1f Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JUNE 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson and
Councilman Ayotte
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, and Bruce DeJong
A. INTRODUCTION TO MUNICIPAL BUDGETING.
Bruce DeJong distributed a handout to the council members entitled, "Guidance regarding Funds and
Budgets". He first went through the different fund types, what they do, and thanked the council for
allowing him to close the fund accounts that weren't being used. Councilman Peterson asked how he
balanced out funds that were closed with negative and positive balances. Bruce DeJong explained that
they mostly balanced each other out.
Mayor Jansen thanked Bruce DeJong for coming in and simplifying the funds and balance sheets of the
city and making it easier for the council to understand. She then explained to the other council members
that there are certain funds that can't be moved around so just because there's money in one fund,
doesn't necessarily mean you can use it in another fund.
Bruce DeJong then went over the budget process and how the tax levy is set. Councilman Ayotte asked
about the utility funds and if those funds covered sewer and water main replacements needed in the
future. Todd Gerhardt explained how the city calculates life expectancy of sewer and water mains.
Mayor Jansen stated that the CIP would cover that construction.
Mayor Jansen asked Todd Gerhardt to share with council the procedure staff follows in preparing the
budget for the upcoming year. Mayor Jansen stated the impacts the results from the community survey
would have in determining the budget for next year. Todd Gerhardt stated the council should have
preliminary frequencies of the survey by the end of July.
Councilman Peterson asked to provide direction to staff early on in the process for what items would be
cut if a reduction were requested. Councilman Ayotte asked that staff look for additional revenue
generators. Mayor Jansen stated she would like to see employees look outside the box when preparing
their budgets.
B. 2001 BOND SALE.
Mark Ruff from Ehlers and Associates was present to discuss the results of the 2001 bond sale. He
handed out a summary of the rating by Standard and Poors and discussed what they liked and disliked
about the City. Standard and Poors gave the City a Positive Outlook with an A- rating. Councilman
Labatt asked Mark Ruff to clarify the rating system and the history of the city' s ratings. Councilman
Peterson asked for clarification on "Reoffering Yields".
Todd Gerhardt explained to the City Council that a press release was being prepared in regards to the
City's bond rating and bond sale results and the good financial condition of the city. Councilman Ayotte
City Council Work Session -June 25, 2001
asked that he call the reporter from the Star Tribune who had written the article on Chanhassen with that
information.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session and the City Council members went to Lake Ann Park for a
dedication of Lion's Club Monument.
The City Council work session was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Ayotte, and
Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Matt Saam, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Loft Haak, Todd
Hoffman, Bruce DeJong and Kelley Janes
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Name Address
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Deb Lloyd
Linda Landsman
Wayne Fransdal
Julianne & Elinor Ortman
David Happe
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7329 Frontier Trail
6200 Murray Hill Road
8698 Chanhassen Hills Drive No.
604 Summerfield Drive
-PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the Acting City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution g2001-38: Award of Bids for Century Boulevard Street & Utility Improvements,
2001 Sealcoating, Projects 97-1C and 01-05.
bo
Approve Consultant Contract for Preparation of Plans & Specifications for Quinn Road
Improvement Project 01-02.
Co
Resolution 92001-39: Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit Request, St. Hubert's Church,
August 17-19, 2001.
d.
Resolution 92001-40: Approval of Gambling Permit Request, Chanhassen American Legion
Post 580, 7995 Great Plains Boulevard.
eo
Approve Amendment to Chapter 12 Concerning On-Street Parking.
Approval of Bills.
g.
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Minutes dated June 11,2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
- Planning Commission Minutes dated June 5, 2001
- Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 22, 2001
h. Resolution//'2001-41: Approval of Resolution Revising Building Permit Fees.
Approval of Request for Fireworks Display Permit, Lake Minnewashta Fireworks Committee,
July 4, 2001.
AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. And I'm
sorry, I ran to get here in time so I'm out of breath.
Mayor Jansen: Take a deep breath.
Debbie Lloyd: First of all I want to thank the city very much. Two weeks ago we had storm damage in
our yard and the whole front of our yard was covered with 8 inch diameter branches, which the city
kindly came and picked up and chopped up into small mulch, and it's a wonderful service the city
provides. And I want to thank you for myself and for other residents because I know they took advantage
of this wonderful service.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you so much for sharing that, and I'm sure that Mr. Gerhardt will be sure that the
staff that are responsible for that are commended. Appreciate your comments.
Debbie Lloyd: Thanks. I know you don't often get kudos and I know it's very important.
Councilman Ayotte: They'll appreciate it.
Debbie Lloyd: The other thing I just wanted to say tonight, there's an issue before you, a development
on Lotus Lake. The development meets all the standards of the code. However, it may be premature.
The planning department, the Planning Commission brought that up in their review of the development.
Premature in that the sewer might not be adequate for the development and there may be increased runoff
because of the slope of the land. So I'd like just to make sure that you pay due diligence to that too.
Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If there' s anyone else who would care to address the council at this time.
Seeing no one, we'll move on to, we have no public hearings.
UPDATE FROM SGT. DAVE POTTS, CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Good evening Mayor, Council members. If you've had a chance to look over the
information in the council packet at least the new standard sheriff' s office area report for May. The area
citation listing. I only have a couple of comments on those. May was kind of a busy month for us. ·
When we look back at just the number of reports officers completed during the month of May, it was a
large stack comparatively so I don't know what to attribute all of that to, but just kind of a busy, a busy
spring so far so we'll see how that goes and how that develops. On the area citation report you'll see a
jump from a typical month and then of course you get into spring when we have our park patrol out there
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
and park patrol typically issues a number of tickets for violations in the parks and what not so you'll see
an increase in the citations there. Also you have the community service officer highlights again this
month. On item number 4, just miscellaneous items of possible interest for the council. Liquor
compliance checks. We've been kind of keeping tabs on where we're going with that and my
understanding is that they have begun the liquor compliance checks throughout the city, and actually
throughout the county. Nowhere near completing those checks but just wanted to let you know that they
are under way in the city of Chanhassen. Item of interest was that Jerry Ruegemer, one of our parks
department supervisors, caught a youth stealing one of the surveillance cameras right here from city hall.
It was kind of an interesting and.
Mayor Jansen: Bold move.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Unique bold kind of a move, yeah. Yeah, caught red handed so he'll have some dues to
pay for that one so. On a sadder note or more serious note, I'm sure you're all familiar with the two
recent drownings over at Lake Ann and my understanding is that Greg Hayes has further details on the
search and that kind of information so I'm not going to go into that, other than to acknowledge that we
did have these two significant events in the city and very unfortunate. A note here of a loose dog
complaint results in a felony arrest. It's interesting how some things turn out. Somebody called in a
complaint of a loose dog near a vehicle in a parking lot. Tums out that that dog owner, that vehicle
owner had an outstanding felony warrant out of Scott County and take a simple little call like that and it
tums into something. Once the individual realized that officers knew he had a warrant, he fled and
alluded officers for a time. I'm not sure exactly how long but they had the canine out searching and kind
of quadrant off the area and did finally locate and apprehend that individual so it' s a unique situation.
Regarding our parks, as you know we try to make a good effort and get to our parks frequently, especially
this time of year when they're under heavy use. After hours, you know we try to watch the issue with the
people visiting the parks after hours, after 10:00 p.m. and a couple of recent incidents, 10 citations were
issued over at Carver Park recently thanks to a neighbor tip that there's some activity going on down
there and we were able to clean that up hopefully with no further problems other than those people being
cited and sent on their way. Same thing up at the skate park here recently. Had 6 youths actually from
outside the city that were using their vehicles to light up the skate park after hours and do their skating
and took care of that matter. Also just wanted to mention that the records division down at the sheriff' s
office is transitioning to their new record system that I've talked to council previously about, so I'm sure
there will be some glitches along the way but we're kind of excited to see the information possibilities
coming our way with this new system and retrieving information. Often times it's been very laborious
when we're asked by one community or another in the council for some type of information to try to
retrieve that so we' re looking for good things to come with the new system so. Pretty brief comments
this evening. Any questions or concerns from the council?
Mayor Jansen: Council, any questions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: No. Thank you for the update. Appreciate it.
Sgt. Dave Potts: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
UPDATE FROM GREG HAYES, CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT.
3
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Greg Hayes: Hi. Well unfortunately at the fire department we've been busy. When we're busy at the
fire department it's usually a bad thing. Our business is better when it's slow. Second week of this
month was extremely busy. As you saw in your council packet, we ran 32 runs in a week. Pretty much
in 5 days. That is, usually we run about 16 a month. Every day during that week we had a major
incident. From a hail storm on Monday to a business fire at Rosemount on Tuesday, which will total
upwards of $400,000 in damage to the building. With the beginning of a dive incident at the Lake Ann,
first incident on that Wednesday which went into Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Thursday and
Friday we put in about 22 hours assisting the sheriff s department in the recovery of the victim. The
victim was found in the water between Greenwood Shores Park and Lake Ann Park. He had been out
fishing. Had lost his bobber. Chased his bobber about 100 feet from where it was last seen fishing and
subsequently went in there. We found him in about 6 to 8 feet of water so we were able to put that
situation to a close and put some closure for the family because there was some questions as to where he
was. Maybe he wasn't in the water, but we were able to mitigate that situation fairly quickly. Assisting
the Carver County Sheriff s Department. We did have Shakopee Fire and Chaska Fire assist us on that
doing some other searches. Water searches and some ground searches also. A week later we got a
second call for the second drowning at Lake Ann. This call came in as CPR in progress on the beach,
which our people started to put 2 and 2 together fairly quickly and realized that this was as a result of a
drowning. What had happened with that individual, they were out swimming. Swimming out to the
platform. About 3/~ of the way out a yell for help and went down. Why that person'went down we do not
know. Hopefully an autopsy will tell us a little bit more. The lifeguards, big credit goes to the
lifeguards. It's one thing being a diver and wearing a mask that you can see underwater and searching in
3 to 4 foot visibility. Kind of closing your eyes and hoping in one to hopefully not come upon somebody,
but one of the lifeguards, I believe it was a female lifeguard, dove down in 11 feet of water without a
mask, 3 to 4 foot visibility and pulled the person out. They had him out of the 'water within, between 5 to
10 minutes which is an extremely quick time from going down to time out. We assisted them in CPR
when we got there. Administered shocks with our AD. Paramedics came in after us. Did their routine
and after about an hour at Waconia Ridgeview they finally had to call it. So two in a week is not
something we look for, but we' ve got, able to mitigate the problems fairly quickly and deal with them.
Kind of last night there was some people saw, if you live anywhere near Powers, we did have a garage
fire last night. That's not in your packet. That family unfortunately moved in on Friday. They had a
garage fire. They were in their house for one day. They will be out for at 5 to 6 months. They were
waiting 9 months to get in it. So I know it was, we must have had at least 300 people watching. We had
people coming from everywhere because it was a beautiful night and you could see it so that's what was
happening down off of Powers Boulevard. But we were able to call in the Red Cross and get shelter for,
it was a duplex and we got shelter for both families. We were able to stop the fire in the garage. The
positive side is we saved everything on the inside of the house. They just have to take it out, clean it and
they have contracted with a company to do that so all their personal belongings will get returned to them
once they've been cleaned up. But that was last night. Hopefully it slows way down and we can be nice
and quiet at the fire station.
Mayor Jansen: Well we'll sure hope so and I'm sure on behalf of the council our condolences go out to
the families of all of these incidents and the drownings in particular. We would like to express our
appreciation to all of the emergency responders and the lifeguards as you mentioned. You know it's
certainly a difficult position that you find yourselves in when you have these tragic events, but the one
thing I think we all have our assurances in is that we do have wonderful emergency personnel looking out
for us, as you know spoken to by Debbie Lloyd when she came up and thanked again our city crews for
coming out and helping to clean up our neighborhoods. We have emergency responders like yourself and
City Council Meeting -June 25, 2001
your team that are certainly looking out for our residents and we want to, on behalf of the council, our
appreciation for your good work.
