that but we had discussed before that if we had a larger population to
accept assessments for improvements to utility, then it would not be allocated just to the folks that are
receiving the immediate benefit. Over time, as we build the infrastructure, a lot of folks are going to
benefit from it.
Mayor Jansen: Am I recalling that was a conversation about our road projects?
Scott Botcher: Yeah, I mean I think in terms of this you've got a finite defined area. You've got a
defined cost with distinct beneficiaries, as opposed to a road or to a force main or to a water system or
water treatment plant, something like that.
Councilman Ayotte: I understood, maybe I understood incorrectly that down the road other folks could
benefit, could proper from this improvement.
Mayor Jansen: Only potentially.
Phil Gravel: The people in the future would be assessed as the sewer were extended further north on a
similar basis so if people benefit in the future they would pay an assessment at that time.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any further council discussion of this item?
Councilman Labatt: None.
Mayor Jansen: Could I have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as presented.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
10
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the feasibility stuffy for
Quinn Road Improvement Project No. 01-02 for installing only the sanitary sewer portion of the
project, and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Ayotte who opposed and the motion failed with a vote of 3 to 1.
Andrea Poehler: This motion requires a 4/5 vote so the motion fails.
Councilman Ayotte: I didn't hear that.
Mayor Jansen: The motion just failed. We need a 4/5 vote to pass this. I think your question was
addressed by the city manager.
Councilman Ayotte: I, at this point do not feel comfortable because I don't totally understand, even
though there' s an equitable distribution for the cost of the improvement, I don't know if I am accepting of
the argument totally. I just don't feel comfortable with it at this point. And I would not be doing the
right thing to say yes to it if I don't thoroughly understand and completely support what's being
presented.
Mayor Jansen: Then I'm going to encourage you to sit down with staff and go through this because I do
believe that we have gone.
Councilman Ayotte: We have a time line, I know that.
Mayor Jansen: No, we've gone through the whole assessment process and that's what Mr. Botcher is
trying to explain.
Councilman Ayotte: Well let me ask some more questions then. With respect to assessments, we have
an algorithm that is predictable all the time, right?
Scott Botcher: No. I mean that's the fundamental pretext. I mean anytime you do an assessment, the
governing body of the city makes the determination as to benefit. That will change from project to
project'to project to project. That's just life. That's how it is. There is no mathematical derivation that
you can lay upon a project and say, if you have this project, you lay this mathematical derivation upon it
and it results in this assessment. That's not how it works. In this case we have a very, and it's a nice,
small example quite frankly. We've got a small project. You've got a small number of beneficiaries and
you make the determination as a governing body as to benefit and you assess based upon that basis.
Bruce DeJong: Madam Mayor and Councilmember Ayotte, I'd like to address this a little bit because
I've been involved in some very lengthy discussions with the city's counsel regarding assessment process
and how we actually work things. To answer Mr. Ayotte's question, there is no benefit to any property
that is not directly abutting the project. If they wanted to hook up to the city sewer in the future because
of any other failures of a septic system, they would have to extend the sewer lines farther north from
where it is terminating based on the engineering proposal. So there is zero benefit to any of the
additional owners that are farther north on Quinn Road. They would not be charged a connection fee
because there is nothing for them to connect to.
11
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: We have another smaller project similar in scale as this one potentially and have
them assess that in the same manner as tonight.
Bruce DeJong: Exactly.
Scott Botcher: And carrying that, the risk of having the cost inflate, having smaller incremental
administrative cost for smaller projects, I mean certainly it makes more sense to tie some of these smaller
projects together and be done with them. I mean I think there's some efficiencies built into that.
Certainly the governing bodies retain the authority to establish areas of benefit and make determinations
of benefit and assess upon that basis. Now most of these just want to do assessments for the heck of it.
If the neighborhoods really, really hate them, they're not going to do them.
Councilman Ayotte: How is the assessment played out? How is it paid out? Over what period of time
and how much of a hit do folks take on this?
Bruce DeJong: That's certainly something that you determine at the assessment hearing process.
Typically we've done these in 8 year payout. We do that with a fixed amount of principle payment and a
reducing amount of interest payment on those special assessments.
Councilman Ayotte: So there's latitude. There's some give and take based on the ability of the people to
take care of business, is that true?
Bruce DeJong: That's correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. I certainly think that there's some benefit to having the stubs put in place
also ahead of time so that those service connections are available because certainly the intentions of
property owners change and owners change on a regular basis because I was the beneficiary of that when
I built my house in Minnetonka. Actually having 2 stubs placed on the larger lot that I ended up building
on SO.
Councilman Ayotte: Understand my motivation for asking these questions. And if there's latitude for
folks to get some relief in their ability to pay the assessment, I'm going to feel more comfortable about it.
What can I put into a motion that would ensure that that particular point is carried out?
Mayor Jansen: It's already policy.
Bruce DeJong: I don't think there's anything at this point. The point where you do that is at the
assessment hearing at the completion of the project.
Scott Botcher: And our ordinances and our practices have allowed property owners to benefit through
our tax exempt rate when we go to market. In other words, you and I can't go to market and borrow
money for what the city can borrow money for. We pass that benefit on to the taxpayers who might
choose not to pay their assessments at the time they were due, or in some cases pre-pay them and they
thus benefit from us going to market so to speak on their behalf.
Councilman Ayotte: And you said there's an 8 year period top end at this point. Is that typical for the
area?
Bruce DeJong: I think that's pretty standard.
12
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Alright.
Mayor Jansen: At this point can we amend the vote or do we need to remove the motion and vote again?
Andrea Poehler: The motion would need to be made to reconsider and it would need to be made by
Councilmember Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: I make a motion to reconsider this past motion.
Andrea Poehler: Yes you would vote on that.
Mayor Jansen: May I have a second please.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to reconsider the previous motion. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Now we can just put a new motion on the table.
Andrea Poehler: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: May I have a motion please?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2001-31: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
feasibility stuffy for Quinn Road Improvement Project No. 01-02 for installing only the sanitary
sewer portion of the project, and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you Councilman Ayotte for getting your questions asked. Appreciate it.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO
DOGWOOD ROAD, PROJECT NO. 00-01-1.
Public Present:
Name Address
Hal & Jen Newell
Dick Lundell
Amy Adamson
Barbara Freeman
Jay Rubash
Richard Foley
7550 Dogwood Road
7341 Dogwood Road
7331 Dogwood Road
7431 Dogwood Road
HTPO Inc.
7411 Dogwood Road
13
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Martin & Donna Jones
Scott &Maren Vergin
Marjorie Getsch
John Getsch
Bill Coffman
De Brandt
Bruce Carlson
7321 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
7530 Dogwood Road
7500 Dogwood Road
600 West 78th Street
7570 Dogwood Road
1440 Bavarian Shores Drive
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. Staff is not at this time recommending
approval of the feasibility study as attached to the staff report for Dogwood Road. Instead we are
recommending that that study be revised to look at a different sewer alignment option. This study was
petitioned for by a developer who is proposing a 30 lot subdivision along the southeast corner of
Dogwood Road. The study looked at extending sewer and water, widening the street to serve the existing
property owners along Dogwood. The majority of the existing property owners along Dogwood and the
majority of the proposed owners of the new subdivision. An informational meeting was held last week in
which the neighborhood of Dogwood Road could come and look at the proposed project. See how it
affected their lots. Two main viewpoints were expressed at the neighborhood meeting. One was to save
as many trees as possible along Dogwood Road. And two, to minimize the widening of Dogwood Road
as much as possible. A majority of the tree removal would be due to the sewer depth along Dogwood
Road. In some parts it would be up to 30 feet deep. That in turn yields a wide swath of approximately
100 feet. That's how most of the tree removal and replacement would be required. Upon hearing those
concerns from the neighbors we started looking at other options. How do we save trees? And since the
sewer depth was the issue, we looked at the possibility of moving the sewer to the back yard area along
Lake Minnewashta. Initially staff did not believe that the residents of Dogwood Road would be for this
option. They'd be granting easements, construction backhoes going through their back yard, that sort of
thing, so we didn't have the consultant look intently into the feasibility of that option really. We kept
them up on the road, up on Dogwood Road. If we do not move forward tonight with the project, I'd like
to note that there would be the requirement of another public hearing after we look at the revised
feasibility study at which time we would bring forth another option. I'd be happy to take any questions
that you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions for staff?. So this evening we would just be simply authorizing
your extending the, revise the feasibility study.
Matt Saam: Simply tabling, yeah. Not going ahead. Not approving plans and specs. Not ordering the
project.
Councilman Ayotte: What's the turn time for getting it done?
Matt Saam: The feasibility study? A month or two.
Mayor Jansen: So where you've noted in your staff report with the petitioner's consent. I gather we
have the petitioner's consent.
Matt Saam: I'm sorry, I forgot that. Yes, I spoke with the petitioner today. He was at the neighborhood
meeting last week. In addition to the neighborhood consent, they are for looking at this option also.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sounds like we have an amicable situation here.
14
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Let's grab it. It doesn't happen often.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, noting that we're probably going to be, from what I'm hearing, taking the staff
recommendation, if anyone would like to make comment. We obviously have been told we' re going to
have yet another public hearing where you' 11 have the opportunity to address the new option as it comes
forward, but if there's anyone here this evening who would like to address the council on this item,
please step forward. If you' 11 state your name and address for the record please.
John Getsch: Yeah, name is John Getsch. I live in Edina but have property at 7530 and my mother lives
at 7530 and then I have the lot next to that. In the meeting last week there were several things that came
out besides the depth of the sewer, the location. Looking at going along the lake for it had never really
been considered before. It had been kind of pushed off. That really makes sense to look at that. But
another issue that's coming up is the extension, possible extension, whatever of West 78th Street and
providing access for Westwood Church. And there needs to be a look at the whole access off of
Tanadoona Drive onto 41, extension of West 78t~ Street. How that's going to tie in. Also now have a
developer looking at putting in 30 lots off of Dogwood Road. That road was never designed for that. It's
a very long cul-de-sac. The people that live there now and have lots there now are happy with the road
the way it is. We don't, everybody said the same thing. It's a country feel. You drive in the road. You
feel like you're 3 hours up north. To come in and make it 75-80 feet wide would completely change that
and that's part of the value of the lots out along there. The major benefactor of increasing the size of the
road and the width of the road would be the 30 lot subdivision. And you'd still end up with a, over a
mile long or close to a mile long cul-de-sac. It still would not change that issue ~so those are the
comments I had.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Anyone else who would care to address the council on this item?
Okay, bringing it back. Matt, if you could maybe address the concern that John just brought up.
Matt Saam: Sure, and I'll let Kate jump in too on West 78th Street. She's been working with the church.
The way I understand it, until they would come in for a plat we really don't have much power to say
dedicate us this road. Extend West 78th Street through here. If this project would go ahead in the review
of the proposed subdivision, we would look for, we always do another access. An emergency access.
Something so if Dogwood Road would be closed down for some reason, people would have another way
out. So it is a good point but I don't know, Kate maybe you can speak to West 78t~ Street.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Westwood Church, who is the significant property owner in this area has 67
acres. While they haven't formally submitted an application, we are working with them. We have
requested they do a traffic study. We realize that the impacts on Tanadoona will be significant and we've
asked them to look at an additional access point which will be the extension of West 78th. As another
option to provide access to the 30 acre, proposed subdivision, again we haven't seen a subdivision and
we' 11 have to review the merits of that and access as that comes in, but we're looking at other alternatives
to provide access, not only to the church but to this piece of property. So while West 78th is 100 foot
wide at 41, it certainly doesn't need to be that wide. As it gets, crosses over because it would just be a
local street. 60 foot wide at maximum so we're looking at that. And again the extra time that we're
looking at the feasibility also gives us time to look at, as Westwood, probably be in the next couple
months and get their traffic study in shortly. All those pieces will kind of come together so I think the
additional time helps everybody. I think the applicant on the Dogwood recognizes that too so hopefully
we'll have more information as this evolves.
Councilman Ayotte: Did you include the traffic study possibly?
15
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Kate Aanenson: Well the traffic study, the subdivision's going to have to fly on it's own merits. It's
going to have to meet the standards of access and certainly the church is going to have to, the good thing
is they're all kind of coming together and we're trying to work cooperatively and all parties are trying to
work cooperatively. They all need sewer. They all need access so there's mutually beneficial, and that's
what we're trying to work on and all parties so far are working well together so.
Mayor Jansen: And staff's doing a lot of coordinating from what I'm hearing, thank you very much.
Okay. Yes sir.
Dick Lundell: Could I make a comment? I'm Dick Lundell and I live at 7341 Dogwood Road. I just,
you know when you look at the numbers of this thing as well, there are existing 12 houses out there and
they almost, many of us have been there a long, long time. But and then all of a sudden at the very end of
this mile and a half cul-de-sac they're talking about development of 30. I mean that's 3 times basically
what's been out there so I would encourage again staff to look at an alternative way to serve. I mean it's
like we've got this little pod down at the end and you've got a mile and a half of this other and we're
kind of tipping upside down to take care of 30 new whatever's and if there's access actually off of 7. I'm
not sure if they can tie in off of, or not 7. I mean 5. Coming across, but I mean there's some University
land there too but I'd just encourage them to look at some other options because again it seems like they
were tipping this thing, the tail's wagging the dog.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for your comments. I guess I'm gathering from staff that'all of those
options will be explored and the city standards will need to be met as that subdivision comes in so those
evaluations will definitely be done as that subdivision is actually being proposed and then also the church
site. Okay. Council, any further discussion?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to table~
Mayor Jansen: Do we need to table or direct to revise the feasibility study?
Matt Saam: I guess I would.
Mayor Jansen: Which is appropriate?
Matt Saam: I would defer to counsel.
Andrea Poehler: I guess I would recommend that you direct them to prepare a new feasibility study.
Mayor Jansen: Last paragraph.
Andrea Poehler: You aren't really tabling this.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. We're authorizing staff to revise the feasibility study to look at the option of
constructing the sewer along the lake.
16
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: Then I'll make a motion to that effect.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Can I have a second please.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to revise the feasibility study to look at
the option of constructing the sewer along Lake Minnewashta for the extension of utilities and
street improvements to Dogwood Road, Project 00-01-1. All voted in favor and the motion carded
unanimously 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS ADDENDUM TO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CENTURY
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 97-1C.
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. As an addendum to the previously approved
Century Boulevard feasibility study, staff is recommending that the feasibility study for the 2001 city
sealcoat project be approved. Sealcoating is a part of the city's annual maintenance program and in
order, this year in order to simplify the bidding process, we are combining this project with the Century
Boulevard project. Normally a public hearing would not be held for this project but due to it being bid
with another public project, it's required. I would be happy to take any questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions for staff? If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Jansen: All those in favor?
Andrea Poehler: I'm sorry.
Mayor Jansen: Oh! I forgot the public. Sorry about that. I'm moving along now. I figure it's the next
one everybody' s waiting for. If there' s anyone here that would like to address the council on this agenda
item, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Okay, I made a
good assumption. Okay, closing the public hearing. Do I have to redo the motion and the second?
Andrea Poehler: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Resolution g2001-32: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve
Addendum No. 1 to Feasibility Study for Century Boulevard Improvement Project 97-1C, to
include the 2001 Sealcoat Project No. 01-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
17
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR TRAIL PURPOSES
OVER AND ACROSS THE EASTERLY 15 FEET OF LOT 20, BLOCK 1, FOX CHASE AND
THE SOUTHERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 19, BLOCK 1, FOX CHASE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Barbara & Jerry Kreisler
Nancy F. Hoopes
Carolyn Nyman
Chuck Peterson
Rod Franks
764 Lake Point
6511 Fox Path
6341 Fox Path
708 Lake Point
8694 Mary Jane Circle
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. This thing's been around for
12 or 13 years. I kind of think of it as the sleeping giant. It just never has, it's been awoken and talked
about a number of times over those years but it's never been settled so hopefully this evening we can take
one more step towards settling this little trail connection. I guess I'll start, well we'll start with this. This
is the existing easement as it is in place today and again it's a trail easement for trail purposes. It is not
developed. The neighborhood, both neighborhoods I would say routinely use it, at least those who know
about it routinely use it today to get to and from recreational activities. Lake Point is one of the access
areas. It's out of the Fox Chase development. And then it's connecting to the Carver Beach
neighborhood in that location. So the existing easement travels inbetween these two lots, and turns 90
degrees and heads directly towards Lotus Lake and Carver Beach Park at this location. Previous to this
there was an easement, proposed easement that wrapped around the front of these lots, but that one was
not moved forward with. Little history about how we came to this, to tonight's meeting. We weren't
even talking about the trail easement issue. We were talking about a separate issue down in Carver
Beach. Sent out a neighborhood mailing informing the residents of that particular discussion, and
somebody called and said, how about that trail easement into Fox Chase. When is the city going to do
something about that? We'd like to see that improved so everybody can have the benefit of that
connection. So we sent out a mailing again to talk about this in more specifics. That meeting was held
here January of '99 1 believe it was. January 26th of '99. At that time you have all the letters and e-mails
that came in at that point. The discussion centered around these two lots at this location, and I'll give
you a close up view of what we're talking about as far as the permanent easement. So it's titled close-up
of the trail easement proposed to be vacated. Kreisler's are in Lot 20. Hedlund's Lot 19. Wegler.'s on
the other side in Carver Beach and Schroeder's here. Existing easement is 15 feet of permanent trail
easement on Lot 20 at this location. And that again turns that 90 degrees and it's a 10 foot permanent
trail easement on the Hedlund's at this location. Generally what the Kreisler's were opposed to is the
loss of privacy on that side of the yard and along with a variety of other issues and they will speak to that
this evening. So the park commission attempted to strike a compromise, not really hearing from other
people that evening between these two lots, and generally what it's talking about, this compromise would
be a horse trade to trade, get rid of this easement on the Hedlund's. So you would do away with it and in
return for that, the Hedlund' s would accept the trail on their side of the property and it would leave the
side of the Kreisler's. So there's still a little bit of permanent easement on the Kreisler's but the trail
would move over into the other side of the lot. So this is the proposed compromise as we have it today.
The Kreisler's have signed this proposed permanent easement. The Hedlund's have signed it but they're
holding it until the vacation would be approved. So in order to move forward we need a public hearing
with a compromise position. We need a public hearing to vacate these two easements before we would
then go ahead and secure the new easements to construct the trail connector between those lots. So that's
18
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
the basic scenario, but obviously there's other issues here that we'll hear about this evening from the
neighbors. Why should we change it? Now we're talking, if we change it the traffic pattern would
change. Would now come out of the public road here, Mohawk instead of going down into a park. This
is a little bit cleaner. It's just a straight cut through, but the folks down here always anticipated that it
would indeed take a different configuration. I' 11 accept any questions from council before you move on
with your public hearing.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Ayotte: What kind of traffic goes up and down there right now? Joggers? Bikers? Can you
tell me a little bit about.
Todd Hoffman: Joggers mainly but we've heard about motorcycles and bikes as well so, it's intended to
be a pedestrian bikeway path.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, now.
Mayor Jansen: And it would be signed accordingly, correct?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Has public safety, has Carver County Sheriff or our public safety department
cut on this in terms of implication?
Todd Hoffman: There's many of these around the community. 30, 40, 50 of these neighborhood cut
throughs.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that but nonetheless, if we've got traffic going through people's areas,
whether they're joggers and have an occasional motorcyclist, get me excited. And if we have a traffic
pattern now of people using it, just because you improve part of it, what do we do to deter people from
still doing it the way it used to be because we've had this alive for how long?