Greg Hayes: Well thank you and I'I1 pass that along.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions? Comments?
Councilman Ayotte: I do have a question. What do we have in place to respond to the trauma
requirements for those lifeguards as an example?
Greg Hayes: What I did, I got there about 45 minutes into the incident that night so as, I could kind of sit
back and I saw, I watched the lifeguards and there were some issues with lifeguards so I called critical
incident and stress debriefing right away and I linked them up with some people to get them taken care
of. Before they even left the park we already had that underway.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, but that procedure that's because you were there Greg. Do we have
something in place to make sure that we have as a matter of course something in a process so that when
one of our people has to go through a trauma like that, that there' s an automatic opportunity to make sure
they're taken care of?
Greg Hayes: Through our Emergency Management Plan there are some resources in there. They would
just have to get a hold of myself, Mark or actually even the sheriff' s department and they could link them
up with.
Councilman Ayotte: So we do have something in place?
Greg Hayes: Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: And like Greg, our personnel are very sensitive to the victims in these situations as they
were in the burglary that happened earlier this year. at the Legion so it's appreciated that you do look out
for everyone involved so thanks. Thanks for asking the question. Okay, well thank you. Appreciate it.
AWARD OF BIDS: 2001 BOND SALE.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen and council members. Back in May you authorized us to go out for bonds
on four different projects. We have water and sewer bonds for extending the sewer lines out. It seems
like it's on. Is it better?
Mayor Jansen: Okay, yeah. Thanks.
Bruce DeJong: Extending water and sewer lines out to the west along the Highway 5 expansion and up
towards Highway 41 to serve the Pulte project and the Westwood Church. We also have a GO
improvement bond for rebuilding Century Boulevard and for sealcoating streets in various neighborhoods
around town. The third issue is a $515,000 of equipment certificates for capital purchases that you have
programmed in the CIP when you went through the budget last year. And the last is a refunding of some
tax increment bonds that were issued in 1990. I'd like to have Mark Ruff from Ehlers and Associates
step up and he will give you the results of the sale that he conducted today.
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Mark Ruff: Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. Briefly,
explanation of the process that we follow when we work with a client on the sale of bonds. These are all
general obligation bonds and so they have a very broad market and we try to widen that market as much
as possible. We prepare an official statement in combination with staff, which is a document that's
required by the SEC to just give potential investors an idea of what the City of Chanhassen's about.
What are their strengths in terms of population growth, the market value growth, the diversity of
taxpayers, a summary of the financials is also included in the official statement. That's circulated
literally nationwide. We then, with staff, have a conference call with the rating agency. Standard and
Poor's is the rating agency that the city has chosen to use. That conference call took place last Thursday.
Standard and Poor' s did affirm the outstanding city' s rating of an A- with a positive outlook, and what
that positive outlook means is that they've got good confidence that things are going well in the city and
will continue and it's likely within the next year to 2 years, if everything stays stable and increasing as it
has in the past, that that upgrade will be included. A step up from an A- would be, the next step up
would be an A rating. Generally an A rating is a very good rating for a city of your size and in your
growth pattern. It's very similar to other suburbs and is well received by the marketplace as you'll see
from the results of the bond sale. Then at 2:00 today we did take bids on the bond sale, and I have the
results that I'll go through quickly of each of the sales. The first sale, as Bruce mentioned, Series A.
$1,645,000 GO Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds. The City received 5 bids. The winning bid was Nike
Securities out of Illinois with a true interest rate, which is a combination of both the coupons, the interest
rates that they will pay as well as their fees of 4.2091%. Nike has, we give the option to bidders and they
chose to take this option of moving the rating up from an A- up to a AAA by the purchase of private
insurance. That's a relatively cheap purchase for them and also again shows confidence of those private
insurance companies in the City of Chanhassen's finances, either because it's a relatively small insurance
premium of $7,500 for that. And so those bonds will carry a AAA rating. The next bond issue was the
GO Improvement Bonds, $640,000. The winning bid of the 3 bids was Dain Rauscher out of
Minneapolis with a true interest rate of 4.3248%. The third series being the GO Equipment Certificates,
$515,000. The winning bid was U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, together with Wells Fargo of a true interest
rate of 4.0239%. Again the interest rates differ because these bond issues have different terms and so the
longer bond issues typically go the more expensive the interest rates. And so these, the last two that you,
the equipment certificates is a 4 V2 year bond issue as opposed to a 10 year bond issue, or 9 year bond
issue which was the previous one. And the last bond issue, $2,720,000 is a refunding. Much like a
refinancing on a home mortgage. Interest rates have decreased since that sale in 1990. The coupons that
we're looking for, this is only a 2 year maturity. The true interest rate winning bid was 3.5379% again
by U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. The coupons, in other words what people will be getting on interest costs
in 2002 is 2.75% and 3.2% in 2003 so very low interest rates and was able to achieve a savings of about
$67,000 on present value for the city and so very positive all around from that standpoint. And so I think
generally the market' s reacted favorably. You had a good diversity of bidders from all over the nation
and the winning bids was not all just by one firm. It was, out of the 4 bond issues we had 3 different
winning bids and so I think it speaks very well to the city. And one other thing that I'll mention too is, I
had a question raised earlier in terms of in the rating report, which we provided copies to you, there was a
mention of total outstanding debt for all the taxpayers of Chanhassen and it' s important to clarify out of
that there were about $4,400 per person outstanding debt. The city's portion of that only represents 44%
and so you're really under $2,000 per person in outstanding debt and so I think that hopefully answers
the questions that were raised earlier. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions but I think the
motion before you, or the action before you is a resolution approving the 4 bidders of the bonds.
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Two of the other statements that you made earlier that I thought maybe our
residents would appreciate hearing. Part of a hesitation you, and I don't want to put words in your
mouth. If you can repeat what you said to us about the hesitation on Standard and Poor's part in raising
our rating because of the pending legislative issues and what those impacts might be.
Mark Ruff: Yeah, I think in the conference call that Bruce and I held with the rating agency is that they
read the papers just like we do. They read our newspapers and they are aware of what's going on at the
legislature and know that it's going to affect local government funding dramatically by taking the schools
off of the tax rolls and then thereby requiting local governments to increase their amount of tax rate and
their share is going to have some impact and I think that that instability. Any time you have instability it
causes difficulties within the markets and by no means did it affect, I don't think your interest rates
overall. It does affect how the rating agency is going to look on your rating. We do anticipate that,
assuming that we can assure the rating agencies that these are not going to affect the city's financial
conditions, these changes, whatever they may be, we would expect that within the next year you'd be
looking at a good chance for an upgrade in your rating.
Mayor Jansen: Just one of those other issues we don't have any control over in another organization.
Then you also mentioned, and I thought this spoke well of staff and the management that we've had, that
with the continued sound management of the finances and the growth in the community, that they're
seeing that positive outlook.
Mark Ruff: Yeah, it's not all just numbers for these folks at the rating agencies. They want to hear about
what your plans are and how well you stick with your plans and I think they applauded the staff and the
council on the fact that you' ve talked about managing growth without high levels of debt and that's been
materializing over the last 3 to 4 years and that you really have lowered the amount of debt that's been
outstanding. And as well as they want to know that, who are the people behind these numbers and these
discussions on these conference calls are important. I think they were very impressed with the
management and the discussions that we had with Bruce and the other staff in terms of how are you
doing year end. Are you on your budgets? Are you staying within your budgets? Do you have a surplus
at the end of the year? Are your surpluses increasing and all those things are happening, which they
applauded the city and part of the reason that you have an A- with a positive outlook.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for sharing that and thank you to staff for your management on those finances.
Appreciate it. Any comments or questions for Mr. Ehlers? Mark Ruff, excuse me. Mr. Ruff. No
comments or questions? Thank you. If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd make a motion that we accept the bids as presented this
evening.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution g2001-42: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to award the sale
of bonds to the following agencies:
$1,645,000 General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds, Series 200lA to Nike
Securities, L.P. with a true interest rate of 4.2091%.
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
,
$640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 200lB to Dain Rauscher, Inc. with a
true interest rate of 4.3248%.
o
$515,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates, Series 2001C to U.S. Bancorp Piper
Jaffray and Wells Fargo Brokerage Service, LLC with a true interest rate of 4.0239%.
,
$2,720,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2001D to U.S. Bancorp
Piper Jaffray and Wells Fargo Brokerage Service, LLC with a true interest rate of 3.5379%.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Moving onto new business, and we didn't amend the agenda when we got to this. We
were going to, can I still amend the agenda? We had talked about moving the appointment to City
Council, since that will be a discussion, later into the agenda so if council is amicable to that, moving it
to agenda item number 12. We'll make that amendment. Do I need a motion Roger?
Roger Knutson: That would be appropriate.
Mayor Jansen: I need a motion to amend the agenda, moving item number 4 to number 12.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion, and a second?
Councilman Labatt: I'll second it.
Mayor Jansen: I have a second from Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to amend the agenda to move item
number 4, Appointment to City Council, to item number 12. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously 4 to 0.
CARVER COUNTY 2002 BUDGET AND LIBRARY FUNDING UPDATE, COMMISSIONER
JULIANNE ORTMAN.
Mayor Jansen: Welcome Julianne.
Julianne Ortman: Thank you. Good evening Mayor, City Council members. It's a pleasure to be here.
This is my first appearance before the City Council and actually I'm a little nervous, but it is nice to be
here. I've been hard at work at Carver County as a new commissioner for the last 6 months, as many of
you have been I'm sure working very hard at a new position. I'm just starting to get my feet wet, but I
have to admit I'm still a little green behind the ears. I just wanted to come to talk tonight, give you a
heads up on what's happening down at the county offices and the courthouse. I see that our Chairman is
here. Chairman Siegfried is here and so where I fall short of explaining what's happening, he might be
willing to be called on to follow-up. I just wanted to give you an update on the library funding. I know
that's a great concern to the members here. The City of Chanhassen has made a great commitment to this
new building and I know the residents, including myself and my 4 children are very excited about that
library. It couldn't come too soon for us, so thank you for your efforts. At the county I've been
appointed to the Library Board. The County Library Board. I'm a liaison between that board and the
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
County Board, and what I wanted to share with you tonight is that the County Library Board has asked in
it's budget process for a significant amount of funds in it's capital projects for collection, adding to the
collection for computer equipment, furniture and those kinds of investments in the new library and
what's currently being planned is $432,291 in 2002. That's the request from the Library Board to the
County Board, and for 2003 that number is $622,547. So it's a very significant sum that they're asking
for. I think the County expects that we're going to be making a big investment in that library. Many of
you may know that the City of Chaska subsequent to the City of Chanhassen's design of it's new building
has decided it's going to expand it's facility in Chaska and the County's also looking at funding that
project too. Obviously there are only so many dollars to go around but in the plan for 2002 the Library
Board is expecting to do a complete 100% outlay of those capital costs in 2002 for the Chaska facility
and that's $310,573. So what the board, the Library Board is asking of the County Board is $740,000 in
capital investments for 2002, and then the remaining in 2003 for the Chanhassen Library and I've seen
the work that this Library Board has done and it's great commitment to the Chanhassen Library and I'll
be all in favor of all the funds that the Library Board asks. And I'm sure you all would want to see great
funding for that library as well, since the city's making such a huge investment.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Julianne Ortman: It's exciting I think in the next couple years we're going to have a really beautiful
library in the city so I commend you all for your efforts. Thank you very much on behalf of the residents.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for sharing those numbers, and just for those people who maybe aren't as familiar
with the timing on the opening of the library. In the year 2002 we're primarily under construction, so as
you're projecting the numbers into 2003, that will be when the doors of the library are planned on being
opened. Probably I believe it' s spring of 2003. So the timing of the funds looks as though we won't be
sitting with bare shelves. I would just hesitate to hear them, have them hear two numbers and think we're
only opening up half full.
Julianne Ortman: I think the plan is to make sure that it's got a reasonable collection for the size of the
library as well as the size of our city and it's user base. In 2004 1 know that the Library Board anticipates
spending a great deal more but I think that those requests will come through their regular budget at that
point, but that decision may be changing over the years. As you know things change a lot so.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for sharing those.
Julianne Ortman: Certainly. It's been my pleasure to serve on that Library Board. Going on, it seems to
flow well if I just mention that the County is underway working on their proposals for 2002 and each of
us commissioners have been assigned several of those departments for oversight. There will be two
commissioners in the next few weeks that will sit down with each of the department heads and go over
the amounts that they're requesting. By September we should have a pretty good idea of what our budget
requirements are. Hopefully by then we'll know what the State Legislature is going to do. We'll keep
our fingers crossed on that. But hopefully we'll know by then exactly what they're going to do and the
County can look at it' s position with respect to tax cuts. But we need to see more of an overall picture.
I'm very hopeful and optimistic that in the long run the county will be cutting into taxes significantly, but
that's optimism on my part. There are no guarantees in government, as you all know. But I think that my
approach has met some respect finally and I think that the other Board members, while there's a little bit
of discomfort and growing pain maybe going on there, I commend them all for keeping their minds open
on that process and we're all continuing forward going through that process. Learning more about next
year's numbers and we'll see how that comes out at the end. I know that after September there will be
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
quite some time, a couple of months there for us to sort all these matters out between September and
December and I'm hopeful we'll all do that in the best interest of Carver County. Just a couple other
updates. You all are going to begin your construction for the library. There are significant construction
projects going on in Carver County. If you're not aware of them, they all will impact what you all do
here in the city of Chanhassen. First of all we have a new dispatch center for the sheriff that' s underway
currently and we also have the environmental center, newly named environmental center which is a new
facility for household hazardous waste. And our chairman, that's been his big project for quite some
time. He's to be congratulated on succeeding with that through the process. And finally, we're still
going through approvals for the public works facility that is currently being planned for Cologne.
Finally, well not quite finally. One last proposal that I've been working on is putting Carver County
Board meetings on cable and that's been approved by the Board. We're just about ready to approve a
contract so I'm hoping by September we'll be on TV just like you. I'm hoping to get some cards and
proposals from image consultants in a few weeks. Get the hair and the make-up and the personal trainers
and get them all working. And finally I just wanted to come, extend a hand to all of you. Tell you that
I'm hard at work at Carver County but I have plenty of time to take phone calls and listen to any of your
concerns. If there' s anything that I can do to assist your process at Carver County, I want to know about
it and I'd like to get involved. So thank you for having me.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Councilmembers, any questions for Julianne?
Councilman Peterson: Julianne, I've only got one. Obviously as we proceed with construction and start
expending costs on the library, what, how can we assist in getting commitments that the funding will be
there? We hate to spend money and not have those doors open with a substantial amount of books inside.
Is there some kind of balance that we can do so that we're assured that when we start spending money
that you guys will be doing the same thing.
Julianne Ortman: Well I appreciate your concern. A little bit more on that. There is a joint powers
agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Carver County whereby the city must provide the facility
and the county must provide the operating funds, which would include collections. It would include
staff, furniture and those kinds of things. The Library Board is well aware of the city's concerns and
have put these numbers forward to bring them forward to the board. I can't quicken that process. I've
learned that the hard way. The process is set up so that the 'commissioners have this oversight and this
working meeting with the department heads. That will be going forward Councilman in July. We should
be done with that in July and then those particular requests will be going to the County Board for it's full
approval. But as a liaison to that board, while I don't have more than one vote, I know that I'll be there
working hard for as much funding as we can get. This project is one that I see, one that I need to be very
actively involved in and I will be.
Councilman Peterson: So the initial funding will be completed in early fall probably, as far as us
knowing?
Julianne Ortman: Yes. I would think that the County Board will have acted certainly by September 1.
Councilman Peterson: Good, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: And when you shared these numbers with us, did I understand correctly that the Library
Board is comfortable with these numbers that they're putting forward for 2002 and 2003?
10
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Julianne Ortman: That's correct. Melissa Breshon came up with the numbers. Presented it to the
Library Board. They had a significant number of working sessions with these numbers and so this is the
Library Board's adopted proposal to the County Board and I would guess that you could assist with that
process just by making sure that the commissioners all know that you support these proposals by the
Library Board for this funding.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Anything else for Julianne? Well thank you for coming this evening. We
certainly wish you luck. We know you have some difficult policy issues that you'll be working through
with the Board, and heaven knows we all understand what that is to work on a board and work through
those things so our best wishes and thank you for being here to give us an update. Appreciate your taking
the time.
Julianne Ortman: Thank you, my pleasure.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks. Chairman Siegfried, would you like to add anything? Not to put you on the spot
but it was pointed out that you were sitting in the audience. We appreciate your being here this evening.
Not often we end up with two of our county board members present. Welcome.
Chairman Siegfried: Well welcome yourself Madam Mayor and Council members. I supposed it isn't
all that often you have two county board members appear at one of your meetings, but I wanted to come
over and just sit in and hear some of the current discussion that is going on here amongst the Chanhassen
Council. As far as the budget process, just to clarify a little bit as it proceeds. We do set a preliminary
budget on September 15th and then the final budget is adopted around December so the preliminary
budget is set. We can't exceed that. We can decrease it though obviously in the December final
adoption process. So the concern that the Councilmember Peterson had in regards to the commitment
that the county will make in regards to funding the equipment and staffing for the Chanhassen library,
that will be in the 2002 budget so it will coincide nicely with the timeframe that you have in mind for
construction. So rest assured that the recommendations of the library board will be taken into account
very extensively and the appropriate budget amount will be placed and put aside for the Chanhassen
Library. So that shouldn't be a concern that you have to have some other agreements or other things in
place to ensure that that will occur. This will occur.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, wonderful.
Chairman Siegfried: So yes we are continuing on doing the people's business here in Carver County and
as you stated, we do have to work through issues that come before us. There is always a difference of
opinion on a board that is functioning appropriate obviously so we'll continue on that basis and try to
respectfully disagree and come to the conclusion that Satisfies the majority so that's our operating plan at
this point so, do you have any questions that weren't asked before that you would like to ask now?
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for Commissioner Siegfried? Appreciate your being here and taking your
personal time to join us. Always good to see you. thanks.
Chairman Siegfried: No problem.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 32,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING
BUILDING (PHASE I) ON A 5.4 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK); 2860 WATER TOWER PLACE; LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2~r~ ADDITION, PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION.
11
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council.
Councilman Ayotte: You're going to have to speak a little louder or into the mic.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. This is a fairly straight forward site
plan. It is for an office manufacturing building. The site is located on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Park 2nd Addition. It is immediately north of Water Tower Place, and west of State Highway
41. There is one parcel that separates 41 from the subject parcel. There's also another parcel, Lot 5
which separates Highway 5 from the subject site. Access to the site is provided via Water Tower Place.
As you can see on the floor plan, this is the 32,000 square feet future addition will be another 32,000
square feet. The applicant has mentioned that they would like to do that over the next 5 years or so.
Materials on the building will be mainly block. A band of brick will also be utilized as an accent. When
this item appeared before the Planning Commission the one issue that was raised dealt with the east
elevation. The majority of this elevation is, well the middle section of this elevation is lacking in detail.
Several options have been suggested to the applicant including landscaping, extending columns, or
maybe the use of this canopy so there are different alternatives and staff is recommending that you allow
staff to work it out with the applicant to figure out how we resolve this detail. The west elevation is the
expansion wall. And what staff recommended and the applicant agreed to is to utilize 2 of the 3
materials that are currently being proposed on the building. The darker tone block would be used along
the lower portion of the building. The lighter tone along the top portion. Future expansion would have
to utilize all 3 materials. Again this is a fairly straight forward site plan. Staff is recommending approval
with conditions outlined in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Ayotte: And probably Kelley can answer. Does this project help extend that loop to
eliminate, that's not the one?
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? Okay.
..
Councilman Labatt: I just wanted to talk about the north elevation. Will that be able to be viewed from
Highway 5?
Councilman Peterson: Why don't you use this picture. It's probably easier to, is that this elevation here?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, actually it would be the side that would.
Councilman Labatt: The north is going to be all the loading docks, correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. And the elevation of Highway 5, can you zoom in please. Okay. The
elevation at this point is approximately at the same height as the, as Lot 2. At the same elevation as Lot
2. Please keep in mind that in the future there will be buildings on Lots 4 as well as Lot 5 which will
block the view of the loading dock as well as the rear of that building. Also, there are evergreens along
the north portion of the site as well as a meandering berm. It will not screen it 100% but it will provide
adequate screening.
12
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen: And once the evergreens grow, you've got full screening.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: To the other buildings. Because you won't be able to see it from 5, okay.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Does that answer the question?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I didn't see the landscape plan...so okay.
Mayor Jansen: Anything else? Okay. The applicant is present. If council has questions for the
applicant, we can have them come forward. Otherwise if you've got all your information.
Councilman Peterson: My only comment I guess to the applicant would be, I like the idea of adding
some additional architectural interest on that one wall as staff and Planning Commission, otherwise I
don't have any questions for the applicant.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. If the applicant just has a few brief comments that you would like to make.
Otherwise if you're fine with the presentation we will move on to discussion. Okay. Thank you for
being here tonight. Appreciate it. Bringing this back to council. Discussion please.
Councilman Ayotte: Very straight forward.
Councilman Peterson: I just shared mine so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. It's a terrific project. I want to thank the applicant for bringing forward such a
nice looking building for relocating into our community. We certainly appreciate it. I had the pleasure
of meeting everyone at the Planning Commission meeting so thank you for your commitment coming into
Chanhassen. Much appreciated. So if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Ayotte: Motion to go forward with the staff recommendation and the added comment by
Councilman Peterson for addressing that one issue.
Mayor Jansen: Is there a condition in the staff report that addresses that point?
Councilman Peterson: I don't think there was.
Mayor Jansen: Is there?
Councilman Peterson: I don't think there was.
Todd Gerhardt: Which wall was it again?
Mayor Jansen: So we're adding condition.
Councilman Peterson: The east wall.
Mayor Jansen: Condition 37, authorizing. Is it west?
13
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Councilman Labatt: I thought it was east. West wall's expanded.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That would be the east elevation. East wall.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Authorizing staff to work with the applicant to add additional detail to the east
wall was your condition number 37. Okay. Is there a second please?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Jansen: All those in favor. Any additional discussion? The only point that I would want to add
to that condition is I would want to make sure that we're not putting the applicant through too many
undue hoops as we're working on detailing that side of the building so, if they can do it through
landscaping, then that's terrific too. Okay, great.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Site Plan g2001-6 as shown
on the plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc. dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of
fact and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
a
The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the eastern building
elevation.
.
A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements shall be submitted to the city prior to
City Council approval.
o
Additional landscape peninsulas shall be located in the northern parking lot (two additional) and
at the north end of the parking spaces on the east side of the building. Trees shall be added in
each of the landscaping peninsulas. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width,
then aeration tubing shall be installed.
5. All new landscaped areas shall have irrigation system installed pursuant to city ordinance.
6. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
.
A decorative, shoe ox fixture 20 foot tall, 400 watt metal Halide lot light with a square
ornamental pole shall be used for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded with a 90
degree light cut off. Any wall mounted lighting shall be shielded from direct off site view.
8,
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section #904-1 1997 Uniform Fire
Code.
14
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant
to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy//34-1993. Copy enclosed.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding
maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy//36-1994.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to
be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
Policy//4-1991.
The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
The development shall comply with state guidelines regarding handicap accessible parking
spaces.