Todd Hoffman: Dozen years or so.
Councilman Ayotte: So is it reasonable to suspect that they'd still use the old way even though we
would.
Todd Hoffman: I think most of the cut through traffic today is using the proposed new way, and not
coming up. This is a longer route and heads down through the trees and the neighbors can speak to that
but I would think a greater percentage of the traffic currently goes through this route and then some of
the people would turn and go down along the lot lines to this location.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there anything that canbe done structurally to like those pipes and so on that
would keep a motorcyclist out or snowmobiler out. Can something be done in that fashion to ensure that
the ingress/egress to those areas would be limited to what would be acceptable by the folks that live in
that area?
19
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Todd Hoffman: Probably not at this location. I think the larger concern would be, this is coming down a
fairly steep grade and if you place those things down at the bottom, children could not have control of
their bicycles, may in fact find a hazard at the bottom in those posts.
Councilman Ayotte: It would cause a hazard rather than, okay.
Mayor Jansen: And I'm trying to recall when I went out and looked at this. There isn't signage there
currently, correct? Is there a sign that says no motorized?
Todd Hoffman: No. It's not an improved trail.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, and typically you would add that to a segment like this, wouldn't you?
Todd Hoffman: We offer a variety of signage. No motorized vehicles. Or trail abuts private property.
Please stay on trail, depending on the situation.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that's been rather effective in other areas? Where you put the signs as far as.
Todd Hoffman: Well a person who wants to take a snowmobile or motorcycle on a public trail that
knows they shouldn't be there, typically are not inclined to follow a sign. It may prevent a few of those
that would think it would be okay to do that, and they'd look back and read it but then on all of our trail
connections and all of our trails in the city we have the occasional violation.
Mayor Jansen: Sure, okay. But there would be at least signage that would go up. Any other questions
for staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. We will open this up for public hearing. If we could have
representatives of the opinions. Actually present the case the best way possible. Certainly don't want to
have anyone now feel heard. We realize that this has been an emotional, long term effort for all of you
but let's try to keep it just a little bit contained and I'll go ahead and open it up for the public hearing. If
you'll approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Thank you.
Chuck Peterson: Chuck Peterson, 708 Lake Point. We've been there for 10 years. I think just to address
the safety thing. I'm sure at some point in time somebody showed up with a motor scooter or something
but I don't really believe that there's somebody beating a path with a motorcycle very often. I think in 10
years you'd probably be able to speak to the maybe once or twice it might have happened. Snowmobiles,
never. The thing that you've got at the other end of this trail, you've got 2 boulders about this big that
really are very dangerous today and if they could get out of there and some posts put in, those would be
more safe than what we have today. If you try and take a bike up over that with a trailer, to get into
Chanhassen you can cut off about ~A of a mile going that way. So it would really be nice if a stroller and
a bike carrier would be able to get through on the end to get right onto the road because I think this
easement butts right up to the road itself. The other thing I think I'd start off by saying, just as a
neighborhood, I think we've got 40 out of 47 households that have said, you know here's a real logical
solution that ties in with really what's there today. What we're saying is that, I know that there's this
fancy 15 feet that's needed but in the grand scheme of things everybody's kind of beat a path today.
We've living with about 8 inches right now and so if we could get something that's 42 inches wide that's
right along the side there, that would be sufficient for the neighborhood and I think you're talking about
20
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
the people that practically use it because the drawing card really is Carver Beach. And the people that
are on the other side, while they may come to visit, they really don't have anywhere to go because as you
know Pleasant View, you've heard enough times, there's no place to walk there safely and it's just not a
path that people choose to take. So this route kind of solves bikes and families having to get onto
Pleasant View and being able to take a straight shot into Chanhassen. It's a better spot to go. I'm a
person that I've ran that trail. I cross country ski it in the wintertime and mountain bike it on Lot 19 and
Lot 20. And I can tell you for the last year or so there's been a tree down and it's not the funnest thing to
have to get through there but it'd be nice to have a nice trail to get down there. And I think the number
one thing in that neighborhood, if you'd kind of look at the demographics, you know a lot of families.
Strollers. It's been 10 years it would have been nice to make it a little bit easier to get down there. And
then Todd would probably come up with another thing. We've had a conversation about this. One of the
things that you have on Carver Beach is kind of a side light to this is that the folks that live there today
have a fire pit that what I believe is probably on public property, which you know they enjoy that. We
want to share that with them. Everybody, it's their public land as much as it's anybody else's but the
practical thing is that if you give up that Lot 19 getting down to the lake, people are going to have to take
the path, down the road. All the kids have to now be on the street versus taking a trail to that path, and I
think that everybody also agrees that Carver Park, from that point all the way over to that development is
a real gem for the city and to cut off that last piece to make it a practical step for those people to walk
through and make it safe, it just isn't logical. I mean that's just kind of our way of looking at it. So our
conclusion I think you' 11 see is a logical conclusion. I think there may be some discussion about maybe
how wide it is. Whether it's 42 or 48 inches, but I think generally speaking you're going to see a
neighborhood that would have no problem with that being right on the lot line. And then the Hedlund's
don't have anything on their lot. You know on that western side that they're proposing right now so, I
think that's it.
Mayor Jansen: I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're in favor of. The staff recommendation
is just.
Chuck Peterson: The staff recommendation, well the staff recommendation to just go straight, we're
saying no.
Mayor Jansen: You want the L?
Chuck Peterson: We absolutely need the L. We bought the L. The L is the lake access for that whole
development. And to give up that L, I'm not sure what public value that would give to anybody. The
only thing that I could see is it provides the Hedlund's with more privacy. That's the only value that's
given in that particular scenario.
Mayor Jansen: Well it also pushes the trail back towards the other home. Give me the last name. Yes,
because they would, the Hedlund's then would not be allowing the trail then to be built on their property,
correct Todd? From what I gather.
Todd Hoffman: Not the first part. The second part then would be back on the Hedlund's.
Mayor Jansen: Correct, but it would shift back over onto the previous property. Okay.
Chuck Peterson: That particular one right there, that L is what we, you know everybody signed up for
and everybody wants. I mean there's no reason, there's no reason not to have this piece right here down
to the lake. Even in the, you know I'm not into this easement thing because I know you've got to have all
21
City Council Meeting - May 29,2001
these wide, wide things but the reality of it is, is that the practical issue is that the path that's there today
is right over the Hedlund's property...toward the Kreisler's 42 inches. I'm understanding also is that
even in the straight line one there is a solid 60 inches that was going onto the Kreisler's property. So
we're even saying closer to the lot line, Hedlund's don't have to give us anything on their western side of
their lot, and the easement then on the back side or south side of Lot 19 would stay there.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Chuck Peterson: And that's 40 of 47 neighbors saying that. And the other ones were on vacation.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Nancy Hoopes: Good evening Madam Mayor, Councilmen. We really appreciate you taking the time.
My name is Nancy Hoopes. I live at 6511 Fox Path. And I just want to clarify a little bit of what I think
just got lost here. We received the letter from the city 3 weeks ago saying this was what they had come
up with in regards to a modification to the plan of where the trail easement should go, and at that time
neighbors started talking and said, wait a minute. We understand it got tabled for 2 years but we never in
a million years thought the tabling was going to be to just have the easement go straight down into the
end of the road instead of continuing down the path down to the lake. And so then the Kreisler's put out
a letter saying we want our neighborhood to know, because we are trying to work as a neighborhood,
why we have concerns about not wanting to have this path so wide on their property. And they staked it
out and as neighbors they set up a time for us to come and meet and talk with them and see what they
were talking about, and I have to be honest. I was flabbergasted at how much their property was being
taken over by the path that would be there based on the width. As were many neighbors. So what
occurred this past weekend, after we got their letter and we found out this was all coming up in a quick
period of time is, the neighbors said to the Kreisler's, what would be acceptable on your property?
Would you accept you know, we said this is so wide it is under your window. Would you accept 42
inches? And they looked at it and said, wow. 42 inches. That won't take us under our bedroom window.
Under our dining room window. And yes, we would be happy to go with a 42 inch path that would
continue down their property and then what I want to point out too, I want to make sure you understand.
The other lot that the Hedlund' s, you keep hearing about, currently there is no home built on that lot. It
is a vacant piece of property currently. Now they might be building on it but currently it is vacant. And
so we said well gosh if you keep it 42 inches, continuing down to the lake on the proposed property of
Hedlund's, that might keep them happy. Let's work together here as a team. So in a period of a day and
a half on Memorial Day weekend I went door to door with 2 other of our neighbors and said hey, this is
what's going on. Most of you had gone up to the Kreisler's home and had talked to them and said you
know we're neighbors. We can't ask you to give up all that property on your home by a
misunderstanding of when you bought the home that this easement was there. But the Kreisler's have
agreed to do a 42 inch path if we can get the City Council to say sure. Let's work as a neighborhood.
Let's make it, I have 4 little boys. I took my stroller up and said, this is wide enough for my double
stroller. This is wide enough for bicycles. This is wide enough for a Burley. This is wide enough for a
running path. Out of the 48 homes in our neighborhood, 40 of the homes have signed. 6 of the other
homes are not home and 2 of the homes are people who are involved with the property themselves so I
think that's real important to know. And then the two other things that I just wanted to address was that,
currently in our little neighborhood there are 60 children under the age of 13 that walk down to the lake,
4 of which I said are mine, with fishing poles and it would sure be nice as a mom, as a parent, because
when we bought our home we thought we can't afford to buy the home that's on the lake but gosh, you
know. Chanhassen promotes the use of the lakes and last summer my little boys were walking down the
man made path that dumps into the street that Mr. Hoffman pointed out, and the garbage trucks were
22
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
backing up beeping and one of my little boys dropped the fish and tackle box. Well at 8 years old he saw
his life ending and I don't mean by the garbage truck. I mean his lures were there and he was going to
save them. So I guess the bottom line for us is, we're trying to work as a neighborhood together. I think
that we showed support. We're not asking for palm trees and lights anymore or whatever. We're asking
for please, please don't let this easement end in the street where it's unsafe. Where motor vehicles are.
We're asking you to please reconsider taking it down the original and best walkway that takes my
children down to the lake. I live for Chanhassen. We got, this year it was Christmas in May. We got
one of the canoe rental spaces at Carver Beach. Then I found out the cost of canoes so that' s another
problem but, but my children are children. The children of Chanhassen are supposed to be able, along
with the adults, to enjoy the lake. It's not just for the people that can afford to have the home on the lake.
We would like a safe walkway and we'd like that trail to go all the way down to the lake. And like I said,
the Kreisler's are here. They agreed to this smaller walkway. We're asking you. It's not city code at the
moment. Or city standards of how wide. Please, please reconsider a narrower walkway that would not
be obtrusive to this family' s home, to their property value but also would keep all of us safe and happy
walking down to the lake. We can see the Lake Ann fireworks from there. It's great. Thanks for your
time and thank you for all you do for the city of Chanhassen.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If we can try to just.
Nancy Hoopes: Oh, I have a petition.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. No, that' s fine. That' s fine. Sure, you can maybe pass them to staff would be
great. Thank you. If we can just try to keep your individual comments to 5 minutes, I would appreciate
it. Thank you. ~
Jerry Kreisler: Madam Mayor, Council members and good neighbors. It' s been kind of a strange turn of
events. I'm Jerry Kreisler. I'm Lot 20. My wife Barbara. This has been a real painful issue. I won't
give you the whole sorted history but the bottom line is that when we bought the house there were
disclosure laws broken and all kinds of, just very messy things. Bottom line is, when the path was
surveyed, the easement was surveyed, we were surprised to say the least. Notwithstanding we have a
problem. We have this path easement that's in a very bad spot. I'm going to show you a very brief video
on it just to make it real. Unfortunately the line, albeit accurate, really doesn't do justice to what it really
is. But the amazing thing about what's happened recently is, our typical 2 years up until this past
weekend. The neighborhood has been pretty much at odds in terms of what shall we do with this
development and path easement in particular and we did come to an agreement and it requires, it requires
a compromise on everybody's part. Our's, the neighbors, and now we're asking the city to consider a
compromise as well. We know the path size is a little smaller than what the city's typically used to
approving but that we've got near unanimous support, 40 out of 47, we think speaks very loudly to this as
a solution. I'm prepared to withdraw primarily my support for the option presented today in favor of
giving the neighborhood the path directly down to the lake, which they have argued passionately that
would be a good thing, and I happen to agree. That ultimately it would be under a nice compromise like
this, my wife and I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't do it. Let me know you the video which
was prepared before we reached a compromise and the good news is that there was nothing really bad in
it anyway. So if we could just roll that thing.
A short video prepared by Jerry Kreisler was shown at this point in the meeting.
Jerry Kreisler: You can cut it off right there. As you can see it's a problem. The path would actually not
take up the entire area of course but the easement is there and part of the easement being there is the fact
23
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
that it remains there for at the will of the city and the council, the neighbors, potentially be expanded and
this is sort of a secondary concern. Obviously the house is not going to be very marketable with this kind
of option sitting out there so when all said and done, if we had to go where the straight path is proposed,
that would certainly be okay for the Kreisler's I guess but now we're saying that the Kreisler's would
prefer that we have some path on our property that does serve a larger good for the neighborhood, so I
would make that my primary plea and in doing so I withdraw support for Plan B. Part and parcel with
this would be the notion that the city would ask, consider removing any opportunity to extend that path
once it's in at 42 or 48 at the outside I suppose. And that way when it would come time for us to sell the
house, we would not have this burden of trying to sell a 15 foot easement in the front of our yard, which
frankly is not very sellable.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Jerry Kreisler: Thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it. Anyone else caring to address the council on this item.
Mike Wegler: Mike Wegler. I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. I've been waiting a long time for this trail to
be put in where it is originally proposed from in the developmental contract. The 42 inch we discussed
with the neighbors there. It seemed like a very good option. You could go a 5 foot when you got down
to the corner but I would recommend going 42 inch by their house. Exposed aggregate was because
that's what their front sidewalk is. It would look nice with their house and it would work for everybody.
Running a trail into my driveway, the letter is there. Kind of explains it. You're running these people
down my driveway. Down to Napa. All down streets. It doesn't make sense. That's all I have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Okay, I'm wanting to bring this back to council. I don't want to cut anyone
off if anyone has anything besides what's already been said that you care to say, certainly step up to the
podium. Otherwise I will bring this back to council. Thank you. Okay, council. Any discussion around
this item please?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, one of the things that I, I know that surprises you Councilman Labatt but I
would submit to the neighborhood that we ought to consider performance specification that would allow
the L shaped approach. And instead of saying 42 inches or 48 inches, something to the effect, let's make
sure passerby's don't look through the bedroom window. I'm not saying write that into the spec, but
what I'm suggesting is that the city has to do things like maintain the path so we have certain types of
equipment to do certain types of things. So if we put performance parameters, a design option and then
have the design come back to say yes or no to the design, but I like the idea of, it's wonderful that you've
come to a compromise and I think that there's room for the council to in fact deviate from ordinance if
we have a look see at a design. So that's how I would see going forward. In short order. Not a long
time. In other words, let's get to it and put it down.
Mayor Jansen: I'd like to have staff address for us please the width of the path. I know that you are
proposing a 6 foot and now I'm hearing a 4 foot would be acceptable. What do we lose in that 2 feet and
what would staff s concerns be?
Todd Hoffman: Sure. Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the council. First off, let me say that I'm
pleased with the compromise, or at least the start of a compromise that we've, the neighborhood has
come up with. Planning for the city does in fact utilize that shoreland as the first speaker talked about
and so maintaining the L shape is a good planning move for the city's park system. The width of the trail
24
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
was a concern when we moved through and attempted to negotiate, or when we did negotiate on this
amended plan. Our typical standard width for pedestrian trail in Chanhassen is 8 feet wide. Many of, we
have 8 foot concrete sidewalks. There are neighborhood sidewalks which are narrower than that. The
trail connectors or trails are either 8 foot bituminous or 8 foot concrete. There are some places, you will
find them along the trail system where it does narrow down to approximately 6 feet to avoid trees or get
around a barrier, something like that. I worked, or we all worked with Attorney Joel Jamnik from the city
attorney's office on this and when we talked about going from 8 to 6, the biggest issue was 2 way traffic
going down an incline. And so if you have traffic going down the hill, a bicycle or some other mode of
travel, having people have to jump off the trail if you're at 41 inches or 48 inches to allow a bike and a
bike trailer, it's not the best planning that you could propose in this situation so that's why we maintained
the 6 feet. In regards to 42 inches or that's 3 ½ feet or 48 inches, that's 4 feet, again that's a compromise
that we would all have to recognize. Increases potential for hazards with traffic meeting each other on
that trail. Regarding the aggregate surface. I would not advocate that or support that. If we do a
concrete trail there I would advocate a heavy brushed finish for traction. Aggregate tends to be a slippery
surface. It gets sealed with a sealer and it tends to be slippery in wet conditions and I just could not see
that at this particular location.
Mayor Jansen: The question that occurred to me when we were looking at the 15 foot easement line
being right at the edge of the house, to build a 6 foot trail and hug it to the property line, how much
easement do you still need to have and can we put that trail and abut it to the edge of the easement on the
property line, instead of centering it?
Todd Hoffman: Yes. We've always talked about that .... picture, this is from the last meeting. It's in
the snow. I think you can pick up on the stakes there. The light pole would be generally about the start
of the lot line between the two, then it would follow back and hit these two last as you see them go down.
So initially here given these utilities would have to be moved. Or you'd just hax)e to start a slight jog but
then you can follow right back in generally on the property line and you go down...particular location.
You don't have to stay over or veer out to the right.
Mayor Jansen: So the track that you're showing in the snow here from I gather the snow blower, would
that be the edge of the bituminous? Is that where the.
Todd Hoffman: Approximately. I can't scale that from the picture but you go 6 feet and that's
approximately 6 feet right in that location.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And would the city be losing anything significant if we reduced the size of the
easement then instead of maintaining the 15 feet that's designated currently? Where he's saying, of
course if we kept the 15 foot easement, there's always that possibility of the city coming in 10 years from
now and saying it's our 15 feet. We're now going to put in an 8 foot trail. Do we reduce that easement
or do we leave it at the 15 feet? What's the recommendation?
Todd Hoffman: Well you always want to, I can't see having a 6 foot trail on a 6 foot easement.
Permanent easement or a 8 foot permanent easement. You need that protection in the future. Our
standard easement width for all other trail easements in the city is 20 feet. So 15 feet is already reduced
from there and just to allow for issues of construction or improvements. When we run maintenance
equipment up and down that, if we do not have a permanent easement there and the property owner
maintains improvements, the sprinkler system or plantings and we damage them, then we are at risk for
paying for those into the future. So currently we have that easement because it's public space. The
public is there. We're there maintaining it, cleaning it and we routinely hit irrigation heads and fences
25
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
and other improvements and people call us and say, we'd like you to pay for that. And again that's their
risk to put those private improvements out in that easement so I think to protect the city as a whole you
want to maintain a reasonable easement and I think 15 feet's a reasonable easement there. We talked at
length about this, you know what is going to happen in the future? Well we've waited a dozen years and
if we get a 6 foot trail built after all this and it goes in, I don't think we're going to see somebody turning
around and advocating for an 8 foot trail going in at any time in the near futures
Mayor Jansen: Sure. We didn't have the detail at least in this packet as to that L configuration. That L,
is that an 8 foot or does that also remain 6 feet?
Todd Hoffman: The proposed path?
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Todd Hoffman: 6 feet.
Mayor Jansen: That does stay at 6 also? You don't widen it as you get down to the bottom there? It's
just 6 consistently.