Detailed occupancy retailed requirements cannot be reviewed until cOmplete plans are submitted.
(It does appear however that exiting from the office area does not comply with the code.)
Utility Plan: If the addition is built MH 1 would have to be relocated and piping materials must
comply with the code.
The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance at the time of building permit
approval.
Grading on the west side of the proposed building needs to be revised to avoid ponding water on
the future building site.
Move the proposed sidewalk to the west side of the driveway. Also, show this sidewalk on the
grading plan.
The developer shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Watershed District.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
Revise the site plan and grading plan to comply with the minimum driveway entrance width of 26
feet.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event prior to building permit approval.
15
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
26.
The rock construction entrance shall be increased to a minimum of 75 feet in length as per City
Detail Plate No. 5301.
27. On the detail sheet, show the revised 2001 City detail plates for Nos. 1004 and 5207.
28.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
29.
Show the location of the existing street lights along Water Tower Place. Also, show the location
of the existing catch basins in Water Tower Place, west of the sanitary sewer stub to the site.
30. Show a benchmark on the grading plan.
31.
The site plan needs to be revised to show a proposed 5 foot concrete sidewalk following the main
entrance out to the southeasterly corner of the site.
32.
The existing water stub to the site is an 8 inch service. As such, an 8" x 6" reducer will be
needed.
33.
On the site plan, label the drive aisle and entrance widths. Also, show the proposed curb radius
at the entrance drive.
34. The west elevation shall incorporate two of the primary materials along it's length.
35.
Any future building expansion shall incorporate the three primary materials that are the same as
used on the first phase.
36. The primary metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD Agreement.
All voted in favor and the mOtion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO 9
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES; 610 AND 620 CARVER BEACH ROAD,
CREEKWOOD; COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. This is a fairly straight forward
subdivision. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 6.3 acres into 9 single family parcels. The site is
located west of Carver Beach Road, east of Lotus Lake and north of Shadowmere Subdivision. Access to
the site is provided via a connection off of Carver Beach Road. All 9 parcels are proposed to be served
via the cul-de-sac. All parcels meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as lot area,
width, depth. All parcels maintain a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way or the front line. The one
exception deals with Lot number 6. There were some concerns raised regarding steep slopes along the
southern portion of Lot 6. Staff met with the surveyor as well as the applicant on site. Determined that
this parcel does not have a bluff in this immediate area. It does have steep slopes. It does not meet the
bluff criteria with the exception of one small portion along the southwest comer of this site. Lot 6. · The
60 by 60 house pad will maintain the 30 foot setback, no problem. However, just to protect the integrity
of this slope, staff advised the applicant to move this house pad to a 20 foot distance from the right-of-
way rather than the typical 30 foot setback, front yard setback. We're also recommending the applicant
dedicate a preservation easement over the steep slopes along the southern portion of Lot 6. The riparian
16
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
lots all maintain the required frontage which exceeds 90 feet along the lake and maintain a 70 foot
setback from the OHW of the lake. 75 foot setback from the OHW. It is a heavily wooded site. There is
a creek that runs through this parcel. The creek is not protected by the DNR. However the applicant is
dedicating a preservation easement, a drainage and utility easement over the creek 50 feet from the edge
of the OHW of the creek. We have been in contact with the property owner immediately to the north of
the site. Basically the conversation dealt with should they decide to subdivide this property in the future,
we wanted to make sure that they have adequate connection to sewer, water, as well as street. It is also a
condition of the staff report and as the future properties develop within this area, ultimately you'll end up
hooking up this road to Fox Hill. I'm going to address a very brief issue dealing with the next item that
will be on your agenda. Please keep in mind the layout of these 3 riparian lots and the 75 foot setback.
Our current ordinance addresses lakeshore setbacks as having, all new structures would have to maintain
a similar setback to adjacent structures. The structure on this parcel is proposed to maintain a 75 foot
setback.
Mayor Jansen: You're off the screen. There you go. Thanks.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The structure received a variance to maintain a 75 foot setback. This
structure maintains a 129 feet. If this parcel came in first, and this is the 75 foot setback line, you
wouldn't have an issue with this parcel, but then the neighboring parcel would have a problem, which is
Lot 8 as well as Lot 9. Just something to keep in mind as you are reviewing the following item. Staff is
recommending approval of this application. At this time I would like to turn it over to Matt Saam. There
was an issue raised with a lift station on the site and he would like to provide some additional
information on that.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you.
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. There is an existing lift station on the site.
Lift Station #10 in the city. City numbering system of the lift stations. The existing problem or issue
with that lift station deals with it's wet well size, and for those of you who aren't familiar with lift
stations. A wet well is where the sewage flows to. Where it's stored prior to being pumped out of the lift
station. The problem with the wet well in this lift station only comes up if there's a power failure or a
mechanical problem where the pumps can't kick in. We don't have much time before the sewage builds
up in the wet well, in the storage and flows out of the lift station. Staff is aware of this problem. I've
spoken with City Engineer Teresa Burgess on this issue. We plan on addressing it in the near future
when she returns from maternity leave. If there's any other questions on it I'd be happy to take them now
and Utility Superintendent Kelley Janes is here also.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I guess what I would maybe like to have clarified, and maybe Mr. Gerhardt you
can speak to this a little bit. Realizing that it's a rather significant concern, and whether or not we're
proceeding with this and it's premature development, how much more specific can we get as to how
quickly we can remedy this situation so that it does not appear to be, or actually is, premature. How
quickly can the city react to this? In the staff report it's saying as such staff intends to obtain a consultant
to study and remedy the problem. Can we put a time line on that?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, you're probably talking 3 to 4 weeks to probably have an engineer come in and
give you some estimates on different alternatives to solve the problem. Be it a larger lift station or
coming in to put in a permanent generator are some of the things that Matt and I threw around this
afternoon. As to the premature of the development, the Coffman's have rights to develop their property.
This is a city issue. It's not a developer issue. It's something that the city needs to address and Roger
17
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
can clarify any more detail if he'd want but this is our problem. Seven additional homes to the system is
not going to make a dramatic impact on the water that is flowing into this system. We'll have the same
problem basically if electricity' s gone, or some other mechanical problem happens, where we're going to
have to step in and try to get an individual out there with a generator as soon as possible. Kelley, can you
think of any other alternatives besides a larger lift station or a generator that potentially might solve this
problem down line?
Kelley Janes: Those seem to be the 2 most logical solutions. It's really detention time in the case of a
power outage or a mechanical failure for, we needed a larger wet well to buy time until we can respond
to the problem and that's why I was brought in with Matt, but I think those are really, you know or the
possibility, we have a portable generator that we can bring to the site to hook up to the station in the case
of power failure. But the amount of time needed to, if it's after hours like if it happened right now, you
know the person has to respond to our facility. Get the truck. Head out there. Diagnose that it is
actually a power failure and get the thing hooked up and get it generated to restore power and that
amount of time under normal to heavier flow conditions, we don't have enough time to respond and it
ends up being a problem and comes out so.
Mayor Jansen: And I guess that's where, in hearing those issues I imagine council is probably more in a
position to say how do we correct this now? What kind of dollars are we talking about, and I don't want
to put anybody on the spot here to throw out any exacts but are we talking a capital expenditure or are we
talking, I mean I don't know what the cost of the generator is or the larger lift station.
Todd Gerhardt: Well the portable generator that we would install Kelley, would probably need to be
hard wired with some type of monitoring system to recognize when to turn...probably less than $10,000
to probably do something like that.
Kelley Janes: I would, it's going to require approximately 125 KW capability which is the one we have
on our mobile rig so we would probably be a little bit over that. With the capability of automatic start,
which is in the case of a power outage, many facilities have this where in the case of a power outage, the
generator senses the failure, starts itself up, brings itself up to speed and then starts generating power to
it. That's, it can be done. The wet well issue is a construction issue. There's a lot of factors involved
with that.
Todd Gerhardt: My concern on a wet well, do we have enough easement area? Enough property in this
area to put in a larger wet well?
Matt Saam: That's one of the conditions Todd of this plat. We asked for 10 additional square feet I
think. Our plans show a 50 square foot area. We're asking for a 60. We brought Kelley in to talk about
how much area he needs. We also talked about access. We, I believe put in there 20 foot easement for
access down to the lift station so I believe that's addressed in these conditions.
Todd Gerhardt: So in the short term I think we can internally fund the wiring of the portable generator
that we have and in the long term we'll probably bring back as a part of the capital replacement budget a
larger wet well that typically you're going to need plans and specs on a project of that size with probably
construction next spring, would be my guess. I don't know if we could get it done yet this year. I think
we'd be pushing it but, maybe real close.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Oh, go ahead.
18
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Roger Knutson: I was just going to also point out, this is a preliminary plat and they have to final plat it.
Then they have to build the houses and they have to sell the houses and they've got to get occupied. I
can't tell you how long that will take but I can tell you it won't happen, all that won't happen in 4 weeks
or 8 weeks. So you have some time to correct your problem.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you for mentioning that. I appreciate it. It sounds like maybe with our
immediate situation, the 20 minutes just doesn't seem like a reasonable position for us to have staff in
currently, so if I'm hearing that $10,000, possibly a little bit more gets a generator hooked up and we're
no longer having those emergency situations, that might be a good immediate fix for this situation. And
then from Roger' s point, that then buys us some time to do what staff has proposed as part of your
recommendation and that' s bring that consultant in and come up with what the long term remedies would
be for adding the additional homes. Certainly gives us the time to study that. Council, any other
questions or comments around that issue?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I just want to re-state the points that some folks in the crowd here voiced
concern. We got an e-mail today and it' s not a function of residents moving in. That' s a point that' s
made. There's a short term solution, but there are other options. I hope once you talk to this consultant
beyond capital improvement, and I know Kelley knows that. That they are dry pumps and all that other
good stuff, so I just want to make that known. That staff is reacting to it and it's not a function again of
this person subdividing their property.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. Just one more question for Kelley. In the past year, how
many times has that lift station had trouble? Calls?
Kelley Janes: I would say about 3 in the past year. The year before we had some significant problems.
One of the problems I guess you could say directly is, these are large pumps. These are 90 horse
submersible pumps. They're about % the size of this table in diameter. Very large. The force main that
it pumps into runs all the way along Lotus Lake, all the way up to approximately the Villages,
Chanhassen Village, McDonald' s. This is a very long force main that has to go uphill. And that is one
of the only probably the only 3 phase power, heavy duty 480 volt power that' s going anywhere in that
area. So when we have power anomalies in the old part of town and areas very close to City Hall, that
station goes down because we lose 1 of the 3 phases somehow. So power outages are probably more
common than mechanical failures I guess I could say that so. If we lose power in town or something goes
down at City Hall or anywhere here in town, we see street lights out, we go to Lift Station 10. That's our
first stop.
Mayor Jansen: Well it makes hard wiring that generator soUnd that much nicer. That's a good at least
temporary solution so thank you for addressing that.
Councilman Labatt: Build a structure and building and put this generator in?
Councilman Ayotte: You have to do something to protect the power I would think.
Kelley Janes: That is a very good question.
Councilman Labatt: That wouldn't be figured into your $10,000-$15,000 price. You're just going to not
leave it outside.
19
City Council Meeting -June 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Well and staff can bring that forward as part of the analysis that they do too.
Todd Gerhardt: There are generators that are seasonal. I mean this is a temporary situation. If you were
going to leave this generator out for more than a year I would say you would consider building a building
for it. If there's going to be a permanent solution to the problem, but we've run lift stations for several
months using a generator and they've sat there before so. I don't know if we hard wired any generators.
Kelley Janes: Nothing is hard wired. We do have a capability of running all of the 30 sanitary lift
stations and 3 for wells with alternative power generation. So that is an operational thing with power
outages like we had 3 years ago when everything was out for extended periods of time, and in addition to
when we lose wells in strategic areas, we need to generate those because of the way our system is set up.