Todd Hoffman: All the way and for your information, that easement does go down to 10 feet. For
whatever reason it was taken only at 10 feet so there you have, on a 6 foot trail you have 2 feet on either
side to work with. Again for tree clearing and other things like that, you know that's about as small as
yon would ever want to go.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
Cotmcilman Peterson: Can you get snow equipment down a 6 foot trail? I mean that's got to be the
minimum for snow equipment, isn't it?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah. I don't know that we would remove snow on this particular trail. And we have, I
don't know that we have a trail at 6 feet that we remove snow on. You would just continually be busting
up the edge.
Councilman Labatt: Todd, what are the sidewalk widths in downtown here?
Todd Hoffman: 5 feet Mike? 5 feet, yeah. Downtown sidewalks.
Mike Wegler: 5 feet along Carver Beach Road is 5 feet. Most are 5 feet.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, some of them are 8 feet in the downtown.
Councilman Labatt: And the sidewalks along Powers, or Kerber north.
Todd Hoffman: 8 foot trail.
Councilman Labatt: So we're able to maintain the 5 foot sidewalks in downtown with a Bobcat, right?
You clean those off.
Todd Hoffman: With a Bobcat, yeah. They're in those narrower sidewalks.
26
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Mike Wegler: We were pretty much told we weren't going to do this. It's a 3 season anyway...
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, if you had to maintain it you know. This is obviously a hard situation, a
tough one and I think it comes down to reasonableness and the neighbors have struck up a compromise
here where they're saying no more than 48. I can see Todd's point on two way traffic and I'm wondering
if we bump it up to the standard sidewalk with the downtown sidewalks. If that would be amicable to the
neighbors. If they could go 5 feet, 60 inches. And then make the easement all of it just 10 foot on that
one L is already 10 foot easement. Why does this one have to be 157
Councilman Peterson: What kind of maintenance would you be doing off winter then that would induce
issues with that stronger easement? I would assume the easement issues happen mainly in the winter
when you've got the blade or the blower in there.
Todd Hoffman: Tree removal. Those type of things.
Councilman Peterson: But that's only once right?
Todd Hoffman: Would be the summer issues. Inherent in the design of this easement is a 90 degree
turn. There' s going to be some traffic control. You hit the bottom of that hill you' ve got to make a hard
90 so there's some, you know the width of the trail. It's not an ideal situation to begin with.
Councilman Labatt: What's the overall length from the end of the circle to the 90 degree?
Todd Hoffman: It's the lot width. Let me see ifI know...
Councilman Labatt: Is it 110 feet?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, probably less than that.
Audience: 165.
Councilman Labatt: 165 feet.
Todd Hoffman: I have 138 feet. 140 feet from cul-de-sac to the back of the lot, and then it probably
goes about 200 feet to the lake at that point.
Councilman Labatt: I'm not worried about the 200 foot one. It's 138.4.
Todd Hoffman: If it helps to get an idea, this is the view around the point of that 90 degree turn towards
the lake so it gives you an idea of what's there today with the trail alignment. So that's standing at the
back of the corner.
Councilman Labatt: And that's about the 10 foot easement fight there?
Todd Hoffman: That's 10 feet, yep.
Todd Gerhardt: Do you have a picture going up the hill?
27
City Council Meeting - May 29,2001
Todd Hoffman: Yep. That's standing at the same location but then looking back towards the front of...
the flagpole is standing up there. So this is right at the location where you're coming straight down the
hill and then it takes a 90 towards the lake.
Councilman Peterson: You're going to get some speed coming down that hill definitely.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: We' ll put speed bumps in.
Mayor Jansen: No, actually we have closed the public hearing at this point. I'm liking what I'm hearing
as far as Councilman Labatt' s comment about maybe standardizing the easement width. If the lower part
of this is 10 feet, I don't see where it makes more sense to have them both be 10 feet. If we're doing a 6
foot trail and butting it as close to that property line as we can possibly get it right on the property line.
Councilman Labatt: On which, are you talking on the Hedlund's of the lot line or are you talking on the
Kreisler's? On Lot 197
Mayor Jansen: The one that's in question. Because at this point if we, I'm gathering and correct me if
I'm wrong. I'm making an assumption here, that if we go ahead with the trail as it was proposed, and we
do the extension down to the lake, we lose then the agreement to push the trail over onto the Hedlund's
for this upper connection.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, because that was the compromise. So now it goes back onto Kreisler's.
Todd Hoffman: Kreisler's were talking about taking that froTM 15 to.
Mayor Jansen: From 15 down to 10. And then having the 6 foot start at the property line. Not be
centered in the 10 foot easement, but that 10 foot easement would be consistent with the 10 foot
easement that's along the other segment.
Councilman Labatt: That still puts them only 8 feet away from their house.
Councilman Ayotte: See what I don't like about that is, I'm going back to my point about, if we ask them
to come up with a design that avoids encroachment on the people's privacy, and I go back to the bedroom
example. Without getting wound up in the detail of 6 feet versus 40 some inches, to come up with a
design to see if it works. You may have a variation in width from one point to the next. You may...of
things and if you have our engineers look at it to see whether or not there's too much of an incline as part
of the road, path to see what can be done about that. I'm saying let's take a performance approach rather
than trying to design it here at a council meeting to see if we can meet the requirements.
Mayor Jansen: I'm assuming that after 2 years that this has been looked at as far as any engineering.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm not going to make that supposition.
Todd Hoffman: The issue of performance standards to make the situation with the Kreisler's home more
palatable, the best way I can describe it is if we move it, if I stand on the trail as we were building it
28
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
today, and then I move myself over 6 feet and I look at that same bedroom window, my view really didn't
change much. And so it's, I don't think we can do any better than we're currently doing. The argument
or the debate over going from one side of the lot line to the other is just who is accepting what
responsibility for what easement. What the compromise says is we will accept what is currently on the
books for the easement. Let's just make sure it's reduced down a little bit. Put up to the lot line. I think
they would be more, the property owners would be more pleased with a narrower trail but again that's a
decision. We have a standard in place we're already deviating from so how far down are you going to
deviate?
Mayor Jansen: We're down 2 feet and I heard you say that the 2 way traffic concern was an attorney's
concern, so now you' ve got your risk factor that you like to evaluate and the liability on the city's side
which was why that was brought up.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that and that' s why I say if we had a design that had public safety take
a look see at it.
Todd Hoffman: We would never design a trail with a 90 degree T in it and so, we're just stuck with a
situation that we have to make the best of.
Councilman Ayotte: So we're already outside the envelope is what you're saying?
Todd Hoffman: Absolutely.
Mayor Jansen: In the easement width and in the size of the pavement, and we own the property. We
own the easement on the Kreisler' s. We do not own it on the upper segment on the Hedlund' s.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. At this point.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I mean that's why it ends up shifting off the compromise and it ends up back onto
the Kreisler' s.
Councilman Labatt: But we weren't going on the Hedlund's on the lake portion?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So in order to get that leg we've got to.
Jerry Kreisler: There's a permanent easement on both properties to get to our...right now.
Scott Botcher: Well I guess just a couple things. First of all understand that Joel, and I don't know if
Joel gave a legal opinion as to liability or not but Joel certainly didn't give an opinion as to legal liability
as he doesn't represent our insurance carrier. My guess is given the amount of trail that's out there and
the other things we' ve got going on, and when we' ve talked to our insurance carrier about other things
including a skate park, that you would be surprised to know, and I would be willing to bet an expensive
lunch at Subway. That' s how cheap I am. That there would be no change in terms of our premium and
the exposure that we would face would probably be negligible if you went to a 42, 48 as opposed to a 6.
29
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: If we went to what?
Scott Botcher: A smaller trail width. I agree with Todd. You don't build 90 degrees for a reason.
They're just a pain. In this case I think this is, and Todd's talked about this, it would be a low
maintenance trail, and the neighborhood' s accepting of that. They probably want that. I mean it makes, I
mean I can see why you'd want that. The other thing Todd said that I think is right is, and I guess I'll
state a little bit stronger, I don't think I would ever, ever give up the access to the lake. I mean you own
it. I mean it's your's right now. You have the easements. There's all sorts of real estate issues it sounds
like with the home and wish it didn't happen but we could also say well it's really not our problem. You
own the easement. I think that the compromise that's been worked out is okay but I wouldn't give up the
access to the lake. I mean I think that's the starting point. You're not going to give it up. It's important
as Todd said and somebody said that that lake, or that park was a gem. And I think it is. I mean I see
kids go down there and go fishing and do different things and I think you want to maintain that and
enhance it and if that provides enhancement to the neighborhood.
Mayor Jansen: But the compromise.
Scott Botcher: But 42's pretty narrow~ I've got to tell you, 42's really narrow. And I wish there was a
simple answer to the home location, but at some point we're just kind of, you know there's not a great
one, because I don't think there is. I mean Steve's idea is not bad. I agree with Todd on the aggregate. I
think that's problematic and those are all design things you can deal with later, but again stay big picture.
As Bob said, don't design it at the council meeting. What do you want out of this deal? You already
know what you have. You've got the easements now, but if the lake access is critical then say okay,
that's number one. We want the lake access. Two, we're willing to negotiate down perhaps off our
standards which are there, but one size fits all standards. You've heard me say this about streets before.
The same rule applies for trails. One size does not fit all, and I think we need to recognize that and we
need to be creative enough to do it. Then if there's another process that we need to continue discussions
to go from 42 to 48, maybe have some stakes put, I don't care. Whatever we need to do to make you all
buy into it, then we just need to do that.
Mayor Jansen: What I'd like to avoid having happen is drag this out too long, so I would be inclined to
direct staff to evaluate and bring us back the recommendation as to keeping the lake access and then what
can we do then on the width and the easements and bring back a proposal to us that gives us those
components so that we can see it.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I agree. I think I'm in that 5 foot range. I think going less than that is
problematic. I'm not adverse to lessening the easement so those are my humble thoughts. We're
presuming that the Hedlund's won't still negotiate so I think...
Mayor Jansen: They may. Yeah, good point.
Councilman Ayotte: This will give you a design to look at. Or give you something to look at.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, then I'm looking for a motion to table with direction to staff.
Councilman Peterson: So moved with the points I mentioned.
Mayor Jansen: The?
30
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: 5 foot.
Mayor Jansen: With being able to go.
Councilman Peterson: ...as a recommendation.
Councilman Labatt: 10 foot easement, 5 foot trail.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Scott Botcher: And just for inclusion in the motion, is it fair to say that the access to the lake is critical?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. Okay, second?
Councilman Ayotte: I'll second.
Mayor Jansen: I have a second from Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table vacation of the permanent
easement for trail purposes in Block 1, Fox Chase with direction to staff to provide lake access
with a 10 foot easement and 5 foot trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4
to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for your patience While we work this through. Appreciate it and I'm sure staff
will, Todd be sure to keep the neighbors in the loop on this. I'm sure you will. Thank you. Appreciate
it.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT TRADING 0.044 ACRES
OF CITY LAND FOR 0.055 ACRES OF LAKE OWNED BY DAVID STOCKDALE AND JANE
ANDERSON TO ACCOMMODATE A PRIVATE DRIVE, SUGARBUSH PARK.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. There shouldn't be nearly as
much discussion on this one. It's just a little bit of housekeeping to do. Back in the mid 1990's the City
of Chanhassen acquired a small portion of Sugarbush Park through the park dedication re.quirements and
then we purchased the remainder of the property for that park. Small problem occurred however in that
the lot line for the park included a portion of Mr. Stockdale's driveway. So the driveway you can see in
this location, it's a looped driveway. And as the park was platted, it followed this line. This location and
then up and back. When we went out to stake the property we identified this and at the time we talked
about a variety of scenarios. What should we do? Just ignore it. It's a very small issue. It's not in the
developed part of the park. But when we came fight down to it, if Mr. Stockdale was to sell the property
at some point in the future and we thought we'd better, or may sell it, we thought we'd better clean this
up. So we designed a simple land trade in which the city gains area 3, in this triangle and then area 1 at
this location. Very small pieces of property and land given to the city, .55 acres of property and land
given to the city..55 acres would be 1,487 feet. And then we give up Area 2 back to the Stockdale's to
clarify or just to allow for that improvement to stay in it's current location of that driveway. With that
it's recommended that the City Council authorize the attached purchase agreement taking care of that
piece of business.
31
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff before I open this for public hearing? This is a
public hearing. If there' s anyone here who would like to address the council on this item, if you'd
approach the podium please. Seeing none, I'm going to bring this back to council. Any discussion?
Otherwise if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion and a second please?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the real estate agreement
trading 0.044 acres of city land for 0.055 acres of land owned by David Stockdale and Jane
Anderson to accommodate a private drive, Sugarbush Park. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REOUEST OF HOYT/DTLK, LLC FOR VACATION
OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN LOT 5,
BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION..
Mayor Jansen: You thought we'd never get to you didn't you?
Kate Aanenson: This is an afterwards vacation of a drainage and utility easement. The city took more
than they needed. The building is placed over the drainage and utility easement. It is not in the wetland.
It's not violating any city ordinances, so the vacation is a simple clarification to make the building whole
so we are recommending approval.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff? Seeing no questions, can I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion. And a second please?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Resolution g2001-33: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve
vacation of a portion of the utility and drainage easement as described in the legal description
dated April 27, 2001 for Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (7802) FOR AN
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL STATION AND RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE; SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 3,984 SO. FT. RETAIL BUILDING WITH A 48' X 80' CANOPY
ON .74 ACRES; AND A VARIANCE FOR SEPARATION OF GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY
ZONED HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT; LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ZAMOR ADDITION, 441 WEST
79TM STREET, HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC.
32
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Kate Aanenson: I believe the applicants are out in the hallway.
Councilman Ayotte: Should we grab them real quick?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, if you want to just give them a second. This application is for a site plan and a
conditional use. In the original review of this application was noted, there is a city ordinance requiring a
standard of 250 feet between the gas pumps. With the redesign of this building, it does require an
amendment to the conditional use. Amending the conditional use for that, and a variance. Again the 250
foot separation was to allow the separation between gas stations at every comer. Because there is
existing gas stations at this location the staff did support the variance. It could be redesigned to meet the
standard but we feel that this is a superior design for the location of the gas station and the service center.
Again Holiday will be basically redesigning the building. It's just a little bit larger in scale, in size of the
square footage. I have samples of the building material. If you want to look at those. The main issue
that came up on this building was the drainage between this property and the building, the Ramsey
building right here. The drainage was revised. The grading was revised. Both parties did work together.
Mr. Ramsey was just concerned that we follow up on the final grading to make sure, he did have some
water problem in drainage swale issues. We believe that has been resolved. There is a revised grading
plan. We've just committed to make sure that we walk it with him before it is sodded. He also had
concerns about the air conditioning units out on the ground. Where they are adjacent to the coolers and
those are being screened with arborvitae and his existing landscaping should stay in place so again that
was the main issue that the adjoining property had. The site plan itself is well conceived. The staff does
support it. It will be a nice looking building and is consistent with city ordinances. We believe the flow
works well, existing driveway access and the like, so with that the staff is recommending approval for the
conditional use and amending the existing conditional use and then also for the variance with the gas
station pumps with conditions in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No, she answered my question earlier about Mr. Ramsey's request.
Mayor Jansen: Alright. Well I have to comment that I'm just really pleased to see this comer being
redeveloped. It's a nice proposal. Nice structure that you're putting in on the comer there. Glad you're
staying in Chanhassen and appreciate your making that investment. With no further adieu, if I could
have a motion please.
_.
Scott Botcher: Can I ask one quick question, and I apologize but I guess I'm entitled.
Mayor Jansen: No, I'm moving along.
Scott Botcher: I know. And this is more of a question for the planners and I didn't ask Bob this question
and I apologize. There's a three reader line reader board on the pylon sign. It says, three line reader
board. Right below it says gas is a buck 11 a gallon. Is there an entitlement to that? I mean we had
talked about, that's what it says Kate. Right there, buck 11. Diesel's 1.16, 1.18. We talked about
signage in the community. We have a portable sign that we roll out for, and it's sort of embarrassing, the
city rolls this thing out. And I know it's functional and everything else. Is there an entitlement to that
type of thing where they put up like Marlboro's $25.00 a pack or whatever? I mean if we're going to try
to clean up the appearance of downtown, do we want to continue to perpetuate that?
33
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Kate Aanenson: No. They do, the sign does require a separate sign permit. It is a condition of the site
plan agreement and there are regulations on those hanging, additional signs.
Scott Botcher: I'm just, you know I'm talking about this guy right here and if I'm barking up the wrong
tree just tell me to shut up and I' 11 turn my mic off.
Kate Aanenson: No. No, there is a condition for the sign permit and there are restrictions on those.
Scott Botcher: My question, if that's something you want to continue to have, if you're going to try to
dress up the appearance because they have done a nice job, but then they go with the old three line reader
where they're out there changing letters again.
Mayor Jansen: So I'm hearing Kate say that the applicant is aware that the signs will come through a
separate approval process.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It is a condition, yes.
Scott Botcher: Put it on your list.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded approval of Conditional Use Permit
~r2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot variance from the 250 foot
separation requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels based
on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
3. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles shall be permitted on the premises.
4. No public address system shall be audible from any residential property.
.
No sales, storage, or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles,
snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.
6. Facilities for the collection of waste oil shall be provided.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
34
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Site Plan Review F2001-3,
plans prepared by Insites, dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25, 2001, based on the findings of
fact and subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2. The developer shall increase the number of understory trees and shrubs along the southern
property line to fully screen the parking lot.
3. The pin oaks specified in the plant schedule shall be changed to white, bur or bicolor oaks and
will have a minimum size of 2 V2" diameter.
4. The Austrian pine in the plant schedule shall have a minimum size of seven feet.
5. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year storm event.
6. Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 5203, 5207, 5300, 5301, and 5302.
7. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Revise existing catch basin invert elevation on Great Plains Boulevard.
9. Add rock construction entrance for the duration of construction.
10. Add silt fence around construction site prior to construction and removal of the silt fence at the
end of construction.
11. The developer shall utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water services for the new building.
12. The developer shall revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the General Notes add "All connections to existing manholes shall be core-drilled".
d. Under the Sewer & Water Notes add, "Ann sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
26".
e. Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer.
f. Add a storm sewer schedule.
g. Revise the 8" storm sewer to a 12" RCP pipe.
13. The developer shall revise the grading plan as follows:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Add a legend.
c. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
14. The existing flagpole must be relocated on the property at least 12.5 feet from the property line.
.8.
35
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
15.
Canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy. Such lighting shall not project beyond the
bottom face of said canopy.
16.
A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is
permitted on only two elevations.
17. The mechanical equipment on the western side of the building must be screened.
18. The retail store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
19.
The west wall and the west portion of the south wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction as it is closer than 20 feet to the property line.
20.
The accessible route and accessible parking space must be located as close as possible to the
building entrance.
21.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
22.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
23.
The developer shall revise the roof drainage on the west elevation of the building to discharge to
the north and/or south of the building.
24.
The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to screen the mechanical boxes
and address the drainage issue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
LIBRARY PROJECT REVIEW.
Public Present:
Name Address
Conrad & Lois Fiskness
Melissa Brechow
8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Carver County
Barry Pettit: We're here to review the status of the library, taking into account issues from the last
meeting. Also issues from the building committee meeting and I don't think there was a public meeting
between there... So at any rate, the title of this is, the Chanhassen Library Review by the City Council.
We thought we'd highlight a couple quick points in terms of where we've been so far. We've had four
public reviews. We've had one review by the Planning Commission and this wilt actually be the third
opportunity we've had to speak with the City Council. The next item is just a schedule. It's sort of to
tell you that we are on schedule and for those who probably don't have it memorized, the ultimate
objective is to get the project out for bidding on the first part of January. We're looking for that January
window for bidding as an ideal time to put drawings out because pricing is usually a little bit better than a
36
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
more competitive and people are interested in lining up work for the spring. So that still seems to be a
schedule that we' re going to meet. Tonight what we wanted to do is review the site strategies and get
approval on the site strategies from the City Council. Future meetings. We've got a Planning
Commission meeting. This is sort of hot off the press. We're hoping it will be set up for June 19th and
that will be again land use issues. Sort of final review by the Planning Commission. And then followed
by a public review at the end of June on the 28th. And at that point it will be an additional, the work
between now and that time in terms of detailing and additional work on the exterior. Interior planning
from the building coming together with more detail, and more detail on site work as well. And one other
item I just put on here that also would be, if the plan, the strategies are approved this evening, that we
start work also with a landscape architect that looks at the whole site because there' s sort of a piece of
the puzzle that' s beyond the original scope of the work that deals with this green space, if you will for
lack of a better term .... the site strategies and sort of the, maybe another way to say it is kind of the rules
of engagement with respect to the project right now. And just review those. And these come...sources
through, you know input from the public. Input from Planning Commission. Obviously input from the
council. Input from the building committee so it really is a compilation of a lot of those efforts that bring
us to this total picture and the way the site goes together. Strategy 1, a very simple one. The one story
building. The second item is a parking deck along Kerber Boulevard. Along with that is holding the new
building tighter to Kerber Boulevard, and we've got an antidotally align the west faqade of our building
with the parking in back. No cul-de-sac. We talked about that last time. We condensed the building
mass to the west. More green space to the east. We've got the green space between the east faqade of
the building and on Market Boulevard is about an acre and a quarter right now. So it's about 52,000-
53,000 square feet. The other comment was move the library closer to city hall. Strong gestUre or
probably we should put in here strong gesture for future consideration for the connection back to city
hall. So the library does make an obvious future point of which we would link the library back into city
hall if some day city hall remodels and that works out. A minor detail, in the eastern parking lot-as it sits
right now is modified a little bit but it's also, a loop is created in there so it can be worked as a drop off
and it's more convenient to the cars coming in and being able to exit. The next item is a major issue in
terms of parking spaces. You basically have 90 spaces now that are dedicated to the library and the
formula for that is, we have 32 spaces in the east lot. That's the lower lot right behind us. There's 25
right now. It's actually expanded from 25 to 32. So that lower lot then is designated parking area. The
other part of that equation is the deck that we're going to be building along Kerber. The lower part of
that, below the deck at the lower level is an additional 32 new spaces. 26 spaces on the new deck and the
fourth area would be that we have space from, the assigning sort of unused spaces up along the west side
of the current parking lot right now. There' s basically a sort of reordering of the available spaces up
there and just make them more efficient. That parking. And then into the equation then is the parking
loss from Coulter Drive, so you add everything up and then subtract them off of Coulter. You wind up
with the 90 cars that have been designated for the library. The typical number use for parking is about
2.75 cars per 1,000 square feet of building which would give us about 87 spaces so based on our
experience with libraries and what we have, you've got about 3 space overage. The next item of the
design soften the building geometry. Some of the plans we were showing were more diagrammatical and
the building was really shown more as sort of a more rigid geometry. We've shown how some of those
edges can be soften as the building develops. And then some of the, a couple minor details. Looking at
an outdoor reading area in the southwest comer. We' 11 see that on the plan and then there's also a sketch
that we can show you. And then soften, this is actually related to city hall and it' s kind of some of the
landscape schemes. The city hall becomes part of this courtyard if you will, and the back drop then
becomes pretty prominent faqade relative to the whole development. So the thought is to restudy city
hall and maybe the way that it' s planted. Maybe ivy on city hall so that it becomes more of a green back
drop to the whole plaza area, and those are just some thoughts on that. Those aren't cut in stone by any
means but some points of departure for studying the landscaping. And then the final point, just that
37
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
you'll see diagrammatically, is our reading room is going to operate independent from the library so in
other words there will be an opportunity to use the reading room in a very, very public way in with the
library folks. And it will be a room that's probably good for 150 people. It'd be ideal for example if you
have a large presentation for city council. It'd be an opportunity for the council to step over there and
have a little variety and be able to present with a bigger audience, if that' s necessary. One of lots of
different options but.., so those are sort of the rules of engagement if you will with the building. The
plan itself is like this. What we've done, and you can see what we want to do is reference this plan back
to the one that we last presented and we showed a dashed line here that showed the extent of the building
last presentation and we retreated back from that line about 58 feet. And that again, one of the issues
there was trying to compact the building. Get it closer and tighter to Kerber Boulevard and then get more
green area out in here. The other dash line that we threw in there was the configuration at the last
meeting of the cul-de-sac and so you get a sense of where that is and then also at this point you see that
the building is, how much tighter that has been brought to city hall relative to where the cul-de-sac was.
The interesting thing with the space is now you've got the larger green space out in here, and then
visually and physically connects in with what becomes the courtyard. And then going over a few of the
items that we talked about, the east parking lot gets a curb cut at the other end so you can loop through
that. Actually in both directions. It forms a drop off along that side. Somewhat symmetric to the idea of
the parking on the other side coming down to Kerber. That there would be a loop also underneath the
parking deck, and then act as a drop off here as well. Very strong connection between the parking ramp
and the front door of the library. Again the lion share of the parking is going to be in this part of the site
so we want to make sure those folks coming off here are clearly aligned with the front door. It' s very
evident where that is. We're thinking along, in a meeting today we wanted you to keep in mind that in
terms of site strategy, site details, the only thing that is probably more for certain on this site is the idea
of this kind of a connection here with the library. The configuration of the parking. When we show the
areas in here, these are very preliminary ideas and we haven't really had a chance to incorporate what
might go on in here with the landscaping schemes through here. But the suggestion that we're showing is
more of a very wide... The parking 10t to the library. Tree line both sides. Benches inbetween. Those
kind of opportunities so it's quite a nice sort of walking boulevard, if you will. The other idea is a series
or a sidewalk sequence then can take you from this access point here down to the library. From the
senior center down this way. Maybe it does begin to form a border for...these things need a lot more
studying but I think the essence of this idea is that the connect, the way the green areas connect. Both the
large green area out front as well as the way we think into the smaller sort of plaza if you will between
city hall and the library. Service comes in off of, I think we talked about, the floor service still comes in
off of here and brings materials and so forth to the library at that point. We're trying to create an entry
that's really quite visible from both parking lots so as you pull into the lots, it's evident where the front
door of the library is, which is an important idea. Again I think the idea with the library, the design of
the library, the plan of the library is nothing that's cut in stone but it really is a tool right now to help
everybody understand sort of as we said, the key strategies... I think the last piece we have here, actually
that fits just fine. Is a sketch of the building and it's a very rapid, free hand sketch that sort of gives us
some ideas about how some of the massing might break down. Some of the issues that we're concerned
about in terms of pieces and parts to the library. Things that might be lower. Things that might be taller.
Responding to entryways. Responding to views. We've got for example you can see the back area here
would be the ramp connection. Get a glimpse of the stairs coming from the ramp and crossing the entry
of the library. City hall over on this side. Creating some kind of arc here that might be a background or
might be a framework if you will for the flower garden .... coming across here, tree lined. This could be
an opportunity for a reading room for the children's area. The meeting room would be designated with a
higher mass out along this connection, so again very visible as well. The area along West 78th has a
series of different pieces to it. A reading room probably with a fireplace in it. Periodicals, an outdoor
plaza, reading area that's visible from 78th. Again the idea of seeing more activity in the library on a lot
38
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
of different levels. Not only just in the windows but actually engaging the street by the opportunity to
bring people out into the plaza. And then more reading rooms, sort of lounge areas if you will. And then
the higher mass in here is probably going to be the lion share of the fiction, non-fiction collection. It still
needs obviously a whole series of additional iterations to it to bring it along. These represent our
thinking at this point. And as we said, the critical thing that we're focused on tonight is our site
strategies. So giving you all that in a nutshell, it's a lot of information. Questions.
Mayor Jansen: We're mainly looking for, as Barry was saying, the conceptual review of the site and how
this is now laid out. Since this is a culmination of all the public hearing information. We've focused on
council input at the meetings that we have had. We're wanting to make sure that this is meeting council
approval before this now continues into Planning Commission for their review and then eventually back
to the public as they're pulling more the components together. So with that, comments please.
Councilman Peterson: You know I think generally it's a tremendous positive movement in my eyes. I
think we addressed the issues that we brought up 2 weeks ago and on the surface I feel 100% better than I
did 2 weeks ago. You know again without really studying it, on the surface I think it looks very good and
meets the things that I had shared 2 weeks ago. The only thing that still is of interest to me that I need
some help understanding is, and you probably have discussed this at the public hearing before but the
outside reading area at one our busier intersections. You know you articulated that there's value in
having people see that, but if I'm out there reading, I wouldn't want to be in the busiest intersection of
the city. I mean the draw is negative to me. I'd much rather have it off to the green where there's peace
and quiet. I mean I go to the library for peace and quiet, not to see cars driving by.
Barry Pettit: I can address that one real quickly. This is a blow-up of that, and again it just shows the
internal organization which is a little bit beyond what we want to talk about tonight but what it does show
is, we also have a coffee area up in here and beginning to develop an outdoor reading area, plaza space
there as well, which addresses a little bit of what you're after because it brings that space internal to the
site as opposed to out here. And I will say that this is still kind of at best an idea. I think the jury' s still
out on if that' s going to work and how that' s going to be used and whether it' s a good way to spend their
resources. So the point's well taken. It's still a little up in the air.
Councilman Peterson: On our drawing the entrance, you know it looks like a series of steps which I
presume are not steps but is that a covered walkway?
Barry Pettit: Right. It would be a logia that again would help gesture to the entries. We fail to see that
from these spots exactly.
Pat Mackey: It's in alignment with some steps down from the ramp.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. In the three dimensional I sensed that so. I genuinely like it.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you for your comments.
Councilman Labatt: I tend to agree with Craig whole-heartedly on this. I think it's a tremendous
improvement. The only thing, I mean I really think that the outdoor reading area, if you can flip that to
the other comer. I think Craig has a point there where I'd rather sit out overlooking the grass area than
that intersection. Other than that I like it, but just flip flop that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Ayotte, anything to add?
39
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: No ma'am.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. I agree with Councilman Peterson. When I saw this configuration, I thought
it was much improved so thank you for taking all of the comments along with the building committee and
the public and everything. You're having to try to bring together into one plan and doing such a nice job
of bringing this together for us so, keep it moving forward.
Barry Pettit: We will.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate all your effort on this, thanks.
Barry Pettit: ...to that point we're excited about it as well. I think one of our assignments as designers is
to take comments and rework them here. We got to sort of take a little turn in direction and improve or
change what we've got and it's just part of the assignment. Part of the use so you get thick skin after a
while and it always seems to come out better at the end anyways.
Mayor Jansen: Great, well this is exciting to see how this has come together so thank you.
Barry Pettit: Thank you.
The City Council took a short break at this point in the meeting.
2001 BUDGET UPDATE/CLARIFICATION.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen and council members.
Mayor Jansen: And thank you for having joined us earlier on that other issue. I appreciate that.
Bruce DeJong: You're welcome. It's been weighing heavily on my mind for the last 4 months or so.
Scott Botcher: He's been crabby.
Bruce DeJong: What you have before you is a recommendation of budget strategies that was updated on
May 9th and really what we took as our charge I guess is to try and get to the $650,000 that we reduced
the levy by last year. And I think we' ve exceeded that somewhat through a combination of revenue
enhancements and expenditure reductions. Cash on cash revenue, or expenditure reductions are probably
going to be someplace in the neighborhood of about $110,000 this year. What we're actually eliminating
from the budget would be the MIS salaries, which is $4,000 for that new position that was in the budget,
$3,000 for election supplies. About $35,000, between 35 and $40,000 for the sealcoating and I'm
guessing this year probably someplace between 20 and $25,000 for eliminating a finance position, which
isn't identified on here but is certainly what we're pursuing. What we've discovered is that we probably
really don't have enough work for another full time position there based on some simplifications that
we've done in some of our procedures, but we are using some of that money to pay for additional
consultant services from our auditors, HLB Tautges-Redpath to help get us through the hump and to
provide some of the services that the position would do as far as report preparation for our annual or
financial report and stuff like that so. I'm not sure exactly where that will shake out but we will be
saving some actual, real dollars out of our budget and it's not just all moving money around. But what
I'd like to have you do is just pass a resolution adopting this or with any modifications that you might
40
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
choose to make so that we can kind of finalize the budget and proceed on with the next item which is
deciding what we're going to actually bond for this year.
Scott Botcher: Now understand that as is the nature of budgets, you may at the end of every budget year
come back and further budget modifications, and I think you all are sophisticated enough, you've been
through this, you understand that but I want to make sure everyone knows that. And really what, and not
to correct Bruce. I don't think we're seeking a formal resolution tonight because obviously we didn't
prepare one, but at least we wanted some, well no we did. No sense in doing that, but we do want some,
the record to indicate on the part of the council some understanding and acceptance of the strategies
included in this.
Mayor Jansen: That we've approved the budget modifications I gather.
Scott Botcher: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any questions for staff?.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: No questions, any discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I spent some, obviously this $200,000 was my bogey last fall and I'think
that although with this revised budget wasn't quite what I was thinking about, I think we've gone a long
· way in that direction. I think that the additional cuts may come from the employee program that we put
in place last time.
Mayor Jansen: The incentive program.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, so I think, I like the intent. We've come a long way inreaching my intent
of that in my motion of last fall so I'm certainly in favor of this and moving ahead.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? I appreciate your bringing this forward and
noting these modifications and then keeping us posted as we progress, probably with our quarterly
financial updates as to where we stand with our revenues and expenses so thank you for pulling this
together. And with that, can I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval that we approve the budget modifications as shown in the attached
document and recommendations dated May 9, 2001.
Mayor Jansen: And a second please.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the budget modifications for
2001as shown in the attachment dated May 9, 2001. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
CALL FOR SALE OF 2001 BONDS.
41
City Council Meeting - May 29~ 2001
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen and council members. What you have in front of you is a
recommendation to bond for approximately $2.6 million right now, with the BC-7 and 8 water and sewer
extension project for a million and a half. The equipment as outlined in the 2001 CIP. The Century
Boulevard for $440,000 and sealcoating of $160,000 as was shown in the CIP. That's $2,580,000 that
we would do right now and then we have proposed postponing the library bonds for issuance later this
year for basically technical reasons. It's not that we think interest rates are going to get any better or,
they can't get much better than right now because they're really low, but we do want to take advantage of
them so that we can provide this in a timely fashion. What happens with the library is that there are some
spend down requirements on projects over $5 million that we have to meet the time lines of spending
down, I believe it's 10% within the first 6 months after the bonds are issued. You have to meet 95%
within the first, or 75% within 18 months and then we have to have it completely spent down within 3
years so in order to do that, given Minnesota construction cycles, we really need to postpone those so we
can actually have something happen within the first 6 months beyond the planning stages that you're
going through right now with your architectural consultants.
Scott Botcher: So we don't need to pay interest on money you haven't borrowed.
Bruce DeJong: That's right.
Councilman Peterson: Or that you don't need.
Scott Botcher: Well I mean you're paying these guys now. You're still cash flowing this.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff? Any discussion? If I could have a motion please.
Resolution $$2001-34: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the
sale of 2001 bonds in the amount of $2,580,000 as outlined in the staff report dated May 7, 2001.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
EVALUATION OF CITY MANAGER PROFILE AND COMMITTEE STRUCTURE.
Mayor Jansen: A couple updates of what Mr. Botcher has included in our packets. That first page is the
ad that is running in the ICMA. The International City Managers Association publication. As well as, is
this the same ad Scott that you submitted then to the League of Minnesota Cities?
Scott Botcher: I've got to confirm that but it's the one I submitted to them. I want to make sure it gets
on.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then the League of Minnesota Cities will also be running this ad.
Councilman Peterson: Do we know when that's going out?
Scott Botcher: No, I need to confirm that.
Councilman Peterson: And this went out when?
Scott Botcher: Last week. Last Thursday I finished it up. I need to confirm what, I mean the big thing
with the League is that the publication date on their magazine, the lead times are frankly terrible.
42
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Councilman Peterson: That was my question...
Mayor Jansen: It will be web site, correct?
Scott Botcher: It's going to be on the web site and to dump it on the web site is really pretty quick but
they have a web master and I need to figure out when that person is actually going to do this.
Councilman Peterson: When do you think it will go in the hands of the people that are potential
applicants?
Scott Botcher: Oh, I'm sorry. June 4th for sure. The ICMA newsletter will be out and so city managers
across the country and internationally will have then this ad. Generally the same thing goes on the web
site in Expedia format sometimes on Wednesdays so it could be there tomorrow. It might be there
Thursday or Friday, if it's not there tomorrow.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Scott Botcher: But Monday for sure. And it's going to be published twice. The 4th and the 18th.
Mayor Jansen: The profile we had talked about having that listed or posted to our web site. Has Karen
had an opportunity to look into that?
Scott Botcher: Nope.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Scott Botcher: Did you, and some of this I just need direction and I assume you want it posted on the
web site. Do you want it internally posted? For internal candidates. I mean the Mayor had mentioned
that. I just want to make sure that that, okay.
Councilman Peterson: Sure, if it's our policy.
Scott Botcher: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, this is the revised version of the profile with everybody's Comments. We got that
complete after the last meeting.
Scott Botcher: Take the word draft off it but yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, we've also then heard back on a couple of the community leaders who have
volunteered to serve on the 4 member committee that we had discussed. One of those individuals is
Kevin McShane of the Chanhassen Bank. And the other individual is Michael Leonard, who has a
dentist office here in town. So those are the two candidates that were brought forward under the
parameters of looking for an active member in the community who's experienced in community activities
and organizations so they' ve got a good feel for the community and our needs. And then with some
human resource skills and management skills applicable to the task, which is of course to act as the
review board of the applications and resumes that we receive, filtering through those, and then making
their recommendations coming up to council. We had discussed having 2 council people serve on that
43
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
committee. We made it as far as, I had in my notes suggesting that Councilman Peterson should be one
of those individuals because of his HR experience. Am I remembering correctly?
Councilman Ayotte: Yep.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So then we just need the second member, and I guess I would appreciate it if
council would leave me involved in the process in that I have already started, of course since we started
talking about trying to move this forward and that we couldn't talk about it at the last meeting, I've
already been contacting mayors that have been going through city manager applications recently, as well
as talking to some of the candidates about the possibility of their putting in applications so I would like to
be the second member of the committee. And having gone through the city manager's search the first
time through 2 years ago, bringing that experience to the committee.
Councilman Peterson: I would agree with that.
Councilman Labatt: Let's hear from Mr. Ayotte...
Councilman Ayotte: Well Councilman Labatt's already got his vote in so I know it can't be him. His
skewed view.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I agree. I mean I'm not, I think it would be.
Mayor Jansen: This is just strictly to go through the applications prior to them coming up and that's the
only function of this committee. There and then citizen groups as we've discussed involved in the whole
interview process.
Councilman Peterson: Bring it from 5Oto 10.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Alright.
Mayor Jansen: Comfortable?