We have that capability. We just don't have anything permanently set up to run on, like I explained
before, the automatic switch over and start up on it's own. We have to physically react to the site with
the generator, connect it and fire it up so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions? Alright, I think we've addressed that issue as part of this
development. Any other questions for staff from Sharmin's presentation?
Councilman Labatt: I just have one for, Sharmin in your, let me just find it here. I believe it was talking
about the bluffs on page 6. In the bold paragraph. The top, two sentences down. The top, in the toe of
the slope were established and it was included that most of the slope did not fit. How much is most?
What sort of percentage of the slope?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: This portion would be considered a bluff right here. Everything else is not. So this is
the only area that would meet the definition. Where my finger is.
Mayor Jansen: And that section is included as part of the conservation easement that you've negotiated,
correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. My question involves the front yard setback on the other lots. Realizing what a
beautiful property this is, and having heard the applicant and read the minutes that there is definitely an
interest in preserving as much as they can as far as the trees on the lot. This variance to grant the 20 foot
front yard setback on Lot 6, would granting that same variance on the other lots, allowing the homes to
be built closer to the road, provide us with even more preservation on the sites?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We discussed this issue both amongst staff as well as with the applicant. The applicant
wanted to see some flexibility with the setback. For instance he'd grant the 20 foot setback but, and in
some instances they might want to set the house back to 25, or even maintain the 30 foot setback as.
permitted by ordinance for several reasons. Maybe there was, there is a specific tree within the front
yard that they would want to preserve. A second deals with two story houses close to the right-of-way.
Sometimes they, in their opinion, they become over powering as you are traveling down the street. Even
if the city approved the 20 foot variance on the remainder of the lots it would be up to them whether they
2O
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
would maintain it or not. With Lot 6 staff is requesting that that becomes a requirement of the
subdivision. It's not an option.
Mayor Jansen: So if we were to include the 20 foot setback as an option for them on the other lots,
would you want that listed as a separate condition of your recommendation or somehow adding it in the
same area where you have your Lot 6? Since you seem to be distinguishing the two.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: You might, you can add it as a condition of approval.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, make it a separate.
Councilman Ayotte: Roger's going to say something.
Mayor Jansen: Roger, if you might weigh in for me please.
Roger Knutson: I'm going to say something probably no one wants to hear but I guess that's my job.
This is a zoning variance, a setback variance and as I understand it the only setback variance that has
been to the Planning Commission is on the one lot. That's what your planning report says.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Well the right-of-way variance.
Roger Knutson: Yes, I'm talking about setback variance.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, that did not go.
Roger Knutson: Just for the one lot went to the Planning Commission.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Roger Knutson: So if you want to allow variances on the other lots, it would have to, it shouldn't hold
them up much because it's the preliminary plat but to do it right it should go to the Planning Commission
for public hearing and the other setback variances.
Mayor Jansen: Was the 20 foot even on Lot 6?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No.
Mayor Jansen: It wasn't, was it?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. It was a variance free application that went before the Planning Commission.
Roger Knutson: Now the 50 foot street is different. That's a subdivision and you can take that directly
without a public hearing. But the zoning setback variances are supposed to go to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing. But this is a preliminary plat so you can still get there and it probably
won't hold anything up because he has to bring back the preliminary plat. And it doesn't hold up the plat
at all because it's a zoning variance, just in the placement of the house. So I don't think it should cause
anyone hiccups.
Councilman Peterson: Perhaps you would ask the applicant...
21
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Roger Knutson: I see him nodding his head.
Mayor Jansen: So at this point what would the process be to do that? We would approve it as?
Roger Knutson: Approve the preliminary plat and then send back to the Planning Commission a request
to hold a public hearing on the variance for the setbacks on the lots.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: And you can give them direction and then they would hold a public hearing. And that
shouldn't hold anything up again because that only comes into play when you're actually building,
constructing the home.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I'm just, I'm not wanting to inconvenience the applicant because I realize that
that's not something that's being requested but if it would be something that we could add as it comes
back through the process.
Bill Coffman: That would work.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful, thank you. Okay.
Roger Knutson: i'm sure everyone wants to do it right now there are no questions about it later on.
MaYor Jansen: Sure. So Sharmin, if you could make a note to have that added, and I gather that too
would be for the 20 foot front yard setback on Lot 6. So we would need to remove that from the motion
this evening since it did not go before the Planning Commission. Okay, Gotch ya.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and Council, just so you understand. If this was a PUD we could make that a
condition. I think that's where we're getting caught on this is in the past we've put conditions like this
on a lot of our subdivisions and in this case the applicant has chosen to go through the traditional
subdivision process so thus you have to go back and get the variances as a part of that. So with the PUD
you have a little more flexibility in dealing with variances of this type, so I just wanted to make sure you
understood why this is going back.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, if this were a PUD you can deal with it on the spot tonight.
Mayor Jansen: Sure, okay. Appreciate that. Again, it's just such a beautiful piece of property. I know
the applicant is certainly sensitive to that and you spoke to it at the Planning Commission that if we can
do this amicably and give a little bit of flexibility that you can work within without inconveniencing you,
it'd be appreciated. That was the only other comment that I had to make on the application. Anything
else Council as far as discussion? Okay. With that, if I could have a motion please amending the
recommendation.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I make a motion the City Council approve the preliminary plat for
Subdivision #2001-03 with a variance to allow 50 right-of-way for Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on
plans dated May i, 2001 subject to conditions 1 through 39.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And do I have a second to the motion?
22
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: I'll second.
Mayor Jansen: I have a second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approves the
preliminary plat for Subdivision//2001-03 with a variance to allow a 50 foot right-of-way for
Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on the plans dated May 1, 2001, subject to the following conditions:
1. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment.
2. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement.
3. No water oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without an encroachment
agreement.
All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek.
The slopes along the southern portion of Lot 6 shall be protected by a conservation easement.
The applicant shall provide storm water calculations.
A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided.
A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the
sanitary sewer easement.
Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and
proposed storm water ponds.
Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this
project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are
estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are
provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and
storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's structures. The
applicant will not be assessed with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The
applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for
temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the
time of final plat recording is $17,514.
Environmental Resource Specialist conditions:
a. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 24 trees as replacement plantings.
Plan shall specify size, species and locations.
b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing
shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
Building Department conditions:
.
o
o
°
°
10.
11.
23
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any
structures on the property.
b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section
901.3.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2.
e. Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued. Trees
or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the property.
With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy
Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street additional
numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire '
Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance.
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at
the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys
will be required on each lot prior to occupancy.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to preliminary
plat approval by the City Council.
The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50 foot square
area to a 60 foot square area. In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required off of the
proposed cul-de-sac.
24
City Council Meeting -June 25, 2001
19.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm
sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility
easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system
including ponds up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction
plans.
20.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type llI
erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the
existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of
the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the
construction limits.
21.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval.
22.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the
time of building permit issuance.
23. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site.
Revise the preliminary grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the
normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond.
25.
A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from Lot 4. This street would
be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be
stubbed to the north to serve future lots. A sign shall be installed stating that this street may be
extended in the future.
26.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds.
27.
Dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach
Road.
28. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
29. The applicant shall change the name of the proposed plat.
30.
Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the
applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes
must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all
setbacks on Lot 8.
25
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
31.
32.
33.
Prior to final plat the retaining walt shall be removed from the right-of-way.
Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shall work with staff to specify limitations
regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement.
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of-way
and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can
grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements
because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible.
34.
35.
The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new
development and the existing neighborhood.
The sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Creekwood shall be installed with backflow
preventers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll see you when you come back through.
Bill Coffman: I've got a question though .... the conditions, I did want a clarification. I thought I would
have a chance to speak.
Mayor Jansen: I apologize. If you'd like to approach.
Bill Coffman: Okay, if I may. Sorry about that. Madam Mayor, members of the Council, my name is
Bill Coffman. President of Coffman Development. The only condition that we would tike to work with
'staff on is number 19. Working with the easement location for the potential improvement project to the
lift station. We want to work with staff so it can be adjusted so it doesn't adversely impact Lot 8. I mean '
that condition says it's a blanket 60 by 60. We want a little bit of control on that item. Other than that
everything else is fine. Is there a problem with this procedurally?
Mayor Jansen: Any comment?
Matt Saam: We have no problem with that. I was assuming prior to final plat we would work with the
applicant so.
Roger Knutson: I don't think you need to re-vote. I think that's just understood. These can all be
modified to your approval when it comes back.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Appreciate it. Sorry I didn't invite you up.
Bill Coffman: That's okay.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 REGARDING LAKESHORE
PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES.
26
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
Lori Haak: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. I'd like to try to make this as simple as
possible. It gets kind of bogged down in the report but we'll try and make it easy for you. Before you
this evening is a proposal to revise Section 20481 of the City Code to simplify the shoreland setback
requirements. Currently the city code states, as shown on the screen there, when a structure exists on the
lot on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance set forth in the
above table, which is also shown there, or the setback of the existing structure. This language was
adopted to encourage a continuous appearance of home placement on shore lots in an attempt to preserve
views from existing homes. In fact it was adopted primarily to address concerns with the Minnewashta
Landings subdivision. An aerial photograph of that subdivision is included as Attachment//3 in your
staff reports. The current standard is under consideration this evening because it is difficult to administer
since it does not prescribe a method for implementation. The city has reviewed many requests for
variances from the standard. The variance requests arise primarily in situations where a riparian lot of
record would be unbuildable without a variance. In cases where the lots in question are lots of record
and by definition should be buildable, the variance process can be seen by the applicant unnecessary and
bureaucratic. Staff maintains that the DNR setback is adequate to protect the city' s lakes. Staff has
spoken with DNR area hydrologists Travis Germundson regarding the revisions that have been suggested
both by staff and the Planning Commission. His comments are included as Attachment #10 in the staff
report. Travis has stated that the DNR has no outstanding concerns with any of the proposed revisions as
included in the staff report. That being said, staff recommendation is to adopt the proposed revisions to
Section 20481 so that the city standards are no more stringent than those of the State of Minnesota. And
again the proposed language is in front of you on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report. It calls for the
deletion of the current language in question that's highlighted by the oval on your screens in front of you
to make the requirement equitable, easier to administer and easier for the public to understand. With that
I can take any questions you might have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff?.
Councilman Ayotte: Well I just want to know the inference that if we understood it anyone could
understand it. Was that your?
Lori Haak: No. Certainly not. Just, it's easy to get bogged down in this.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff?. Okay. Seeing none, I don't know if there's anyone in the
audience who would like to comment on this item. I would certainly open this up for comment if anyone
would care to approach the podium. I kind of figured.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. You may or may not be aware that the DNR now has
a guideline for shoreline properties, riparian lots. One of those is a maximum height of 25 feet. Chan did
not adopt that. The 75 feet is the standard the DNR has which Chanhassen just, that' s just a point of
interest. So it would restrict the height of the house if we went along with what the DNR says it should
be. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Lori, are you familiar with where we are with that?
Lori Haak: I am familiar with it. The DNR's regulations are fairly unique in that they allow
municipalities to adopt regulations that differ from their requirements, and basically what the City of
Chanhassen did when it adopted it's shoreland ordinance that you see a portion of before you tonight, is
they took that DNR recommendations into consideration and they can adopt things that are more
stringent than that. The DNR recommends a height requirement of, as Mr. Paulsen stated, 25 feet. And
27
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
that's merely a recommendation. We did not implement that into our city code and it was just a decision
that was made at that point. It's really a separate issue that was under consideration when the entire
shoreland ordinance was adopted but it's not in front of us this evening.
Mayor Jansen: And I believe you said that the city can adopt standards that are less, that are more
stringent.
Lori Haak: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: By not having a height requirement, aren't we less?
Lori Haak: It was still approved by the DNR and that's I guess the bottom line. Typically yes, we do
see things that are more stringent than the DNR's requirements, but the, I guess the bottom, bottom line.