Councilman Ayotte: Not completely but it's the best solution at this point. It can't be me and it can't be
Labatt. Me because my learning curve issue so I think at this point yes. It makes sense.
Mayor Jansen: I appreciate that.
Scott Botcher: For what it's worth, just so you all understand what I think you need to do, have to do
tonight. And some of this is pursuant to a conversation I had with Roger. And the other thing is just for
FYI. The thing you need to do tonight, and I think Linda's getting there is to make sure you identify the
who, primarily in terms of the public membership. You all are elected officials so you're a little bit
different duck than just a regular citizen. When applications come in, they'll be logged by Karen and
stored in a secure place. She has the personnel files anyway for all of us. And I don't even know if I
could tell you where they are all the time, because I just don't have a need to go there but she's got them
locked up. You as elected officials have a right to look at those legally, as long as there's not a quorum
of you around Karen's desk. So if one of you wanted to come in, two of you wanted to come in, you
could do that. Those documents and applications that are submitted are private record. They are exempt
from the public records legislation, until you get to the point where you identify finalists. At that point
then they become public record and then the whole issue of Kevin and Dr. Leonard being involved
44
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
becomes moot but you need to bless this structure and this process because otherwise Kevin and Dr.
Leonard have no right to look at this documents because they're private. And so I think that's just what
Roger's two cents were to me so, just so you know that.
Mayor Jansen: Yep. That was exactly where I was going. And I appreciate your identifying the system
for us within city hall. I know you and I had talked about coming up with that strategy as to how the
applications would be handled. Let's just give the committee a name. City Manager Search Committee.
And so we' 11 need a motion to approve the committee... So if I could have a motion please. To approve
the committee.
Councilman Peterson: Well didn't you just motion?
Mayor Jansen: I don't make the motions. I need a motion to approve the City Manager Search
Committee.
Councilman Ayotte: I make a motion to approve the City Manager Search Committee as was stated by
Mayor Jansen to include 2 citizens and 2 council members to go through the initial evaluation of
applications for submittal to the council.
Mayor Jansen: And a second please.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to form the City Manager Search
Committee to include 2 citizens, Kevin McShane and Dr. Michael Leonard, and 2 council
members, Councilman Peterson and Mayor Jansen, to go through the initial evaluation of
applications for submittal to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: So we'll keep moving forward, accepting the applications and they will be here at city
hall, and I'll notify these two citizens that we appreciate their stepping up to volunteer for this task.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Jansen: Let's open up council discussion for the appointment process for our council member
opening. We' ve got of course a multitude of options that we could address. One of them was brought up
earlier. We could just re-open the whole application process. It was suggested earlier that maybe there's
people who are interested now that weren't previously, and I would throw in vice versa. My other
thought was if we care to confirm the interest of the candidates that we interviewed, and check with those
candidates, see if they are still interested in the seat, we could then schedule a meeting. I'm assuming a
special meeting that we' 11 want to get this accomplished as quickly as possible. And review and vote
again on that list of candidates.
Councilman Ayotte: It's also an option, and I'm going back to Berquist's comments where he had gone
through a wider berth but what's involved in a special election?
Mayor Jansen: Money.
Councilman Ayotte: How much money?
45
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Labatt: There's less than half the term left so you can't do it.
Councilman Ayotte: I can't hear you, what?
Mayor Jansen: That's true.
Councilman Labatt: There's less, it's a 4 year term and there's only 16-18 months left on the term.
Scott Botcher: If it' s less than half the term. If it' s more than half the term you have to have a special
election. If it's less than half a term, you can appoint or you can have an election.
Councilman Ayotte: Or you can what?
Scott Botcher: Or you can have the special election. You can appoint or have the special election if it's
less than half the term.
Mayor Jansen: You're talking about a delay for.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm just, when we said throw out all the options, that is an option. I'm not saying
it's a good, the captain one but in fact given the climate, you know a special election is also something
that can be discussed.
Mayor Jansen: And I would actually add to that, the brutality of the last election, I don't know why we'd
want to put this community through that again. They're going to go through it again in'a year and a half.
Councilman Ayotte: Good point.
Councilman Labatt: Don't want to wear them out.
Councilman Peterson: That speaks to my comment months ago about taking the number two candidate.
That's equally controversial perhaps but somewhat easier.
Councilman Labatt: I'd almost go with candidates, the applicants we interviewed and see who's still
interested in putting themselves up on that pedestal there and seeing if anybody's willing to even do it
anymore. And we've already interviewed them, we know who they are. There's other candidates in that
group that we should take a hard look at.
Mayor Jansen: I actually would favor that same alternative.
Councilman Labatt: First...make sure that someone has a flack jacket they can handle...
Councilman Ayotte: Interview everybody that would, I don't want to make a supposition of anything. If
someone says I'm interested again, I wouldn't want to take the position we already know that person. I
want to interview again. You're not saying don't interview again?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilman Ayotte: I didn't catch it.
46
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
Councilman Labatt: We started with 23, right? Then we whittled it down to.
Mayor Jansen: 7.
Councilman Labatt: 7. Then we got 6 left, right?
Mayor Jansen: Yep. So we have 6 that we interviewed.
Councilman Labatt: Unless you want to start with all 23. I'm fine with that too. Let's start with all 23
and see who's interested again and.
Mayor Jansen: I'd be more comfortable with the 6 because we got it down to 6 that we had at least.
Councilman Ayotte: But what if there's somebody out there that didn't apply before and would apply
now? Are we being, what do you think?
Mayor Jansen: And we don't have to decide tonight. I mean obviously.
Councilman Peterson: I mean clearly people, if we opened it up to the public again, there are new people
that would apply probably. But if we do that we're looking at another month delay probably.
Mayor Jansen: It took us 6 weeks. Yeah, 6 or 7. We appointed the first meeting in February.
Councilman Ayotte: You've got 3 constraints. You've got time, schedule, performance is an issue and
the cost. Well if we're not going to do a special election, there's not a cost so it's just performance and
schedule and I would prefer to look at the spread and see if there's some other folks that might have an
interest, personally. Even though it would take a little bit longer.
Mayor Jansen: So run an ad?
Councilman Ayotte: I'd run an ad.
Councilman Peterson: I'd probably go back to the 23, just to. It's been too long since I've made that
criteria. I may make a different decision today. It's been too long since I remember why I whittled it
down to 7. I mean that's maybe another hour discussion but, at least I can have the opportunity to look at
the applications again.
Councilman Labatt: Then you have 22 in actuality. Start with 22 is our foundation...people that are
qualified.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, then I'm going to complicate it because I guess if we're going to go back I'd be
interested in running the ad and letting people step up because they're interested again.
Councilman Labatt: Why don't we just take a vote and see what we do?
Councilman Ayotte: Could we talk a little bit more? Another part of this is, from my own selfish view
of the world, I'd like, it'd be another kind of look see at the community's view of things to see if we get
some more applicants. Wouldn't it be a message if we got no one but.
47
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: I think the circumstances have changed. I mean people are now seeing the environment
that we're working under, and that's where I'm not even sure that the 7 or the 6 that we came down to are
necessarily as interested, and maybe we have some people that like a good fight and they're going to step
up because now they want to defend the community and they want to get involved and try and straighten
things out that they perceive to be wrong, you know from whatever perspective they' ve coming from but
there may be some people who have maybe been incited into public service. I think it's a different
position today than it was.
Councilman Peterson: That's why I go back to my 21. So I mean, you know I'm not adverse to putting it
out to the public again but it just takes a lot of time and that will put us, that will put us into the city
manager search timeframe too so we' ve got 2 big things happening at once and I'm concerned about that
we'll tax ourselves.
Mayor Jansen: Because we've missed this week's paper.
Councilman Ayotte: We what?
Mayor Jansen: We missed this week's paper so then we're out to next week's paper at the soonest.
We're out to June 7th would be the first ad. I think we advertised it twice.
Councilman Peterson: And we wouldn't necessarily have to do that again. Linda walk me through why
you don't want to go back to the 22 versus you're saying that you'd rather.
Councilman Ayotte: You know the other part of it is, if we did a quick canvas of those 22 or 23 and
found a lot of people said no I don't want to do it. No, I don't want to do it. We may get back to the
point where we have to put an ad out but there's that part of it too so maybe we're being, maybe we
ought to do a look see at the list again. Maybe that's another problem.
Mayor Jansen: Well they can still throw their hats in again too. We edited that first list pretty quick and
it got down to a very distinct, smaller version so if we're saying that we're not necessarily sold on
confirming the top 6 now, then I'm liking the idea of putting it back out there and as we've been sitting
here talking, and I' ve thought about how our circumstances have changed, you might have a different
personality or skill set that's going to be willing and able to want to step into a position like this.
Whereas we may have caused the opposite reaction in some of the people who wanted originally to serve
on the council.
Councilman Peterson: If we got the ad in next week, could we limit the time frame so that they have to
get it back within a week? So we still get a pile of 21 that we could potentially pull from so we're
looking to augment that. So would we have to advertise for 2 weeks in a row and elongate the process.
Mayor Jansen: What if we advertised on the 7th with a deadline for applications being end of business on
the 15th, because then it could still be advertised on the 14th for people who missed it the week before and
they'd just have that next day to get an application in, which would be simple enough.
Councilman Labatt: ...the Villager's going to run an article this week about Kroskin's resignation and
the council's going to decide on what to do. How we're going to handle it so that's actually a week of
free advertising. So if we run our ad next week, on the 7th and you put the deadline to have it on the 13th,
48
City Council Meeting- May 29, 2001
then that means another on the 14th when they deliver packets, we can have this stuff to act on it on the
18th.
Mayor Jansen: There's no council meeting the 18~.
Councilman Labatt: The 22nd?
Mayor Jansen: It's the 25t~.
Councilman Labatt: Well then that gives us a week to read things. Why don't we have a special meeting
on the 25th.
Mayor Jansen: If we're just cutting comers on a couple days, if we put that deadline on the 15th, you've
got that week then to go through them. Or if you want to call a special meeting, that following week
you'd need 3 days, well we could set it up now. And say the 20t~ or the 21st.
Councilman Labatt: ...this week here to, you know we'd have.
Mayor Jansen: All they have to do is copy these. They did this the last time. They just Xeroxed them.
Councilman Labatt: I know, I was here. I know.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, and out them came so.
Councilman Labatt: But the packets usually come out on the 14th so. -
Mayor Jansen: But that's what I'm saying, they special delivered them so that we had them. But that
would give people two opportunities.
Councilman Labatt: I'm just trying to streamline things a little bit but, you know.
Mayor Jansen: I can appreciate that but all I'm suggesting is if we give people enough opportunity, then
we've done an open process. Everybody's had an opportunity to see two ads. And we can still expedite
it then during that next week is all I was suggesting.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I don't think you need to do two ads. I think we'll have front page
placement Thursday.
Councilman Labatt: You don't need to run the ad twice. Trust me, the residents are going to know.
Mayor Jansen: I'm going to jump in and Melissa.
Melissa Gilbert from the Villager gave an update on the newspaper's schedule.
Councilman Peterson: I still don't think we need to run it twice. We're augmenting a group of 22. You
know how much does an ad cost? Is it $200 or like $500? Any idea?
Scott Botcher: I don't know what it is.
49
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Well, I guess I'm just suggesting if we can get that much exposure in a 2 week period and
give everyone a fair opportunity and a shot at it. I mean we're just talking about a day and a couple
hundred dollars so.
Scott Botcher: Probably less than a sewer lateral.
Councilman Peterson: Could we bill this off?
Scott Botcher: Stub, sorry.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so is everyone comfortable with the ad on the 7th, ad on the 14th. Deadline of the
15th, and do you then want a special meeting in the following week to then be able to have, we'd have the
application to then either whittle down and do more interviews, because we're back to that initial
whittling down. And we did that in one night. Everyone took the applications. Came in. We each said
our top 9.
Councilman Peterson: Something like that, right.
Mayor Jansen: And ended up getting down to 7 to interview.
Councilman Peterson: That week I may be out of state. 50/50 chance. For sure the later part of the
week. Probably the first part of the week.
Scott Botcher: Conference call?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I can do that.
Mayor Jansen: Because we could actually do a work session then on Monday the 18th. It's an off council
Monday night. To go through the applications.
Councilman Peterson: So would we contact the 21 or would we presume them to reapply? Got to
address it.
Mayor Jansen: Yep. We could just send them a letter letting them know that it's open again.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. If you want to re-apply notify us.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so if we get together on the 18th and we get it down to 6 applicants, or 8 applicants
and we've got interviews that we need to do, do you want to do them the end of that week in order to
then be able to vote on Monday the 25th. It would mean that Wednesday or Thursday night.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there, again because of.
Mayor Jansen: We're only short a council person then one meeting after this.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there an advantage to having anyone else brought in to the process with us? We
obviously vote through our, us but do we alter the procedure that we employed last time in any way?
Mayor Jansen: It depends on the time commitment you want to make.
50
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Well I'm thinking, pulling in a commissioner or. Scott, is that a bad idea? Good
idea? Is there an advantage to it? Do we have 4?
Scott Botcher: I generally say never abdicate your authority. You've heard that before.
Councilman Ayotte: Beg your pardon?
Scott Botcher: Never abdicate your authority. I mean I think this is, you were elected to these jobs. And
the law's pretty clear on what you can and can't do. If you want to have input from people, then your
constituents will tell you and/or you need to ask your constituents for input.
Councilman Ayotte: Point well taken.
Scott Botcher: So if you Bob want to do that, you can contact Joe Blow and say listen, I'm helping select
some city council member. Do you want a green duck with 3 legs and 2, you know what do you want?
What do you look for and that' s, but I do think if you're going to advertise and interview, all of those
people, however you're going to do it, I agree with Steve. You need to re-establish contact with the 20
some people and then run them through the same process. I would hate to have you identify the 6 people
through a previous interview process and interview some other people and try to blend those, because
that doesn't work too well.
Mayor Jansen: No, we'll send letters.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks. Okay, so are we setting up a second meeting later in that week for potential
interviews because we'd have to have it posted. We wouldn't be able to decide Monday night.
Otherwise they'd just have to be scheduled on Friday.
Councilman Labatt: You're just going to be gone towards the later part of the week.
Councilman Peterson: No, I'm gone the week of the 25th. So I'm open.
Mayor Jansen: The week of the 18th?
Councilman Peterson: I presume that I'm open right now, yeah. I'm on vacation this week so I don't
know what my calendar's going to look like yet.
Councilman Labatt: We don't need to set a date today, do we?
Councilman Peterson: We should.
Mayor Jansen: We should just to make sure we've got it scheduled.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: So 18th, regular work session time. 5:30. That will be to do the initial cut. And review
and cut of the applications. And then if we schedule, is everyone open on Thursday the 21~t at 5:30?
51
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: I've got one okay.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: I'll have to change some plans.
Mayor Jansen: Is it doable? Thank you. So then 5:30 on the 21~t we'll tentatively schedule for
interviews. And we can make that final decision then on the 18th. The deadline for applications will be
June 15th.
Councilman Ayotte: Now I had the 14th and one on the 7th was it?
Mayor Jansen: 7th, yep. Okay, thanks for running through that. I appreciate it. I think we're clear.
Councilman Labatt: I have one more thing under council presentations I want to talk about.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: We got some phone calls about the letter, or the article about the appointment
process in Park and Rec and I just wanted to for point of clarification, and future consideration, I want to
make sure that we stick to one plan or one policy, whatever you want to call it but the fact that the
commission didn't interview the applicants before has...some people so I wanted to discuss it among the
council to see what the process is going to be so that it's consistent with all the commissions.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, we did have a glitch on the, I don't want to place blame but there was no direction
given from council that the commission would not interview the applicants. The discussion that Mr.
Botcher and I had had was that because the Planning Commission process for replacing Councilman
Peterson's position had already started into the old procedures, that we would stay consistent and follow
the procedure throughout all of the commission appointments this year and that council then would need
to have a conversation around changing that procedure if we care to next year. That was the discussion.
There was no direction given from council to change the procedure.
Councilman Ayotte: Let me play it back, make sure I understand. Let's just, from a go forward
standpoint.
Mayor Jansen: We need to review the policy and the procedure and decide as a council how we want to
handle it next year. We don't need to decide anything right now because we're through with that
process.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, but what was the procedure was we should have taken input from the
commission? Recommendations from the commission?
Mayor Jansen: As the Planning Commission had done, they performed an initial round of interviews
with all of the applicants. That did not happen for Parks and Rec.
Councilman Ayotte: And we probably should have but since it's kind of water.
52
City Council Meeting - May 29, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, it wasn't council direction not to.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. But on a go forward we need to establish procedurally what we're going to
do.
Mayor Jansen: Or stay with the old way of doing it. Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: But that's a decision point.
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And when should we be making that?
Mayor Jansen: When we have a full compliment of council people. It's not a pressing issue.
Councilman Ayotte: So when we get the fifth person we'll take care of business.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah. At this point it's not something we'll do again until next April.
Councilman Ayotte: Is that in the form of a resolution?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. So we did not break an ordinance. We did not break any sort of a major issue. It' s
just a resolution. And we technically can do the process however we want to do it. So that's where we
throw it up for discussion. Okay. Anything else?
Scott Botcher: I just had one in the correspondence packet that's been sort of under the radar screen, and
it's been sort of quiet coming in and out. It's the letter from the Avalon Group inviting us, whoever us is,
to an open house regarding the potential construction of a Cub Food Store at 7 and 41. And they have
been in and out of our office for a year plus, give or take, and we obviously have some concerns within
our comprehensive plan about the expansion of commercial at 7 and 41. I know Craig's very familiar
with that, and how we want to make sure that we keep commercial development in our downtown core
and not start stripping out 7 and stripping down 41. Todd and I have had discussions with various
individuals at the Village of Shorewood, but I think that this is one that you should all stay on top of.
And if you know Woody Love and the rest of the folks up there in Shorewood, it would behoove you to
make some contact with them and express concerns, or support} whatever your position is on the Cub
Foods, but I think that I have been privy to see some of the site plans. My gut tells me that it wouldn't
come anywhere close to passing mustard with you or the Planning Commission and that's across the
street so to speak. And the traffic impacts from the traffic generation handbook that we have up in the
planning room will be substantial within your community. I mean it's not just largely handled there. It's
dumped into Chan so please pay attention to that. So, and you could skip a council meeting and go to
this thing I think. Kind of double benefit here.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thanks for bringing that up, appreciate it. Motion to adjourn?
Councilman Labatt: Well no, this is Scott's last meeting.
Mayor Jansen: Oh!
53
City Council Meeting - May 29,2001
Councilman Labatt: Thank you.
Scott Botcher: Thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, thank you.
Scott Botcher: Now we're adjourned.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
54
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15, 2001
Acting Chair Sidney called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, and Craig Claybaugh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak and Deb Kind
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior
Planner; and Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator
Public Present for all items:
Name Address
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 REGARDING LAKESHORE
PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Questions of Lori.
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have some questions. But first of all I really want to commend you about the report -
that you did, the previous one. I really think you did a fantastic job in terms of identifying the problem.
In terms of putting the intent and the goals in place and research and solutions. And I like your
recommendation a lot at that time too. And I do understand to some extent why with the current report
rewording to get rid of the thorn rather than find a better solution. Now it's still, I mean my comments of
the original discussion still apply in that sense. My question specifically to the current recommendation,
current report is there are two questions. When you say it could be leading to a taking or a punitive
thing, that's very legalistic terms. I figure I know where that comes from. If we use your'alternate
solution, that puts a little bit of frame around it. Wouldn't it be up to the way those rules are
implemented and worded with that would determine whether we push them too far that it would become
punitive, that it become a taking? Or if we do this, what do you call an adaptation of the Minnetrista
standard, does that necessarily by the framework it defines lead to this negative outcomes unavoidably?
Haak: The strict legal interpretation of anything of this nature, and I've talked with Roger about it a lot
because after our last discussion I got the feeling that you understood what was going on and wanted to
implement something inbetween. And in the course of my conversations with him it became very
apparent that the only real way to completely eliminate the takings issue is to do what staff is
recommending. Anything other than that, because basically from a legal standpoint you are entitled to a
view or you are entitled only to your lot. And so if you start puffing things more stringent than the DNR
setbacks, you get into that muddy water right away.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Sacchet: Yeah, but there are two aspects. One is the taking or the punitive element, I have a hard time
accepting that that would come from the wording of trying to put more of a framework in place. I mean
that must more come of the way we implement it. That's really my question. I mean if it becomes a
punitive situation, a taking situation, then isn't that because we are implementing it in a very stringent
way? It's not because we're trying to put a framework around it to have something to work with to
balance it out. And then a second point I really think is very important. I think you made that very clear
last time we had this discussion on this topic. We are not interested in the. aspect of view protection. We
are interested in the aspect of balancing the setbacks. I think you have to be very careful because the
view thing is a bad news thing.
Haak: But it may be that way, but that is the origin of the ordinance that exists. I wasn't on staff when
that happened but Kate has informed me and other members have shared with me that that was part of the
concern, and one of the main concerns if I' m not mistaken, with that original ordinance. So while it is
maybe not what this planning commission, and maybe even this council is concerned with, it's definitely
part of the picture.
Sacchet: Of the original picture?
Haak: Right. And I don't necessarily think they're inextricable. I think that they're hand in hand, even
if they're not arm in arm. I think they're somewhat related so.
Sacchet: How about, I saw you kind of jumping there Kate.
Aanenson: Well I agree with Lori. I think that the two are woven together. As far as a view protection,
you could require someone to maintain a certain setback but the neighboring property, if they wanted to
put a boathouse or something down there, still has that right so the two, it becomes onerous to say you
have to setback but now I can go back and do something else to my property. Because thegoal is to meet
the minimum and work with the Person to say, you know this is the neighborhood standard but 75 foot is
the minimum.
Sacchet: How about where the wording per se would lead to the punitive taking type of situations or
versus the implementation of it and maybe you would have that discretion.
Aanenson: ...we're not considering here is you have to look at each lot and topography's also going to
drive a lot of these too. Whether the type of house they want. Some of the lakeshore setbacks. There's
different factors that go into consideration so what we' re looking at is a Perfectly flat lot with a common
lakeshore, you know. The nuances come in when you've got topography and undulating lakeshore. Then
it becomes very complex and it can be very punitive and that'S the problem with the way it's written
now. It doesn't take those into consideration.
Sacchet: I have one more question if I may Madam Chair. One of the reasoning is that having some
restriction or some sort of standard creates more work for everybody.
Aanenson: I wouldn't say it creates more work. It causes ambiguity in the interpretation. That's not the
problem. We want to be clear that we're interpreting the same way and treating people the same. It's not
a work issue. It's just to be clear that everyone's being treated the same.
Sacchet: Now the reason in the summary, it's difficult to administer. It may infringe on property
owners, but the third point I have a question about usually there's cooperation and people cooperate and
Planning Commission Meeting- May 15, 2001
work together which is certainly the best situation. And so in that case you don't need anything. I totally
agree but what do we do if they don't cooperate? Isn't that when we need a rule? I mean shouldn't we
have a rule for when people don't cooperate? Isn't that part of our responsibility?
Haak: Well that gets into basically what your decision is as a planning commission. Do you think you
need a rule for the, you know however many percent who will not cooperate. Do we need to legislate for
that or do we need to make an ordinance for that? And that's something that from a staff perspective
we'd like to be able to work that out between the property owners. Like I said in the report, there's a lot
of times where simple orientation may be making the building face a different direction. Putting some
additional screening, something like that is going to solve some of those problems. Maybe talking about,
a little bit more about maybe home design or something like that. And that won't necessarily fix every
case but I believe it will fix the lion share.
Sacchet: Well that answers my questions, thank you.
Sidney: Other questions of staff?.
Slagle: Yes Madam Chair. If I can ask Lori, when you refer to maybe positioning a house one way or
screening as another option between homeowners or property owners, if the homeowner that perhaps is
inflicting the potential pain on the one who's requesting screening or what not, if they say no. They say
hey, I bought this property. I'm within the DNR setbacks. You know I mean, do we legally have the
right to refuse their request to build a house there? I mean it sounds like a simple question but.
Aanenson: No, if they meet the setbacks.
Slagle: Exactly. So if this, if the suggestion to eliminate are more stringent, whatever the regulations
and we revert back to the DNR, then as much as we might try to resolve it, they do have the right to say
no. You know I'm building my house.
Haak: Bottom line.
Slagle: And I should just throw out that I support that. That approach.
Claybaugh: I have a few questions. One is just to touch on what Uli had stated. I do believe that people
coming in to the city need a starting point, both for the marketing and the feasibility to determine whether
that lot is going to work for a particular buyer. They need someplace to start so I think it's important that
something's in place in it basically defines what's going to work for the city. I agree with, I think that the
DNR restrictions should be stringent enough. I don't know if there's something that, I understand the
blending issue but I think that it just ends up being a very slippery slope.
Sidney: I'd like to open this up to a public hearing. We're not obligated to do so but if anyone would
like to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I guess the question you had raised and I'm not sure
what the answer is. If this originated from the DNR recommended code, then it would be justified I think
to leave it in. And we're not sure, we sent for a copy of the.
Aanenson: I'd be happy to answer that question because I wrote that amendment. It was specific to one
subdivision on Lake Minnewashta. How the ordinance got in place. That's currently in place.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Slagle: Say that again.
Aanenson: The code amendment, the amendment that we're using right now for lakeshore setback, that
you have to average, was written for a specific subdivision that came in on Lake Minnewashta. Was that
your question?
Sacchet: If I may clarify. I think we have a slight misunderstanding. What Mr. Paulsen is asking,
whether this restriction of the blending element actually came from the DNR or not. I believe from the
staff report I understand it does not. It was an addition on top of the DNR framework.
Aanenson: Correct. And that was a city initiated ordinance, right.
Jerry Paulsen: Most of these shoreland codes were modeled after the DNR language anyway, but this is
not you're saying?
Aanenson: Right.
Haak: The shoreland ordinance was approved by the DNR and it does meet it's standards but it's also
more stringent than the DNR standards and this particular, like Kate was saying, this particular portion of
it is nothing that the DNR has.
Aanenson: It was amended after the shoreland regs were adopted.
Jerry Paulsen: So there is a precedent set that there is code that's more stringent than DNR guidelines.
Eden Prairie has higher setbacks. Higher or wider, width lot requirements so this would be falling in that
category I guess. Which is past mustard before but this is whether we want to change it I guess.
Sidney: Other comments from anyone? If not I'll close the public hearing. So we have'time now for a
few more comments from commissioners. Anybody? I guess we made comments already.
Sacchet: I can make more.
Sidney: Okay.
Sacchet: I Personally feel that it's good to go beyond just the DNR minimum restrictions. We do that in
a fair amount of other things in the city. It' s commonly done and I think from an environmental
viewpoint that's a supportable situation. I personally feel pretty strongly that I would like to adopt the
alternative language that you're proposing rather than just make it a free for all. I feel that it is our
responsibility as a city to put these protective elements in place for the case when people don't cooperate.
And I do also believe that when it becomes a negative thing, if punitive or taking issue as it' s called by
the legal framework, then it would be a flaw in our implementation of it and not a flaw in having some
regulation in place. I would consider it a flat not having some regulation in place, but I would want to
make it very clear in how I'd like to pass this on as a recommendation to the council that this is in view
of a setback regulation and not in view of a view protection framework. That's my position on this.
Claybaugh: I guess I have a question then. If it isn't a view issue, what is the driving factor then? With
respect to the setback. As long as you met the environmental requirements of the 75 or 150 foot setback,
and view is not the primary consideration, then what is the mechanism that's driving it?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Sacchet: Are you asking me?
Claybaugh: To exceed the DNR standards. What is the mechanism that, what is the driving force
behind it if you're not citing the view as the primary element?
Sacchet: The view is one of the elements but it's not the driving element. The way I see it, it's the
driving element is to have the neighborhood in a harmonious, homogenous build and not having it very
staggered. As far as where that is reasonable, and I think one of the problems why we had this come in
front of us is the cases where you have them very far set apart, it's not reasonable to try to line them up. I
mean if one is 1,000 feet and the other one is 100 feet, it doesn't make sense to line them up. But if you
have two that are 150 feet, and there comes another one and wants to go 75 feet, I think it would make
sense to ask that to be a little further setback. Not primarily because the view of the neighbors, but of the
appearance of the whole neighborhood.
Claybaugh: I have another question for staff. On all these properties that have gone in in the past before
some of these were implemented, what was the most stringent setback? Was it 150 feet for unsewered
properties?
Haak: It was, for unsewered, yes. It was 150.
Claybaugh: For how far back does that go? As far as you can remember.
Haak: Yeah.
Claybaugh: Okay. I would be willing to support that up to the 150 feet. If someone consciously chose
to move their property back more than 150 feet, then they made that decision at that time. I don't think
other'people should be penalized for blending above and beyond that 150 foot.
Haak: Okay.
Sidney: I'd like to make a few comments. I agree with staff's recommendation. Since I've been on the
Planning Commission we've seen a few of these applications come before us and each is such a unique
situation. It's almost like dealing with a variance and I think it's really difficult in this case. I appreciate
Commissioner Sacchet's idea that we should have a little bit more framework but it's very difficult in all
these unique situations with an undulating shoreline and who knows what houses in different
orientations. If we're starting off with a subdivision and we could plan everything out, it would be fine
but shoreline is a unique situation. And I agree with the idea that it really should be a staff and applicant
and neighbor kind of discussion that you work for the best solution and that way. And I think it would be
very difficult to come up with another setback or similar verbiage to what we have here that we're
considering eliminating. So I do support the elimination of that part of the ordinance. It' s just too hard
to interpret. Really too hard in my view. So any other comments? Okay. Could I have a motion please?
Sacchet: You don't want my motion. My motion's not going to carry.
Claybaugh: Well I can support number 2. Put a maximum of 150 feet. I think when people make the
decision to go beyond that.
Sacchet: Okay, let's try that.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Slagle: Craig, where are you seeing number 2?
Claybaugh: Option number 2, adopt the standards based on Minnetrista.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: There are two options.
Claybaugh: It gives them a little greater latitude. My concern is that it, like I said, if you get people that
are out building back 200-250 feet, and then people that have the option under the DNR standards to go
to 75 feet are, have to blend with that 250 feet, I think the maximum should be what they were originally
held to at 150 feet. At that point that's where the blending ends.
Slagle: Let me ask staff if I may Madam Chair, is that going to be easy to administer?
Aanenson: Herein lies the problem because the problem is, isn't always internal into a subdivision. It's
when you have a new subdivision next to an old subdivision. That's what precipitated this ordinance.
Everybody in the neighborhood adjacent was following the 150-200 plus. Now a piece of property
building next to it, so there they are setting a new neighborhood standard, as LuAnn was saying. Now
it's consistent with that neighborhood but where the two converge is where the rub came about. And
that's what precipitated this discussion. So it isn't always that there's a standard set within that
neighborhood, because you might have a new neighborhood setting a standard. Or someone adding on
later and so there's all kinds of nuances.
Claybaugh: You're talking about a couple different things though. Are we focusing on a transition area
where a specific rub is or are we looking at the global perspective.
Aanenson: This is applied carte blanche is that's what we're trYing to say and it's not a perfect world.
You've got peninsula's. You've got all, and this applies universal application and that's the problem
with it.
Claybaugh: How do you see Option 2?
Aanenson: We said the 75 feet because if we could put in, if your old neighborhood abutting a new, you
know there's just too many variables to put in there.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to follow-up on your idea a little bit Craig. Right now we're saying
with this alternate wording basically that there would be an averaging of the next, of the first out point
structure. So like a line between the structures. Or the average. Can you explain a little bit what that
actually means, an alternate language?
Haak: Sure. For Option 2, the first standard that you would apply would be to draw a line, like we have
in the past, between the rear most points of the existing structures and that the center proposed structure
would have to meet that setback. That line. The lesser of either that line or the mathematical average so
if you get 2 structures that are again 100 and 200 feet apart, then you would add those together. Divide it
by 2 and get 150. In most cases just so the Planning Commission is aware, those end up being really
close to each other in most cases. The thing that I worked with Roger a lot on would be eliminating any
structures that are outside of about 200 feet from the proposed structure because that's where we get into
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
the cases like we had in Minnewashta Landings where you' ve got one that's setback over 1,000 feet and
one that's maybe at 150. And so when we start eliminating those, it brings it closer to the kind of, I'll
call it continuity, even though I' ve been bugged for doing it, that I think the Planning Commission is
looking for.
Sacchet: So to use Craig' s idea, if we would only want to apply that if the structures are not further away
than 150 feet, that's what we're saying.
Claybaugh: If I understood you correctly, at any point in the past if someone came in and wanted to put
up a property on lakeshore property that was unsewered and come within 150 feet, they had that option.
Should they choose to go back further than 250 feet, I think the one constant in this entire discussion is
150 feet and the 75 feet period. The rest of it is you know, that's your moving target so I think if people
make a conscious decision to go outside of that framework, then the blending issue I think they've kind
of forfeited part of that. If somebody decides to build back 300 feet and have a big front yard out to the
lakeshore, that's the benefit to it.
Sacchet: So if I may add to that, to like your point Kate if we have two developments bordering at each
other, and let's say one has 150 and the other one has the 75, that would mean that the house bordering
has to be at 110 or whatever. Would that be a workable solution? Because I think we have a very good
point here.
Claybaugh: I'm interested in the same question. That's what I'm asking. You're a whole lot closer to
make it working in my mind if they're limited to 75 and you're limited...
Aanens0n: Unfortunately we don't have all the examples of the problems with this ordinance in front of
you but there' s instances where you' re forcing someone to go back further than 75-80 feet. Now they
need a variance because they can't push it back further because they've got a wetland behind them or
whatever so.
Claybaugh: Well 80/20. We're not going to cover everything.
Aanenson: Right, exactly.
Claybaugh: Where do we fall with the 80%? I mean what is the best solution that falls? We know
we're not going to cover everything. That's a given.
Haak: The question that I might raise, and I thought about this a little bit because actually Commissioner
Kind came up with a similar solution. And I'll give her credit where credit is due because I've thought
about this because of her prodding, but the question in my mind then becomes do you use the 100. Okay,
you have Lot A that's set back 75 feet. The house is set back 75 feet. You have Lot C that is 500 feet.
And it falls within all the requirements of what we're proposing as far as Minnewashta. Or Minnetrista
goes. My question to you is, do you use the 150 feet as part of the average? So would you add 150 plus
the 75 and then average that? Would you draw a line from the 150 to the 75? Or would you just make
the setback? There was one other scenario. I just see a couple different.
Claybaugh: Well they had 3 different form criteria and you'd exercise all 3 and take, as I understood,
the most stringent of the 3. But I think when you get outside that 150 foot setback then that's where your
multiples get...
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Haak: Actually this, the proposed would be the lesser of, it would have to at minimum meet the DNR
requirements and then it would be the lesser of either the line or the average. Sorry. Just to clarify.
Sacchet: Now what we are trying to propose, and I think if I understand you correctly and I like that idea
is that we would not count something that's further back than 150.
Haak: You wouldn't count it at all.
Sacchet: The maximum is 150.
Claybaugh: Exercise the blending rule beyond 150 feet.
Haak: So you would just match the setback of structure A then?
Claybaugh: If somebody's back further than 150 feet, it's be default. It's 150 feet.
Aanenson: I would say that's, the ones that are beyond t50 are going to be a small percentage. Very
small percentage.
Sacchet: They're the parts that made the problems though.
Aanenson: No. We've got lots that again, when you do the averaging, because of the lakeshore setback,
the way the roads are placed, right. So by taking the 150, yes. You've eliminated some of the problems
but probably...
Claybaugh: Well that's what you'd...I mean we wouldn't want to create more problems but anytime
you start getting out of reasonable boundaries, and like you said, if somebody had the opportunity to
build within 150 feet and they made a conscience decision to build outside of that, that's the decision that
they made. I don't think that the person coming in after the fact to build the property.
Aanenson: Right but that's not the majority of the problems. Right.
Claybaugh: Okay. Could you identify the primary problem that we're after then?
Aanenson: There's undulating lakeshore.
Claybaugh: Okay. Is that the 80% or the 20%?
Aanenson: 80%. 80%. The lake is all, you know you've got different setback. Carver Beach,
completely different setbacks. Minnewashta, the old neighborhoods. Setback 150 plus. And then the
newer developments all meet the 75. Lake Riley, cabins. A lot of the older cabins significantly under 75
feet predominantly.
Claybaugh: Okay, so if we were to focus in on the 80%, one of the criteria we're saying is that it's
undulating shoreline. Okay.
Aanenson: I would say that's the major reason, right.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Claybaugh: So to get to the heart of the matter, like you said, if we can't address all 100%, tell us what
direction we're supposed to be going here.
Aanenson: I think by using the 75 you're getting to the, that was what we'd say would be the, gets us
there.
Claybaugh: ...anything more restrictive.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: Including the blending?
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: That was the concern that I understood down here that if we did that and someone came in
then we'd have no leverage at that point. They can come in, plop in a house at 75 feet and then it's said
and done.
Aanenson: Right, that's the down side of it.
Claybaugh: As long as they can meet the hard cover requirements and the rest of it.
Aanenson: That's correct, that's the down side.
Claybaugh: So then you don't have any leverage in order to blend that with the neighbor or to have that,
if somebody doesn't want to cooperate, like Uli said, you sit down at the table and they say if we're
within our rights to build at 75 feet, you can't address the neighbors concerns. Is that correct? I mean at
that point if you adopt solely the DNR standards, that' s my concern. I mean I believe that there' s a
certain degree of need to be able to sit down with the neighbors and say okay, well you' ve been here.
These are kind of the circumstances. To me it's logical to sit down with somebody can say well, you
know at the time this house was built it could have been built at 150 feet so we can't give you credit
because you went beyond that.
Aanenson: I would say most people that come in today build to the minimum, or pretty close to the
minimum. They may give themselves room for a deck or something but most people, even on a wetland
setback, people are pretty close to the minimum.
Claybaugh: So as I understand it, and I might just have the whole wrong view on it. On one hand we're
trying to put something out there that's a little more predictable. Little less brain damage. Is that?
Haak: I think more fair.
Aanenson: More fair. It's punitive for people that come in. It's very punitive. Can't interpret it. We've
had to issue a lot of variances so we're trying to make, level the playing field.
Claybaugh: Well I guess I agree with Uli then that this is, the ordinance as it sits right now as I read it
is, provides a lot of latitude for the city. I mean that provides a lot of latitude. So I don't know how it
can become punitive without the city having a hand in that. Is that an accurate statement or am I?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Aanenson: Are you talking about the language when a structure exists on either side?
Claybaugh: Well the current ordinance as you said is, it' s lengthy and it provides a lot of different
scenarios.