Below the bottom line would be that it just needs to be approved by the DNR.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So bottom line is, if the council wanted to adopt the 25 foot height, we would be
within the DNR's requirements.
Lori Haak: Absolutely.
Mayor Jansen: In that it's already there as precedent. Okay. Okay.
Roger Knutson: Mayor just to point out two things. First, if you wanted to deal with that you really
couldn't deal with that issue tonight because it hasn't been subject to a public hearing yet. And second, I
don't know if you've all been brought up to speed but as of May 30th an amendment to the, of this year,
an amendment to the zoning ordinance now requires a simple majority vote. That's a brand new, just off
the books.
Councilman Peterson: That's big.
Roger Knutson: There's qualification. Except for rezoning residential to commercial and industrial
which still requires a 2/3. Big change.
Mayor Jansen: Big change.
Roger Knutson: Went through virtually unnoticed without discussion or debate.
Mayor Jansen: Where was the League on that one?
Roger Knutson: They were on it.
Mayor Jansen: Were they?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I don't remember reading about it.
Roger Knutson: It just came out and it came in at the last minute in the conference committee bill. I can
tell you some more stories afterwards how it got there.
28
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Well thank you for mentioning it. We appreciate it I guess. Okay.
Roger Knutson: Whether you like it or not, it wasn't my idea.
Mayor Jansen: Exactly. You're just the messenger. Okay, Council. Discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Seems reasonable to me.
Councilman Labatt: Ditto.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because there's, if I'm not mistaken the Planning Commission recommendation is
different than the staff recommendation so when you're saying it seems reasonable to you, you're
supporting the staff recommendation versus the Planning Commission recommendation?
Councilman Peterson: Yes I am.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Actually I liked the Planning Commission recommendation and I guess I should
preface with, though I am the liaison on the Planning Commission, I did not participate in any of these
conversations at all. In fact I don't think I attended okay, this meeting. In order to not present any sort of
bias, since it is more of a policy issue. But I guess what I liked about what the Planning Commission was
trying to accomplish and then staff in adding their additional comments saying if you were to use the
Planning Commission add this language, you seem to at least make it a little bit more easier to apply. But
one of the key conversations around these shorelines and the consistency is whether you have a jagged
pattern of homes, or if you can present a smoother, more cohesive line of development along the
lakeshores. Because past setbacks were greater. We have homes that are at those 150 foot setbacks.
Now you're placing homes up at the 75 foot and it's not as if the older homes without bulldozing have
the option to move themselves forward. So I was thinking more of the consistency within a
neighborhood and thinking of those shorelines as more of a neighborhood feel. And if they can be maybe
a little bit more in line with each other.
Councilman Peterson: I think in further clarifying my point, I think I would look to staff. I think my
interpretation was, it would be easier to administer if we used staff's recommendation. And if that is
different, obviously what I' m going after is consistency and ease of use for the interpretation and the
administration of the ordinance so if you can share with us that the Planning Commission might be more
appropriate for administering, then I can be swayed.
Lori Haak: And that was staff's concern I guess. If you look just even at the difference in length of the
proposed revisions, I guess it gives you quite a picture of the way staff is looking at it. And I guess from
staff's perspective we'd like to think that we can work with homeowners as we review building permits
and that sort of thing as far as views are concerned. As far as additional concerns arise with regard to
structures near the lake. We'd like to think that we could address those on a staff level. I would think
that a majority of the time we would be able to do that. Our problem becomes in situations like the
previous example where you have the Creekwood Subdivision and you have in particular, you have
several lots that have varying requirements and we were actually on the staff level, looking at the
29
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Planning Commission's recommendation and thinking that we would actually have to dictate build order
in order to meet those regulations.
Councilman Ayotte: Say that again. You'd have to what?
Lori Haak: We'd have to dictate the order in which the subdivision was built out along the riparian zone,
and that' s, staff wasn't comfortable making that jump and basically we just came down to the fact that
each of our other setback requirements are a number. Your front yard setback is 30 feet unless you're in
a PUD or unless you get a variance. Your side yard setback is going to be 10 feet. Same deal. And it's
much easier, it is much more clear, it is much more equitable if you have the 75 foot and you can just say
you've got a 75 foot zone here on a recreational development lake. This is what you need to meet.
Councilman Ayotte: So the staff' s recommendation is friendlier both to staff and to applicant?
Lori Haak: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Well, but not necessarily to an existing neighborhood, because what we're having occur,
again is if someone can sit 75 feet off the lakeshore, they're going to sit 75 feet off the lakeshore.
There's not going to be any flexibility. If they've got homes on either side that are at the 150 foot mark,
they're not going to just friendly say okay, well I won't sit so close. So that was part of the rationale
around the previous language, but I absolutely understand how difficult it is to apply. I did like what
you' ve added to the Planning Commission recommendation as far as that language, and where you were
saying that it almost makes some of these, you have to designate the build sequence. Your language of, if
a lot on either side does not contain a structure, the setback of a structure on that lot used for calculating
subsections (a) and (b) shall be 150 feet. So there you've got your standard, not having to dictate which
lot develops first, second, third. And be impacted that way. Again, I guess I can appreciate that we're
wanting to simplify how this gets applied but we do lose a little bit of a level of control if we just say it's
75 feet. Even going into an established neighborhood.
Councilman Ayotte: With respect to, do you have a sense of feel of with respect to the availability of
building opportunities in the older neighborhoods. The events that you would be confronted with where
the Planning Commission's approach would be more applicable.
Lori Haak: Frankly we don't, I don't think we have a whole lot of lakeshore left in the city. I was just
out on Lotus Lake last weekend.
Councilman Ayotte: I guess that's my point, yeah.
Lori Haak: The number of situations in which we're actually going to be confronted with this situation
are few and far between, or increasingly few and far between I should say. We' ve got you know a
subdivision coming in supposedly for final plat approval within a couple weeks and so we'll be dealing
with it a little bit then but.
Councilman Peterson: What happens in a tear down situation?
Lori Haak: And that's exactly where this would come into play. With the 75 foot. And we've had that
discussion amongst the planning staff and I guess the feel that we've come to is, we have something
currently that does not work. The current ordinance doesn't work. We need to make a change and what
is the easiest way to make that change? What is the most equitable way to make that change? And
30
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
really, if you get into a situation, we are having some of these older homes being torn down around Lotus
Lake. We're seeing a couple of them with the subdivision we looked at this evening and these people
then begin to have that opportunity. Or people to add decks who weren't able to do that before. There
are several situations in Chanhassen where people were denied decks because they couldn't encroach
upon the setback that was required. That was dictated by the neighbors and so it kind of weighs out in
the minds of staff.
Mayor Jansen: I guess I can see into your comment about how many new subdivisions are we or aren't
we going to have. That there aren't going to be that many. That seems to be where we hit more of a
complication than in applying this where you have the vacant lots inbetween and so forth. Again I guess
I'm looking at how do we protect the integrity of these neighborhoods without now having the staggered
development occurring and I again, I like where the Planning Commission had gone trying to simplify it
for their application with staff s addition to this of the 75 foot being the setback if there isn't a structure
on either side to have to gauge from. So that was just my general feel. I like where the Planning
Commission went with their language.
Councilman Peterson: It's a toss up for me.
Councilman Ayotte: Hey Todd, say something about it. You're just sitting there. Come on, you're
making big money now.
Todd Gerhardt: You're kind of limiting these homes too for width. I mean if you take a look at the
Creekwood plat, they have potentially 3 lake lots there and the width on some of those you're going to
limit the size of the home and I've been told that some of those lots will go as far as $200,000 and you're
going to put a smaller home on there? I mean that's not going to be a very good investment to put a small
home on a lot of that value so for them to try to get their money back, out of the piece of property,
potentially they're probably going to have to go up with it. So that's a factor that came to me at first.
But we're not supposed to base economic decisions when we dealing with planning issues.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: But it's a policy decision that the council needs to make and when you ride around in a
boat and you take a look at what's going on on Minnetonka and places like that, you know traditionally
you don't see the ramblers anymore. You see the 2 to 3 story houses and take advantage of the views up
high or have the big picture windows as you look out and the great rooms so. My house wouldn't even
fit on there. Roger was measuring his, and his wouldn't fit on there and neither one of us are on a lake
SO.
Mayor Jansen: Well and that's in how those lots are configured under the expectation that the current
regulation would be in place.
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Mayor Jansen: Right, and again it's basing it on one plat that we're looking at here this evening so, I just
want to be a little careful with that.
Councilman Labatt: I'm okay with staff. They've obviously put a lot of thought into it and...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, if I could have a motion if there isn't any more discussion.
31
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Councilman Labatt: Move approval for staff's recommendation.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve Section 20-481 shall be
modified to read:
'Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure.
(a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and
facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be
setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows:
Classes of Public
Waters
LAKES
Natural environment 150
Recreational 100
development
RIVERS
Agricultural and 100
tributary
Structures Structures Sewered Sewage Treatment
Unsewered System
150 150
75 75
50 75
All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS FOR TELEPHONE AND VOICE MESSAGING
EQUIPMENT.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. Staff, during your budget process this past year had asked
staff to bring back an estimated budget for the proposed telephone and voice messaging system. In 2000
we did spend $6,000 to access the KMC fiber line. It also cost an additional $19,265 to basically light up
the fiber wire to transmit. Also we had some wiring and some capital costs in relocating some of the
electrical lines as we accessed the public works facility. The telephone voice system, which would be a
2001 expense, Rick's best estimate from people that he has talked to is in the range of about $90,000 so
our total proposed budget for the new system would be $115,265. I also believe the council had asked to
take a look at the specifications for the request for proposals. I've attached those in your packet. Staff is
recommending approval of the Request for Proposals dated June 74 and also to, we would have to bring
bids back for your award since we will be over that $25,000 mark.
Roger Knutson: 50.
Todd Gerhardt: 50. They changed it. So, and I would expect to see those back probably later part of
July, first part of August for your award.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I had one question Todd that just stood out as I was reading through the
specifications. On page 4, initial number of mailboxes will be 500. Is that a financial difference in
where the bid will come in, because what we have 75 employees and how many phones?
32
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
Todd Gerhardt: Probably 500' s kind of the minimum I would think or fairly close.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, basically it's a software. It's not a hardware thing. It's mostly software.
You buy groups and it's 500 is a minimum.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: But that's more to probably limit some of the smaller systems out there that might try to
have a lowball bid on it would be my guess.
Councilman Peterson: The one item, that same spec, 100 hours is a lot. That does cost additional
money...for the price of a system. The ports are not a cost factor. The hours are.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thanks for sharing that. So you're comfortable with 100 hours you're saying?
Okay. Any other questions for staff?.
Councilman Peterson: Todd the only thing, and I didn't talk to Rick about this or you, but you may want
to consider putting out the bid on a new or used refurbished system. You may find you can get a
refurbished system for a third or greater less than this. I've put in used systems over the last 5 years
successfully because the refurbed and they're guaranteed and they're a lot less money so, something at
least to consider. All depends upon availability. There may be a system out there that specs out at
exactly the same.
Roger Knutson: Comments so I'm clear on that. When going out for bids, if we say you can have
refurbished or new, and I'm not answering the question but just so we're clear. Refurbished or new, and
if the refurbished comes in at a dollar less, the refurbished gets the bid.
Councilman Peterson: That would be a factor. So it would have to be substantially less so.
Todd Gerhardt: What if we did it as a bid alternative on a refurbished system.
Roger Knutson: You could do a bid alternative.
Councilman Peterson: I guess I'd recommend that if we could.
Todd Gerhardt: Alright, that's what we'll do.
Councilman Labatt: You can make the recommendation then.