Aanenson: Well the only thing we'd be taking out would be the one sentence that we're considering
striking out and that's the interpretation question. The city attorney said that's a little bit ambiguous and
that's what, the part that's struck out that says when a structure exists on either side, the setback of a
proposed structure shall be greater of the distance. That's on page 5. That's the ambiguity that we're
trying to clarify. So if you want to put some other language in there.
Haak: And that's what the Minnetrista would be in addition to what exists under the table there on page
5.
Claybaugh: So I better understand, somebody drafted Option number 2. What were you thinking when
you drafted it? What were you trying to accomplish? What were you throwing at us?
Haak: Basically taking from what I gleaned at the last Planning Commission, I understood that the
Planning Commission was still interested in some sort of a blending. What I was trying to do was
basically put a framework around it. Try to make something that staff could work with.
Sacchet: Did you get legal feedback for that?
Haak: Yes. On the Minnetrista ordinance, the variation.
Sacchet: The new version, yes.
Haak: He and I worked very closely on that. It actually went back and forth as far as words were
concerned, back word smithing so, if the Planning Commission does adopt something, that's why I
provided it because that's the direct you were going at the last meeting. And I knew that my
recommendation wasn't very popular and I wanted to make sure that I provided you with something so
we weren't starting from ground zero because we had had some, I've worked on this a lot and wanted to
present something that was an option.
Slagle: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff. And I think maybe LOri you addressed it but just want
to be clear. Has the city attorney conveyed to you or to Kate or staff that the blending ordinance is
legally, I mean can we legally succeed.
Claybaugh: To legally enforce that.
Slagle: Yes, because if the answer is no then I think we're spinning our wheels and the answer is the
DNR setbacks period.
Claybaugh: Right, I agree with that.
Slagle: So I mean I don't want to be voting for Option 2 if the first time it comes up someone hires an
attorney and they come in and say you know what, this isn't.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Haak: I, and Roger and I have had that discussion and it goes back to the first conversation that we had
about when we were talking about view protection more. I hate to bring it up because Uli's giving me
the look.
Slagle: And I understand from an environmental concern the desire for that.
Haak: Certainly.
Slagle: But I've got to tell you, if I don't see something from the attorney saying that this is indeed
enforceable, then I don't want to vote on anything.
Claybaugh: Well I'll back up, I'll go one further. I would expect that it wouldn't be put in front of us
as an option if it wasn't enforceable. Okay, so let's deal with that one first.
Haak: My question to Roger was, and I asked him point blank. I said can we have something on the
books, are people entitled to more than, and again we were talking about view so are people entitled to
more view than what is in front of their lot. His answer was no. But people regulate things like this all
the time. So it's not that well, legally it wouldn't stand I don't, I believe without being an attorney
myself, from the perspective I got from him.
Claybaugh: Well that's why we have a city attorney, and we're asking what the city attorney, his
opinion is on that. Or her opinion is I don't know.
Haak: My understanding is that we can try to do what we want, but whether or not it ends up in court is a .
different story.
Claybaugh: Well getting back to the question of fairness then, I mean I just brought up that it was more
predictable and the rest and your response was that something more fair. So what you're telling me- is
that we're bringing something up that, it doesn't sound terribly fair if it's not enforceable under the law.
Haak: Well when we were talking about fairness we were talking about the 75 foot, the DNR
requirements. So that is, I mean it's across the board.
Claybaugh: So we're going outside legal boundaries to be fair?
Aanenson: I would prefer we frame this discussion area. Our recommendation is what the city attorney
says is people are allowed the 75 feet. You've asked for some other options. You can recommend
whatever you choose to the city council. We've given you some other options. If you feel strongly that
way and you want to recommend something to city council, I'm confident the city council on the advice
of the city attorney will make a good recommendation. If that makes sense.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, if I may jump into this. Actually the aspect that the blending ordinance, as a
blending ordinance would not be enforceable legally is one thing that Commissioner Kind and I brought
back from our government training pointing out that a blending ordinance, and then we get to this later
tonight. And like it is in the other agenda item, would be most likely contrary to the uniformity law.
Would probably not stand up in court. Because it's not treating everybody the same. Now I'm not
lawyer but using my common sense I would take the position that what we're, if we adopt this language,
we are not violating the uniformity law in the sense that we're not treating everybody the same way.
We're trying to bring it between how people have been treated in one point and how they're treated now
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
with the setback situation, with the sewer situation. Because in the past people were treated that they had
to be back the 150 feet and now the minimum setback from the DNR that we have as an ordinance in the
city is 75 feet. So I've been saying is that when two areas like that come together, that we're trying to
have a little bit of a mitigation because we could say we're not treating the ones that were there before
the same as we're treating the new ones. So I really personally don't see a conflict of the uniformity
aspect. I think we're trying to put something in place that depending how it's implemented by the city,
we would have a little bit of a handle if somebody is not cooperating, which is very minimal. I mean if
we say we only apply this in a setback with a maximum that can be counted into this calculation is 150
feet, then we can very well justify where 150 feet comes from, we're not trying to treat people
differently. We're trying to find a balance between the different treatments and different points of time.
Aanenson: I just want to clarify one thing. The DNR standards didn't change. The city, whether you
had sewer or not sewer is what changed so it wasn't the ordinance. That ordinance. It was the fact
whether or not you had a septic system or you had a sewer system.
Sacchet: The framework.
Aanenson: Right, so and the time period°
Sacchet: Couldn't we then say that we're punitive to the people that build without sewer? Because all of
a sudden they have somebody have...
Slagle: Well I wouldn't say we.
Sacchet: No but the city, the framework, right. I mean it could really go both ways. I don't want to
argue that point too much but I still feel that we should give this a shot. With the addition that the
maximum countable would be 150. I think that to me puts it into the balanced framework.
Slagle: If it would help the group in it's thinking currently, I would not be in favor of any blending at
this point. Listening to what I have heard regarding staff and issues and unique issues and, I mean it just-
seems even with 150 yoU're going to have people applying for "hardship" and pros and cons and so I just
want you to know that right now I'm personally not in favor of any blending.
Sidney: I guess I'd kind of like to bring this to some motion here because it sounds like we're more in an
open discussion mode right now. So I guess I'm wondering about how we might proceed, a question for
you Kate.
Claybaugh: I'm sorry, go ahead and finish your question. I have a question when you're done.
Sidney: I guess my thought is, what's before us is that you're uncomfortable and we don't feel
comfortable with this current language.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sidney: And my feeling is that we could act on this and eliminate that.
Aanenson: Correct. And so we've given you some options and whatever options you feel strongly about
with an intent, we'll pass those on to the City Council.
12
Planning Commission Meeting- May 15, 2001
Sidney: Yeah. And I guess the question is if we should look at your recommendation to, and then do we
need to substitute language right now?
Aanenson: Sure. You can amend any of these in any way you see fit. That's fine.
Sidney: At this point or some other point?
Aanenson: Sure. No, right now. I mean if you wanted to make a motion and send it up, sure. Any one
of these you want to modify, that's fine and then make that, whoever makes the motion, sure.
Sidney: Well, I'm wondering if we're moving toward tabling this for.
Claybaugh: No...I'm still, there's got to be a piece that I'm missing here. With the DNR standards, if
we eliminate the current standards then we just adopt the DNR standards, is that accurate?
Aanenson: Correct.
Haak: We have, except we have those standards in place now so it's basically just eliminated in this one
sentence.
Claybaugh: Okay. And the origin for that one sentence was for a specific subdivision?
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. And you were trying to accomplish exactly what at that time?
Aanenson: The circumstance would give us a significant setback in the unsewered area adjacent to a
subdivision that was sewered. Different standards in place and the intent was to.
Claybaugh: So if that comes along in the future and we did both to just eliminate the current standards
and adopt the DNR, how are you going to address that situation in the future is my question. That's the
one piece that I'm missing.
Aanenson: Right, and we've said that before. That's the down side, that's correct.
Slagle: It'd be at 75 feet?
Aanenson: Right.
Claybaugh: And at that point you don't have any latitude to sit down with the perspective buyer and the
existing homeowner and say can you do this, this and this and attempt some of those minor blending
things. That's my only concern is that there's nothing in place then, not that you're trying to put too
much in place. What are your concerns about that? I'm gathering from your recommendation that's the
lesser of the evils.
Aanenson: Right, because every one of these now we sit down with. Every one of them. It is very
difficult to interpret and it's, people have to get surveys. It's onerous. There is a down side in some, it's
going to, but that goes back to what are you entitled to and that's the discussion so.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Slagle: And then if I can Madam Chair. My concern is that you sit down and even if you passed Option
2, we still don't know officially if it's legally enforceable and I think that's just a waste of your time and
the applicant's time if it isn't or is, I'd rather just leave it at the DNR and everybody knows what it is and
unfortunately for those, and believe me with sympathy, that have lots that are from the 150 feet.
Claybaugh: How long ago did we go beyond the DNR standards? When was that done?
Haak: I believe that was done in '95 or 6, yeah.
Claybaugh-. Okay. Beyond the situation that we identified, how prevalent is it where you've had to go
through this exercise with.
Aanenson: Every lakeshore lot we spend time on those, yeah. Finding out the adjoining properties. It's
a requirement. You have to survey the adjoining property. See where they're setting back. If they don't
have a file, a survey lot. Some of the other areas don't have a lot survey. Let me go back to what LuAnn
was saying. Whatever you want to recommend forward to the city council, that's your discretion. If you
feel comfortable doing that.
Sidney: If we want to do what's recommended, that's.
Sacchet: May I make a motion?
Sidney: Yes please.
Sacchet: I like to make the motion that we adopt Option 2 witha new version of the third paragraph. I'd
like to replace the third paragraph that should read something to the effect, the maximum setback used
for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet.
Haak: Okay, sojust to clarify your intent. It would be, if you have one structure that's set back 100 feet
on one side. On the opposite side you have one that's set 300 feet back. You would draw the line or do
the average between the 150 and the 100.
Sacchet: Correct.
Haak: Or do the mathematical.average so you'd end up with 125, whichever is less onerous at that point.
Sacchet: Exactly. Now the one thing I'm not sure is whether we want to say one more thing about
undulating shoreline because that seems to be the stumbling block.
Haak: I actually think that drawing a line does a real good job in those instances.
Sacchet: It works pretty well for that?
Haak: I think that if we.
Sacchet: Looking at the examples, I really only saw one case where that undulating thing could get into
problem which is on the first example where you have that thing, that protrusion out into the lake.
Aanenson: Yes, like a peninsula.
14
Planning Commission Meeting- May 15, 2001
Sacchet: Yeah, if you have like a peninsula that holds like one house or so, then you run into problems.
That's one in all these examples.
Haak: And to be quite honest, that's one they needed a variance anyway I believe so you still will see
variances with something like this. I'm sure you'd still see it with 75 feet because that same example,
most of those houses are set at 65 feet, or 60 feet, so if they even come in again, you're going to be
looking at those anyway.
Claybaugh: Can I ask a question? Does that help you at all?
Haak: It certainly, coming from the perspective of the existing ordinance, we don't have a framework.
We don't have a defined method for calculating the average setback. The two that I've provided you
with are the ones that staff has traditionally used but they really hold no specific standing because it's not
described in the ordinance so certainly this gives us more structure as far as that's concerned.
Sidney: I'd like to request that you state where you found in the report and the page.
Sacchet: Alright, let me be very specific. In the current report from May 7m, on page 4 there is an
alternate language proposed to replace the language that we want to strike out of the ordinance, which is
the element that's more restrictive to the DNR. And it reads no structure shall be located closer to the
ordinary high water mark than the setback in the above table, which is the DNR. Additionally, any
structure, unless otherwise permitted by this article, shall exceed the lesser of the following two setbacks:
(a) A line which is drawn between principle structures on the riparian lots on either side of the proposed
structure at the forward most protrusion towards the water, or (b) The average setback of the principal '
structures from the ordinary high water mark on the lots on either side of the proposed structure. For
purposes of calculating the average, begin measuring at the forward most protrusion towards the water.
It's my understanding that basically documents what staff has done without it being in an ordinance.
Then the proposed language goes on defining what a protrusion is. Protrusion shall include any part of
the principal structure such as decks, part of the dwelling unit, porches, etc. Protrusion shall not include
slabs, detached buildings, detached garages, etc. I understand that's all being worked with the lawyer.
Now the third part here that defines when subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply, I'm replacing with the
wording, the maximum setback used for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet. With the
intent that that was the setback that was originally in place and I think that would solve certainly the
problems that were mentioned that I'm aware of that this ran in in the past. That's what I'm making a
motion for.
Sidney: Okay, is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second the motion.
Sidney: Okay it's been moved and seconded.
Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
amending Section 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure to include the following
language:
No structure shall be located closer to the ordinary high water mark than the setback in the above table,
which is the DNR. Additionally, any structure, unless otherwise permitted by this article, shall exceed
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
the lesser of the following two setbacks: (a) A line which is drawn between principle structures on the
riparian lots on either side of the proposed structure at the forward most protrusion towards the water, or
(b) The average setback of the principal structures from the ordinary high water mark on the lots on
either side of the proposed structure. For purposes of calculating the average, begin measuring at the
forward most protrusion towards the water.
Protrusion shall include any part of the principal structure such as decks, part of the dwelling unit,
porches, etc. Protrusion shall not include slabs, detached buildings, detached garages, etc.
The maximum setback used for calculating subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet.
All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Sidney: Okay, the motion does carry and will go onto city council, and what date would that be?
Aanenson: June 11th.
Sidney: Okay. And nay because? I guess we traditionally had commissioners explain.
Slagle: Well I think the nay is just because I think the blending issue is difficult, although I think
intended well. Well intended but I think it's difficult to uphold and I just don't think I want to be
encourage those kind of gray areas if you will. That' s about it.
Sidney: Thank you.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 18 AND 20, REGARDING THE
USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAG LOTS.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Okay, so no motion is required.
Aanenson: No, we are meeting with the city attorney. Sharmin has spent hours on this. It's a huge
undertaking. Because it's not only these two sections of the code, it also, if it's in the nuisance
ordinance, what's the definition of street there whatever we do here so it is a huge undertaking and we
don't want to cause more ambiguity so we're taking our time and making sure that we're proceeding in
the right direction with the advice of the city attorney.
Sidney: Questions of staff.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I basically have two questions. First of all I think you're doing a fantastic
job. My two questions, one question. We started this, I mean this is 1, 2, 3, 4, the fifth or sixth report
that's coming our way for this. And last time we looked at your proposed ordinance amendment and then
we found two things. We found we wanted to say something in the intent type thing, and there is a place
in the ordinance. 18-75, number 6 where you put that in. Also that would be specific building
orientation increased setbacks could be requested in that framework. My first question, which is the
smaller one is, is that just relating to the private street or also the flag lot or is the flag lot automatically
have the private street?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
AI-Jaff: Both.
Sacchet: It does relate to both? Because my interest is more the flag lot at this point than private street.
Aanenson: The problem is they are so woven together, we can't separate the two. That's been the
problem with this. So we need to get the clarity on the street. Actually we're calling it now right-of-way
as a definition and get that clarified first so you can see clearly the flag lot issue.
Sacchet: Okay. That leads to my second question which is a little bigger. I don't mean to get impatient
with this but ! liked ordinance recommendation that was coming in last time, and the only thing that I was
missing was that little addition in setting the framework of what could be required in the context of the
flag lot. Now, and I brought up that question last time and I still feel the same way. Why do we have to
have the term definition linked in with this ordinance? Why can't we put this flag lot ordinance in place
and as flag lots come up, we have the framework to deal with it. We can tell them it needs a little bit of
variance framework and then a separate effort, we work with the term thing which is a very big one. Can
we separate those two out? Move forward with the ordinance amendment and then work out the
terminology? Do you see a reason why we shouldn't do that? Separate those two.
Aanenson: Well staff doesn't have a problem with that but.
Sacchet: Staff has no, okay. That answers that.
Aanenson: But we have been challenged on that. That very issue.
Sacchet: I know.
Aanenson: And we want to make sure that it's clear because we will be challenged on it....
Sacchet: Okay, you answered my question, thank you.
Aanenson: Yep, and so we have to clarify that.
Sidney: Other questions?
Claybaugh: No. That answered my questions.
Sidney: I would like to open this up to a public hearing fo~ comment. Anyone wishing to address the
commission, please come forward and state your name and address.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I'd like to give you a handout here, and I apologize for
not getting it to you sooner but you could consider... What it does is supplement the search for the terms
that are under discussion here. Private drive, the private street, the right-of-way and easement and so
forth. To help you narrow it down a little bit. Generally speaking there are at least 3 instances of private
driveways still remaining in the code, which I think were intended to be stripped and changed from the
code to modify those terms to private street in the past. And they were not done that way and that's what
I think led to an ambiguity in the Igel issue that, that was part of the issue in interpreting the code. Those
three instances are in 18-57 and then 20-615 if you want to look at those. Generally speaking, from the
standpoint of a citizen, I guess private streets I think should be avoided if you can. Especially in an RSF
district. They're probably just fine in PUD where you need narrower streets, perhaps in less area devoted
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
to a street. But in an RSF it kind of, there's certainly an advantage to the developer who comes in. He
can make, more use and end up with more property considering the less restrictions put on him because
of the private street issue. The little research that we've done shows that a lot of the surrounding cities,
either don't allow private streets or else try to discourage them. And that includes Eden Prairie and
Chaska. Or Eden Prairie, Shakopee, and...better if you don't have a loose restrictions. If you loosen up
the restriction on private streets it's going to lead to more problems I think, especially in residential
areas. Thank you.
Sidney: Thank you. Do you have a copy for staff as well?
Jerry Paulsen: Yes.
Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Please come forward and state
your name and address.
Janet Paulsen: My name's Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I think as I stated before private
streets are my nemesis. So what's the deal? Is it a private street or private drive? You're talking about
private streets in the report and then in options 1, 2 and 3 they're talking about private driveways. No
wonder the citizens are confused. I think the planning department is confused. These terms private
street, private driveway are not defined in code, only appear in Chapter 16 and Chapter 20 and staff
makes use of them. These two terms are actually remnants of the original private driveway ordinance of
1990. It was changed to private street in 1994. And we've documented this by searching the private
drive files and the glitch ordinance file. You have another problem with 18-60 which says all lots shall
abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning
ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot. It doesn't say anything about a private driveway abutting, so
what are you going to do with that? That was the issue that caused us such trouble in the Igel
development. Chaska and Eden Prairie-and Shakopee do not permit private streets, nor does Minnetonka.
Minnetonka has a private driveway-ordinance connected with their flag lot ordinance. That's all I have
to say.
SidneY: Thank you. Anyone else? Please come forward, state your name and address.
Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name is Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. And I apologize that I'm
not very well prepared tonight. I had to go through my old paperwork quickly because I've been
traveling for over a week, so bear with me okay. I have a memo. I don't have a copy of it but I can get it
to you, from a former city councilman. His name was Bill Boyt, and Bill was on the council and he had
been on the planning commission before he served on the council when in 1990 the private street issue
was adopted. And what I'd like to read to you is his fax to me, because I think it drives at the intent of
the ordinance.
Slagle: If I can ask, the letter was from him to you regarding questions that you had or?
Debbie Lloyd: Right.
Slagle: I'm just trying to get the context.
Debbie Lloyd: Because when we were looking into this, trying to understand the code relative to this
Igel subdivision, Jan, Jerry and I researched. Spent many hours. Staff can attest to this I think, asking for
files. Reading back history. Council minutes, Planning Commission minutes and the research led us to
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
the State of Minnesota led us to former council members and we produced a lot of documentation
relative to it that I think is really valuable information if you want to know what the intent was. How it's
developed over time, etc.