Todd Gerhardt: So we'll call that Bid Alternative #1 on a refurbished system versus a new system, and
that the refurbished system would have to have the same specifications as the new. We can do that.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay, very good. Can I have a motion
please?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Authorize staff to take bids for telephone and voice
messaging equipment.
33
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Do we need to be mentioning the bid alternative as part of the motion?
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
Councilman Peterson: So noted.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second please?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that City Council approve the Request
for Proposals dated June 7, 2001 and authorize staff to take bids for the Telephone and Voice
Messaging equipment, with a bid alternative for a refurbished system. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION
PLAN.
-Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. Before you is a request to modify the City's Position
Classification and Compensation Plan. The issue with the current plan is for those positions who have
base salaries that may exceed 100% of the midpoint. In the past we have seen a percentage increase onto
those base salaries and under the old cube system, that would allow an employee to possibly go uP to
130% of that midpoint. That just is not good management practices to have employees 30% above what
the market is. So staff is asking that you modify the merit pay system to include a step process for those
employees that are under 100% of the midpoint. And also to include a lump sum merit pay based on
performance. And those people that exceed 100% of the midpoint, we would suggest that a 2% lump
sum merit pay system be put in place. With that, in January we would continue to see the cost of living
based on the CIPU of whatever the Minneapolis/St. Paul rating would come in for that year. With that
staff, I'll answer any questions that you have regarding the proposed modifications.
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, the only question I had, and I talked to Todd about it a little bit is
if, in a plan in and of itself is relatively complex plan. The trend today in compensation is certainly
going away from a complex plan to more market based and what he has recommended and what staff s
recommending is going towards that a little bit. Having more flexibility to be sure we're paying
appropriately. So I liked what staff is moving towards. The only thing I'd throw out for discussion I
think is you look at, you know you're putting the staff administratively through I think what would be
considered as additional work that definitely isn't required. You've got two raises during the year. And I
think there is certainly some discussion that could be generated around having one. Having them both
combined. It would take less staff time in administering both from a verbal conversation standpoint and
from administrative payroll standpoint. I look at it, I don't see us gaining anything by having two
separate increases during the year, and Todd you can maybe add to this.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I can't disagree. We do spend a substantial amount of time doing reviews in.July.
Our January performance adjustments or the cost of living adjustment at that time is basically based on
getting the goals and objectives in for the upcoming year. Combining the two does make some sense
from an operational standpoint. It would assist Bruce's department in only having to process one pay
adjustment. December, in the past has been a busy month but with the holidays and people coming and
34
City Council Meeting - June 25, 2001
going, but it would be a good time to do reviews for employees. The development is pretty much shut
down. It'd be a good incentive to sit down and work with past year's goals and upcoming year's goals.
So it does make some sense in putting them together. I guess when we put this proposed modification
together we kind of stuck to the old method and didn't really look down to the efficiencies of trying to do
a one step process. From the business side of it, you are giving up that lost interest that you would have
had in saving the money for a mid-year adjustment and giving it all up in January. But it's not substantial
savings. You'd probably make that up in the efficiency of doing a one year review versus doing a bi-
annual review.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I guess then from a management point of view, you're not feeling as if you're
losing a point of contact in sitting down with the employees once every 6 months, if this is going to an
annual versus a twice a month. One for goals. One for review.
Todd Gerhardt: No. I mean you're always going to, you're constantly, Bruce is constantly evaluating his
employees on a daily basis. Communicating with them and if we have performance issues that come up,
we usually attack them on the spot. Department heads meet weekly and check their goals and objectives.
If not weekly, at least monthly to see how they're progressing and so there may be an occasional check in
with the city manager and department heads to see how they're doing on goals so they don't forget about
them but no, I' m happy with the one year process. It' s kind of been the trend I think in other places.
Mayor Jansen: I think it sounds like an excellent proposal and if you support it as the management team,
then I certainly would support making that change. Thanks for bringing it up Craig. Appreciate it.
Would we need any sort of action to add to your request here this evening?
Todd Gerhardt: The only alternative I would suggest is that you approve the plan as presented with it
taking effect in January. The 2002 budget process with pay adjustments occurring in January. Bruce,
did you want to add any comments to going from the two to the one?
Bruce DeJong: It takes me a little while to process these things and I don't know. I don't see that
there's any big issue with the number of staff contacts that you have. I'm not sure exactly how we work
the adjustment this year. If we postpone this until January, but we could certainly work through that.
Councilman Ayotte: Well since we're working with your folks, is there any reason why we don't ask
staff to evaluate the impact of a per annum review. Is there a need to finalize this this evening or should
we take a more?
Mayor Jansen: I think it's a management decision, and we have the HR manager here as far as Mr.
Gerhardt's direction and he certainly works as a team with his staff and can work through any changes
that we make.
Councilman Peterson: I think Bob as just logically, you're talking about a few percentage points over 6
months, you're probably talking hundreds of dollars, not thousands. That was really your questions,
wasn't it?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, so we're comfortable. Any other comments? Bruce? Okay.
Bruce DeJong: No thanks.
35
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay, bringing it back to council. Any other discussion? If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd recommend that staff approve the modification to position
classification and pay compensation plan as presented to be effective January 1 with the additional caveat
that we go to an annual merit and cost of living increase effective January 1.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
modification to the Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan as presented to be effective
January 1, 2002, with the caveat that there be only one annual cost of living and merit increase
effective January I of each year. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
RATIFY INTER-FUND LOANS TO TIF DISTRICTS.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Jansen, Council members. What the legislature has done, or at least what they
were thinking about doing sometime before they agreed to disagree and went into the special session was
that they were going to make a technical corrections bill to the TIF statutes. And part of that was to
resolve some outstanding issues that the cities have had with the state auditor's office regarding
application of the T~ statutes. What the state auditor' s office has taken as a position is that you do not
have the authority to make inter-fund loans because there is no statutory language specifically allowing
you to do that. In other words, a TIF district cannot be in a deficit situation because you don't have
authority to spend increments you haven't received yet. That puts us in an awkward position because we
do have TIF districts that are in deficit. The technical corrections bill would allow inter-fund loans for
TIF districts that are in a deficit position and it would ratify all inter-fund loans that were in place prior to
July 1, 2001. So what I'm asking you to do tonight is to approve a maximum loan for each TIF district
that we have that is in deficit or may be in deficit at some point in the future. And to determine an
interest rate that is at the same percentage that we earn on our other investment funds. Basically to make
the other funds whole with what they would have received, but not to charge an excessive rate to the TIF
districts. So with that, I know this is probably confusing. I'I1 just let you ask some questions and see if I
can answer them effectively.
Mayor Jansen: Well I think my first question is, as far as when these districts went into deficit, realizing
that when you came on board with us we did have funds that were in these sorts of situations. Is this, has
this been a long term situation? Is this something that just occurred or how did this deficit situation
occur?
Bruce DeJong: These deficits have been around for actually quite a while. Starting back probably in '96
or '97. Particularly in the downtown district we did issue some additional debt in that timeframe and I
suppose that's when they technically started going into deficit position. The assumption was always that
we would make enough increment to pay ourselves back without probably having done the hard analysis
that we went through last year to see exactly what the possible deficits could be. And at that point we
had pegged the possible deficit for TIF District 1 at about $11 million. Now that has since come down
due to the grants that we've received, but depending on what happens with the property tax situation at
the state legislature, we could still be facing large TIF deficits simply because the process that the state
has used for TIF grants is a current year deficit rather than using an accumulated deficit position. So that
36
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
means that you have to have expenditures greater than your revenues. And with our downtown TIF
district as of April 1st of this year, we are no longer able to expend money on anything except for debt
that existed prior to April 1st of 1990. So I still don't know exactly how much it will be but by allowing
this inter-fund loan I believe that we'll put ourselves in a better position for whatever grant pool the state
may put out there as kind of a relief for taking the school districts off the property tax rolls.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because right now what you're projecting to us is a $16 million deficit.
Bruce DeJong: No. That's not a projection. That is just simply a maximum loan amount.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Bruce DeJong: Kind of like, you know a home equity loan you can draw against if you need it but I
certainly don't expect that to be the case. If you look at North Bay, just because of timing differences
that you may go into deficit in North Bay. Because we have special assessments that are being paid off
over an 8 year cycle, but yet you have a district that has a 25 year life. We're certainly going to collect a
lot more increment than we expend, but because of that timing difference, we may fall into deficit as you
go through that. And I think we're in deficit on Eden Trace right now, but as those buildings come on
line, we're certainly not going to be in deficit. So in most of these situations we're okay. The McGlynn
District is in deficit and it doesn't have any increment coming in so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
Actually if you noticed that last week on the fund closings, I did close out some bond funds. There is
still one existing bond fund outstanding on that district. But all it's done is make the deficit bigger
without providing for any repayment of that and I still don't know how that's going to shake out.
Whether that may actually fall under a new grant program or not, who knows.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Bruce?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: No? Can I have a motion please?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval per staff' s recommendation.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Resolution g2001-43: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve to
ratify the Inter-fund Loans to TIF Districts in an amount not to exceed the following totals:
Downtown TID 1
McGlynn TID 2-1
Natl Weather Svc TID 2-2
North Bay TID 5
Eden Trace TID 7
$10,000,000
$3,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
APPOINTMENT TO CITY COUNCIL.
37
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Mayor Jansen: After the conclusion of our discussion on Thursday evening we had two applicants that
we were considering and making comment amongst ourselves at our public meeting. Mr. Bruce Helmer
and Mr. Gary Boyle. The place we had left this was there were two council members, myself and
Councilman Ayotte who cared to have additional discussion with both applicants before concluding our
discussion as a council. So why don't we pick up where we left off and Councilman Ayotte, not to put
you on the spot, but if you would like to give us your additional comments.
Councilman Ayotte: I talked to both gentlemen again and, well first off I'm going to preface it by saying
that all the folks that applied this time out applied in a more strained time in the city's business so I'll use
the word courageous that they stepped forward in difficult times so all of them, thank you for applying. I
will also say that a number of them, in my personal view, could, have the skills to do the job. With
respect to what we need at this point in terms of a quick turn and getting on the band wagon and running
with the ball, and I really hate using sport analogies but what the heck. But looking at both of them, I
favored Mr. Boyle versus Mr. Helmer after the discussions I've had with them this afternoon.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I too had a conversation with the applicants. Some of the concerns that were
raised around bringing another relatively new to city business individual and Mr. Helmer certainly spoke
to the fact that he's not worked within a city process in the past. In my conversation with him he voiced
his full commitment to getting up to speed and being able to provide the time to be able to go through an
orientation on processes. I guess I'm still torn between the two skill sets. I mean they're diametrically
opposite in my mind. I certainly can appreciate council's comments last Thursday speaking to Mr..
Boyle's years serving on the EDA and being familiar with those processes. Obviously representing a
commitment to our community. He's lived here for 24 years. I see that as a limited exposure to the
process. There will still be, and as he said, as Mr. Boyle said himself, he too will need to be learning
and getting up to speed so I see both situations as being a learning and familiarizing themselves with the
issues and the system. I still tend to favor a stronger financial background, and I think the article in the
Star Tribune certainly was timed such that it emphasized some of the financial burdens and decisions and
discussions that this council will be having over the next year and a half. So in looking at the two
gentlemen, I do tend to favor Mr. Helmer's background in that he has run his own company. He works
with a chief financial officer in running his company, which is a similar role of a council working with a
director of finance. So I see him bringing that sort of an experience of needing to rely on a talented
financial officer in running his company. Very visionary. Spoke to budgeting and planning issues.
Very much came across as a team player and a collaborator and I think would be an excellent addition to
the council. Could speak to pluses on both sides. It's simply a difference in skill set as to what we're
actually looking for and I certainly relied on the 5 points that we had used in reviewing skill set for the
council. Financial acumen being one of them. The organizational, participation and management.