Slagle: Okay, but if I can be sure. His letter or memo to you was that an official position of the city or
his own personal views?
Debbie Lloyd: If you allow me to read it you'll see that he.
Slagle: I just want to make sure I understand.
Debbie Lloyd: He clarifies it in his letter.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough.
Debbie Lloyd: I've been asked to provide some background on the thinking involved in the 1990
revision and development of the city' s ordinance on private streets. A review of the minutes would show
that I felt strongly about this issue. Although I may have been leading the charge, I think I can speak for
the consensus thinking of the council as the ordinance was' adopted. We were trying to balance the long
term interest of the city with the reasonable desire of property owners to develop the economic value of
their property. I believe the council was concerned about protecting the city's ability to support future
development by providing space or a transition from private streets to public streets providing room for
related utilities, and protecting the lot size and characteristics of future development within the city.
Related to these goals, the frontage requirements were intended to provide both reasonable access and to
avoid undersized or unusually shaped lot design.. We recognize that individual property owners did not
always approach the development of their land with the long term interest of the city or their immediate
neighbors in mind. While the ordinance was intended to help people develop their property it was also
intended to create a consistent standard that would serve to protect the interest of both the city, those ~ -
living in the area of the development and future owners of the property. It has always been my belief that'
granting a variance essentially amends the ordinance. So that's just some basic stuff. Okay, I'm getting
nervous, and I shouldn't be. I've been up here so many times.
Sacchet: You're doing fine.
Debbie Lloyd: I think it's the fatigue. Okay. So in 1990 this private street ordinance was adopted. In
1995 a revision was made to the reading of the ordinance. Actually I'm sorry, Section 18-60 Lots read,
prior to June of 1995 it read, all lots shall abut their full required minimum frontage on a publicly
dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance, or on a private drive. But then the code was
changed because private drive was not construed to be public. So the changes made to the ordinance 18~
60, if you look in your books, it will now read a lot shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on
a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance, or on a private street or a flag lot which
will have a minimum of 30 feet of frontage. So there' s 3 options when you subdivide. So if you have a
piece of land and you want to subdivide it you have to have the full requirement on a street, the full
minimum 90 feet, or it can be a flag lot where this lot would have let's 90 feet. This lot needs 30 feet, so
this is the flag. Or if you have an upper and lower lot, by code one of the lots would have to have, it
could be a flag I guess, but let's say another lot had 90 feet. In order to get down here you'd have to have
a private street. That private street you have in the code is called a private street easement. It's 30 feet
wide. For safety reasons there must be a turn around and all that. Not just the common portion of
another drive, but because of the language it must abut, the private street must abut the other parcel.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
That's how the code reads. I don't know if I have explained it thoroughly enough but, what you can get
into, I mean you're chopping up parcels. Delivering many of these packets over the past year to various
council members, Mark Senn for example has a private drive into his property. He has signage that says
private drive. It's a nice access to one home. It's kind of a horseshoe shaped deal. It has, it's width is
probably is probably self governed as a driveway. Nancy Mancino had, our former mayor, had what was
approved as a driveway prior to, which is not what is in code now. Her property is in back of another
parcel and they have a very thin, like 10 foot entry through the neighbor's piece. Now their land happens
to have no trees or anything, like in the way for emergency vehicles, but you know again the intent was to
provide safe in and out to whatever parcel is adjacent to it. The whole reason for a private street was to
get access to some of these parcels maybe that were large. My concern is partly based on the shoreline
regulation, most of these parcels are around our shoreland and I think it's important that we recognize
that if we allow this to occur, we should be abiding by the setback ordinance of structures on the lake.
And that's a real simplistic kind of summary of things, but I think there was an intent. I don't think the
intent's been followed. I don't think the intent's been challenged before. I don't know that anyone's
really looked at code and realized there's no such thing as a private drive and that's why we're so careful
about terminology. Please when you review this make sure that there's consistency in this. Because
again the intent was changed and it was changed at the suggestion of Roger Knutson that private drive be
changed to be private street because street is construed to be public. Thanks.
Sacchet: Debbie, if I may ask you a question.
Debbie Lloyd: Sure.
Sacchet: ...wanted to ask you the same question but with you it applies even more. The concerns you're
bringing up in this context, they're related primarily, and that applies to you too. Really primarily relate
to the terminology to definition and how it' s been interpreted from there primarily. Is that one of the key
elements? Basically what I'm trying to get at is the ordinance...
Debbie Lloyd: I think the ordinance.
Sacchet: ...that was brought to us last time at last meeting suggesting we put a variance procedure in
place is really a separate issue. It's actually an element to discourage or have more of a control over
what happens with these type of situations. While then the issues that I hear you bringing up, and I really
appreciate all the tremendous amount of effort, all three of you have put into this. I think you bring out
very valid points. I do believe that those will be addressed certainly much more with this terminology
work that Sharmin, that staff started doing. I don't necessarily see that, actually it seems like the
ordinance that was brought before us last time would actually be a step in the right direction to put more
of a framework around it and then with research and terminology, that these things would then be
addressed further. Is that a correct interpretation in terms of what you found with your research and the
concerns that you are raising here?
Debbie Lloyd: You know I don't know if using a variance procedure for private streets is the way to go.
I don't think that our variance tests are properly applied. I mean it seems like it's sometimes the variance
is granted on a whim and then for others it seems very strictly applied. There's just so much involved
here and a lot, it is all interrelated. I wish I could say these are two separate issues. I just can't. They
are all interwoven. When we go to other cities too to seek what they do, I have concerns. I know we've
talked about Shorewood. I'm in a ladies investment club. I went to a friend of mine's home I had never
been to before in Shorewood and I was just shocked. I mean the standards there are, the old standards.
You know they tear down and they build up very close to the lake. The garages are in back of a little
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
drive. Now yeah, that's the way that area developed but I don't like the idea of going to those types of
communities to develop land that we have not yet, like let's say destroyed in a sense because I mean
some of these old neighborhoods, and I guess we have them in Chanhassen. They have their own
character and that' s fine but I think we have to look to improved standards when we're trying to develop
the land the first time around, and I think we have to look into what neighborhoods are like. The
character of neighborhoods. I mean, but nothing is separate and I think these are all, at least in my
opinion, really related to one another. And I know it would be nice to maybe have that variance deal in
place so at least it gives you a mechanism while you're trying to iron out all the rest of this stuff.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Appreciate it.
Debbie Lloyd: Thank you.
Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to, yes indeed. Address the commission.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen once more. One more comment about private streets in general. And I
think I heard it from Teresa, the City Engineer. When the homeowner's obligated to maintain these
streets because they're private streets, the city relinquishes the maintenance to them, snowplowing, etc.
At some point in the future those streets may become degraded and the homeowners are going to say we
don't want to maintain these anymore. You can have it back city and the city starts from scratch in
essence and instead of maintaining a road continuously, they' 11 end up with a surface that they' 11 have to
repave from scratch.
Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? If not, I'll close the public
hearing and I guess at this point any other comments. This will appear before the Planning Commission
again.
Aanenson: Yes.
sacchet: Well a question though Madam Mayor.
Sidney: Chair.
Sacchet: Madam Chair. Thanks for pointing that out. Eventually I'll catch on. You know personally
after all this discussion and hearing the input, I do believe I'd like to separate the terminology from the
variance amendment that was brought in front of us last time. I think I would be perfectly happy to adopt
the recommendation that was brought to us with that additional rewording that specifies that within this
framework, with the variance framework, we may, the city may request a specific building orientation
and increased setbacks. And I really think it will be good to pass that onto council to put that variance
procedure in place. I think it would be in the interest of the city and of the interest of everybody. I do
believe that the concerns that were brought up last time, and they were more in detail brought up to us,
are really more a terminology thing and I do think that by putting this variance procedure in place, we
would actually accommodate some of the concerns that were brought in front of us in that we have, we
discourage private streets. Right now it' s there. If we have a variance procedure in place, it would at
least be a step towards having more control over it and as such discourage it a little bit. Be able to put at
least some conditions on it with the flag lot situation that we have better protection of the neighborhoods,
of the city and as such I would see that as an improvement of the standards. And obviously we all know
that we have a lot of work to do in terms of getting the standards, terminology ironed out. It is this
element of private street, private driveway, private drive, all these things. It's very intertwined I admit
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
and putting a variance procedure in place with having that little bit convoluted background is not ideal,
but I think it's a step in the right direction and I would, my question is, why couldn't we make a motion
to adapt this variance procedure with this additional wording and ask staff.
Sidney: Tonight.
Sacchet: Tonight. Do that tonight. Pass this tonight so the council can look at it and then staff can keep
pursuing what they called a very large task with lining up all this terminology, and we would not wait.
Putting at least some tools in place to be able to deal with these flag lots, private drive or street or
whatever we call it issues in a better way. So on that basis I would like to make a motion.
Sidney: How does staff feel about that?
Aanenson: We're meeting with the city attorney on Thursday. Again, there's definitions in both of those
and I think we need to be using the same terminology.
Sacchet: Because where you're saying private driveway in that proposed language, you're saying that we
need to clear this up first?
Aanenson: We made an interpretation on, the city attorney did, on the application that brought this into
question. And I think that we need to have clear understanding that we're all talking the same language
and I think by not doing that we're going to have to go back and maybe readjust it so I think it's
premature.
Sacchet: So the proposed ordinance that was brought to us last time was not reviewed by the city
attorney first?
Aanenson: We were giving you options. We could support that but I think to really do justice it would
be best that we had the same understanding of the terms that we're using.
Sidney: And do we have any applications pending or anything in the near future that if we do not act?
Aanenson: We've been talking to people about that, right. We don't have any pending applications.
Sidney: So it's not going to impact anything in the foreseeable future so that waiting may not be a
problem?
Aanenson: Oh, well there's one that's outstanding which we've apprised you before that we approved
with common drive. Right, and that was given, may come back. That was approved with a subdivision a
year or two ago.
Sacchet: But I'd like a little clearer answer still when you brought us the report last time, which was
dated March 28th, you had, you gave us four options and you made the recommendation for one of those
options. And the option you recommended, was that reviewed with the city attorney or not?
Aanenson: He looks at the reports, yes. It was also his recommendation that we look at the definitions.
Sacchet: He was recommending we look at the definitions?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, well then I rest my case then.
Sidney: Meaning?
Sacchet: Meaning, I mean if the city attorney recommends we need to straighten out the terms, we can't
really pass it at this point even though it would have been nice to.
Aanenson: We wouldn't have even put it on tonight but we wanted to show you where we were. Give
you a chance to give us some more direction as we're heading down that path and trying to keep you up
to speed. Otherwise we wouldn't have even put it on because it became a much bigger issue than trying
to.
Sacchet: So I guess there's just one question left. Did you get what you looked for?
Slagle: Probably more.
Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Sidney: Okay. Any other comments at this point? Okay, we'll see this again I'm sure. And let's move
on quickly.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 REGARDING
SUBDIVISION AND STANDARDS IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this issue.
Sidney: Okay, any questions of staff?.
Aanenson: We don't regulate colors of houses in the city. There's a lot of things we don't regulate.
Sacchet: In the report you're pointing out that the character of the neighborhood is a neighborhood thing.
Not so much a city thing and you say that would be best regulated through PUD or restrictive covenants.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Now the PUD would be, really that's only something that would be in place from the very start.
So are covenants for that matter. They' re usually there from the beginning.
Aanenson: You could still put one together if you wanted to create the homeowners association.
Sacchet: Covenants could be added on later on.
Aanengon: Sure.
Sacchet: And need to be maintained, as we know.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
Aanenson: Right. Right.
Sacchet: Because after 30 years they go away otherwise. So I can see how the neighborhood covenant
fits in there. The PUD would only be specific to areas that are developed as a PUD.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay.
Aanenson: What the PUD does do too is it would regulate again further subdividing without going
through the rezoning because you're adding additional lots. And that also, both of those would restrict,
could restrict color, materials, accessory structures, those sort of things.
Sacchet: So in terms of lot size, which is the concern that we got into this with, really from our end
we're saying that the options we have is the PUD or possibly changing the required lot size overall.
Okay, that answers my question.
Aanenson: Yeah, because even within the PUD the single family application you can go as small as 11,
as long as they're averaging, so even within those PUD's there's a big, and that's kind of the character of
that neighborhood. Not ever lot is a cookie cutter and that's kind of added to the ambience of you know
you fit what meets, what you can afford or what your tastes are and people reflect that and what they do
to their home. If they want to add on or move somewhere else, and we want to leave some of that
flexibility in place. And so people like the more restrictive, more controlled neighborhoods, and that's a
choice too.
Sidney: Other questions of staff?
Aanenson: So what we're looking for I guess is, do you want us to investigate? Where do you want us
to go with this? Because we think it doesn't make a lot of sense to continue down the path we're going.
If you want us to go look at it, compare what the minimum lot size and all the areas without.
Sidney: Are you looking for a motion or just direction?
Aanenson: Direction.
Sidney: Okay.
Aanenson: You could give us a motion as a direction too, that's fine.
Sidney: We can try that too. I'd like to open this up to a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the
commission, please come forward and state their name and address. Any takers? Okay, I'll close the
public hearing. Any questions?
Sacchet: ...because I was really pushing for doing something in this context in the past, and then we
found out at this government training session that Commissioner Kind and I went to, that this is only one
place in Edina is such an ordinance and it was pointed out in that training by the lawyer that was doing
part of the training, that we asked him specifically that this type of thing would not hold up in court most
likely. That it's somewhat conflicting with uniformity law, treating everybody the same way. So in view
of that it's a little bit disappointing because I really would have liked to put something in place to better
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
deal with this type of thing when it comes up to us. But from the legal viewpoint, it's not prudent. And I
can accept the notion that neighborhood character is a neighborhood responsibility. That if a
neighborhood is defined as a PUD to start with, then these type of things are put in place and they don't
need to be abided by if there are restrictive covenants to a neighborhood. If the neighborhood wants to
maintain those, they can be maintained in the long term. So really it's not a city issue and I would be
comfortable to whether it's a recommendation or make even a motion that we do nothing at this point
because it doesn't seem like we have a legal foundation to do anything. So do we want to make that a
motion or just a comment?
Aanenson: That'd be fine if you want to make it a motion.
Sidney: Right, and I guess.
Sacchet: But we can take more comments.
Sidney: Yes more comments. I guess I'd have one comment. I think the first sentence in the staff memo
here is really good and we're really talking about aesthetics and not zoning so I think not doing anything
is appropriate response. That's my comment.
Slagle: I would say I just don't know if we need an ordinance. I mean I would just, or an amendment to
our motion to do nothing.
Claybaugh: Sorry, no comment.
Sacchet: To make a motion to do nothing is kind of a funny thing. I mean it's nothing.
Claybaugh: I can see it showing up in the paper so...
Aanenson: Well I guess I would just forward this onto city council that you had considered it and that
you're not going to proceed with it. Just so, that you're going to drop it.
Sidney; Okay. So do you want to make a statement to that effect?
Sacchet: Well I don't think we want a motion to do nothing. That's kind of contradictory but our
recommendation is not to pursue this further.
Claybaugh: Yeah, who needs Dave Letterman huh.
Sidney: Thank you. Okay. So that concludes the old business. Is there any new business on the
horizon?
Aanenson: I'll just cover my items under ongoing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Uli Sacchet noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 1, 2001 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
25
Planning Commission Meeting- May 15, 2001
Aanenson: The City Council meeting last night, there was only 3 council people so the code
amendments that you had recently recommended for approval had to be withheld. You do need 4 votes
for that. They did approve the first phase of Pulte which includes 200 homes. It would be the easterly
side so they should begin MnDot with the road restrictions off, start working out there, and Pulte will
also...can start grading. The council did also approve with that the project, Bluff Creek which we call
definitively BC-7 and 8 which is those two segments which would carry the sewer from Galpin all the
way over to Westwood Church. And there is a hearing coming forward on the Dogwood, another
segment with a possible subdivision at the end of Dogwood. For your edification for the meeting on June
5th, we have 3 items on. Subdivision on Lotus Lake and two site plan reviews for industrial buildings.
And one last item. We do have a new planning commissioner that was appointed last night by the City
Council and that's, if I pronounce his name right, Brian Feik.
Slagle: Brian or Bruce?
Aanenson: Excuse me, Bruce. Thank you.
Sidney: And then you also have the.
Aanenson: Ongoing items, sure. Just kind of let you know where some of the things are. For example
Westwood Church. We asked them to do a traffic study. What the implications would be just coming
off of Dogwood with all that traffic and whether or not we need West 78th. At what point so they will be
doing a traffic study and kind of pushing their time frame back so they will more than likely be in
probably July. Some of the other ones. Presbyterian Homes still in the works. We put spring.
Obviously it will probably be summer on that. Lori is working on the fertilizer ordinance. The city
council did direct her to do a no wake ordinance so she's been taking a lot of high water calls on that. So
that's kind of re-prioritized some of her work load. The design standards, we're still plugging away on.
We saw all those slides...that ordinance out. And I'll update your attendance sheet too accordingly.
Sidney: Okay.
Aanenson: Just to let you, Jay did get reappointed back so he's back on the Park and Rec.
Sidney: And I'm wondering, is there a commission who had attended the city council?
Aanenson: I believe Alison and Deb were there.
Sidney: So we won't have any report tonight on that. Any open discussion items?
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I've got a real brief open discussion item. I went to the next training of the
government training series called Beyond the Basics. And I just thought I'd point out some of the
highlights of that one for everybody's benefit. It was interesting, actually when they started they gave
historic framework where ordinances and planning commission and all that sort of stuff came into place,
and really what originated zoning was the Bubonic Plague. The rats that started the first zoning in the
Middle Ages because if the houses were next to each other back to back and no yard at all, just streets,
apparently that was very conducive to the rats. I didn't know that. And then the first step in, it was in
England to require backyards so that the houses had to have some natural space inbetween them. The
second step of zoning was in the industrial revolution with the smokestacks and all that. So the
residential areas wouldn't be where the air is all polluted. And then the third step that was mentioned
was in the U.S. Constitution, and it was an interesting context. It was kind of new to me is that the
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 2001
element that many of the founding fathers have wrote the constitution were significant landowners. So
besides liberty and all the wonderful things we know so well that speaks important in the Constitution,
equally very important, maybe not equally but certainly also very important was property. Was
ownership and so that was another very important step how zoning was anchored in legally and how the
aspect of due process was put in place. The aspect of due process was elaborated to have two major
aspect. One is the procedural aspect, like having hearings and listening to people and getting all the
input. And then the other aspect is the substance. The content element of due process. That it has to be
fair and it has to be reasonable.
Aanenson: Lakeshore setbacks. Existing neighborhoods.
Sacchet: Then it was very much emphasized that all actions must be related to public health, safety and
welfare. That's really what should be the main driving element in this. That it's for the common good
and that it needs a balance between the common good and the individual rights because on the common
good side you have the police power of the state. On the individual rights, obviously very much founded
in constitution too so we have to balance those two things. And that these have to be stayed focused on
the reasons. That there be reasons for everything. Interesting also was that public opposition is not a
reason to do something with the land use. There has to be a reason, I mean just opposition is not a
reason. Technical points, if somebody make technical points of any sorts, and we don't agree with it, we
have to say that because otherwise it' s kind of implied that we do. So that' s kind of a tricky one. That' s
some of the highlights that came out of that one. Just thought I'll give a little summary. It was very
good. I appreciate having to be able to go to this Kate.
Aanenson: Good.
Sidney: Thank you. Anything else? If not, meeting is adjourned.
Acting Chair Sidney adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
27