Public interaction and communication. And the planning land use and development, along with
technology. And as I had expressed the first time through the process, I certainly put a higher value on
the financial capabilities of the applicants, but with that I guess, unless council wants to continue to have
discussion, I too want to echo what Councilman Ayotte expressed as far as appreciation to all of the
people who applied this time around. Certainly the atmosphere has changed and anyone who did step
forward was certainly looking at stepping into an environment that certainly could present some
challenges and making that personal commitment I think was very significant on all of their parts. So my
appreciation and I'm sure all of council's appreciation to all of the applicants for having stepped forward
to serve the community. With that, if there's any other discussion? Otherwise we could call for a vote.
Councilman Labatt: I'm set with.
38
City Council Meeting- June 25, 2001
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: I move we approve Mr. Gary Boyle to the open seat on the City Council.
Mayor Jansen: There's a motion to appoint Gary Boyle to the City Council member position. Do I have
a second?
Councilman Peterson: I second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to appoint Gary Boyle to f'lH the vacant
City Council seat. All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: And I certainly welcome Mr. Boyle. I do have to stand by my intended purpose in doing
this appointment. I mean no disrespect Mr. Boyle and I certainly have worked very well and compatibly
together for the last 2 ½ years on the EDA and I certainly look forward to serving and working with him
on behalf on the community and I' ve appreciated his commitment so with that, we move on to, are there
any administrative presentations this evening?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Todd Gerhardt: ...on the survey during our work session. Again we're looking at the 23ra for an update
from Bill Morris from Decision Resources and that's it.
Mayor Jansen: Great. Any Council discussion?
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Peterson: Status of recruiting. We haven't talked for a while about that. The deadline is
over so, I know we've got some applications in there. I just want to keep that process moving so.
Mayor Jansen: I have it on my calendar to call all of the members of the committee and see if we can set
up a time to get together to then go through those applications. So thanks for bringing that up, and then
we would be able to move onto the, well probably the next council meeting. Maybe the work session.
We'll see how that schedule is. We can have that conversation once we go through the applications. At
last count, did you get a last count on the number of.
Councilman Peterson: There were 12 last week. I don't know whether any more came in.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah. 12 was the last I was aware of.
Todd Gerhardt: I tried to shy away from that part.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, appreciate that. Okay. Any correspondence discussion? If I could have a motion
to adjourn.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
39
City Council Meeting - June 25,2001
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
40
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 19, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet and Rich Slagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, and Deb Kind
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner and Matt Saam, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Deb Lloyd
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND A HORSE RING WITHIN THE SECONDARY BLUFF
CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE,
JOHN KLINGELHUTZ.
Sharmin AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff?.
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have some questions Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead.
Sacchet: First of all, I like clarification of on the blueprint, there is one line labeled Bluff Creek 200 foot
primary zone, and then there' s another line labeled Bluff Creek Overlay primary.
AI-Jaff: The 200 foot was a line that the applicant, this is the line you're referring to.
Sacchet: Yep.
Al-Jaff: You can disregard it. The applicant just wanted to demonstrate that they are 200 feet away from
Bluff Creek.
Sacchet: So the relevant one is the overlay primary line.
Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Sacchet: That is the one that by ordinance is relevant?
AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sacchet: Okay, okay. That's one of my questions. Then when you said, you made a point that the
grading should not be more than 25% slope.
A1-Jaff'. Correct.
Sacchet: Do we know for a fact that I guess the grade just southwest of the horse ring is where
potentially we have 25% or more. Did they ever actually, with the current plan are we exceeding the
25%?
Al-Jaff: We tried to measure it. We think it's borderline. The applicant is going to submit detailed
surveys showing the exact slope of that area.
Sacchet: It is pretty steep around there, but it seems to get even more steep through the grade so that's
something that you're very fine.
AI-Jaff: We're working with the applicant on it.
Sacchet: And when you said it will be shifting to the south, that would be to avoid that 25%?
Al4aff: That's correct.
Sacchet: Now shifting to the south, that would be shifting down so there'd be a little more room, okay.
Would then also the barn shift with it or?
A1-Jaff: I think they would have to do that to accommodate the horse ring.
Sacchet: ...do you have in your recommendation do you have an idea much it would need to shift?
AI-Jaff: We think that it will be approximately outside the tree line that's shown on the plans, and I' 11
point that out. Here's the tree line. It might be a little bit within the tree line. Or maybe completely
outside it.
Sacchet: So that will be an additional benefit potentially that it would be less cut into the trees. Okay.
Okay. In terms of the grading, this amount of grading is acceptable within the secondary Bluff Creek
watershed? I mean it's, when I looked at the amount of grading it seems pretty significant. I mean in
some cases like 10 feet or certainly approximately 10 feet. And it's basically taking one hill and moving
it around. Is that within the tolerance of the second Bluff Creek framework?
AI-Jaff: As long as the grades are below 25%.
Sacchet: That's the criteria on that ordinance determines?
AI-Jaff: That's the criteria.
Sacchet: Okay. Do we know whether, maybe that's more a question for the applicant. Whether there is
enough fill between the hill and all the areas that get built up. That' s probably more of a question for you
Malt.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Saam: Yeah, Uli I have not received any soil quantity information from the applicant' s engineer as of yet
so we can't really answer that question as to the amount of fill required or how it will affect the city.
Sacchet: Okay. Is there, it seems it appears on the blueprint that there' s a little bit of overlap with the
grading into the septic area. Is that significant enough to be an issue or?
Saam: Yeah, I just mentioned it in the staff report. It's a good idea not to drive any construction
equipment over the septic area. Those pipes are plastic and they're not meant to take loads over them so
that's why it was brought up in the staff report. I would recommend no grading in the septic area.
Sacchet: Is it something that from a city point is required or is it up to the applicant?
Saam: Oh no, no.
Sacchet: If his pipes break it's his responsibility?
Saam: Yep, exactly.
Sacchet: Okay. The drainage swale that flows to the north, I assume that's that area that gets kind of
filled in where it's a little bit of a valley shape.
Saam: That area to the south there? South of the small building?
Sacchet: Yes, south of the small building. And that's the part that you were referring to that you want to
understand more the drainage patterns?
Saam: Yep.
Sacchet: Whether it drains north there or more to the northeast I guess that would be.
Saam: Exactly. Upon visiting the site I had just some questions as to how it will drain after, or with this
proposed grading so that's something I'll have to work out with the engineer and it is a condition in the
staff report.
Sacchet: And then the silt fence, I'm not quite sure where it starts and where it ends. It seems to be kind
of coinciding.
Saam: That's another good point. That's why we put a condition in there to put a legend on the plan
explaining all these different lines. It's confusing to us too. If you look just off the eastern low line of
the proposed grading off of that horse ring, there is some silt fence called out there and I think it' s
supposed to be that one of those pink lines in there, but we'll need a little more definition.
Sacchet: Actually there it's relatively understandable. It's probably that line that curves up and goes
pretty much on grade. Yeah, I think we could clarify where those silt fence lines are. Let's see, no that's
the questions I have. Just one more question. On the blueprint, I don't know if you can answer that or
the applicant. On the blueprint there are those parallel lines between the two structures. Two barns.
Like one line goes through the middle of the big barn south and then there's 3 parallel lines going north.
Saam: The black colored lines?
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sacchet: They're all black on my blueprint so the color coding.
Saam: Yeah, again that's something I'm not sure what that is. Maybe the applicant.
Sacchet: Ask the applicant?
Saam: Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, just a moment. I'd like to tell our newest audience
members. We are on item number 3 for the public hearing of the Klingelhutz conditional use permit.
Items 1 and 2 have been rescheduled to July 17th so if you're here for either of those items, you'll have to
go and come back on the 17th. Otherwise you're here for the right now. So I'm sorry, go ahead. Do you
want to go LuAnn? Questions?
Sidney: Yes. I guess just maybe a comment. Uli asked all the questions that I had which is just fine.
But I guess I would like to make a comment and I guess one of my questions had to do with giving more
direction to the applicant about the location of the horse ring and you answered that about it should be
brought south past the, by the tree line further away and I guess I would like to make a comment that in
doing so with the applicant that the intent of the ordinance is that within the secondary zone areas with
average slopes exceeding 25 % shall be preserved and the natural state maintained as permanent open
space, and I guess I'm concerned that we don't grade too close. We need to have a good buffer between
any disturbed areas of grading and whatever the secondary zone is to minimize that so, if we can
understand how much may be needed outside of the horse ring, it' s proper. You know what might be
disturbed in the grading to work with the applicant to minimize that.
Blackowiak: Rich, questions? No. I think I have just a couple questions of staff. Maybe just one. The
25% average slope figure has been talked about. Do any of these slopes near the 30%? I know that's our
bluff ordinance. Is that correct, 30% on bluff?.
A1-Jaff: 30% is bluff.
Blackowiak: Okay, so we're not even close to that. We don't have to worry about that at this point.
We're very close to 25, is that what I'm hearing?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, well I just wanted to clarify that. Stating that, will the applicant or their
designee like to come forward and make a presentation? Please state your name and address for the
record.
John Klingelhutz: John Klingelhutz, 1560 Bluff Creek Road. This afternoon, because of this 25%, I had
my surveyor or engineer actually give me a grade of what is actually out there when he did the
topographical map and it's 22.2%. So I don't believe that we need to move that ring. I mean it's within
the ordinance at 22.2%.
Planning Commission Meeting- June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: Yeah, if it's at 22.2, yes. Okay, well that would be something that you could discuss with
staff after this meeting but I think it's just a concern.
John Klingelhutz: The other thing that I want to comment on, and that is the type of grasses to be
planted. I want to have it a yard. I want to be able to manicure it. I don't want prickly ash and all those
things in there. I want to plan good trees. I want to get rid of all the elms and the boxelders and the
weeds. I don't want that.
Blackowiak: Okay.
John Klingelhutz: I mean if you come and look at my yard you see that it' s manicured and that' s what
we want this to be too.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I understand that. Are there any trees on the list of the approved tree list that
would work for you or, I mean have you looked at that a little bit or are you just?
John Klingelhutz: Well the oaks and all that, that's fine but I'm talking about the other things that are in
this list that it's the wild stuff. I don't want it to be wild.
Blackowiak: Right. Well I think that that's something that you could work with staff on to address
issues that you have with that and find something that's going to work for you both because I think these
are suggestions. I don't think you are, Sharmin correct me if I'm wrong, he doesn't have to put all of
these in. These are some suggested options that would be encouraged in that area.
A1-Jaff: We wanted to stay with native species to the Bluff Creek Overlay District and those are the
options that are available to the applicant.
Blackowiak: So is there anything that it has a more manicured look that he's looking for? I mean I guess
I don't know the types of trees and grasses that well but.
AI-Jaff: We can work with the applicant to find.
Blackowiak: Find something that would be acceptable to both parties.
AI-Jaff: Within the list.
John Klingelhutz: The other thing in terms of the grading and the water runoff, after a rain right now
there' s, in the pasture there's probably 3 feet of water at times until the tile system takes it away. It
doesn't really run this way. It actually runs more to the south.
Blackowiak: Okay, could you show us on the maps? She's zooming in on that so.
John Klingelhutz: I need to get my beatings here. The water actually comes, it sets in here and it
actually runs this way after...
Blackowiak: Okay, so kind of up to the east is what you're showing? Would that be to the east?
John Klingelhutz: Yeah, to the east. See at one point I would have liked to have it going that way but, I
mean that's not impossible. We have to...but I'm not sure we want it to go that way. Because now it
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
comes off of this, this is a large hill right here. And it runs down this way and it ponds here and after a
while it soaks away in a day and it actually ends up here.
Blackowiak: Okay. I think that's again something that you can work with staff on and it sounds like
that's not totally defined yet either. Is that correct Matt?
Saam: Yep, we'll be able to work with him. We're fine with that.
Blackowiak: Alrighty.
John Klingelhutz: Okay.
Sacchet: Can I ask some questions from the applicant?
Blackowiak: Certainly. Do you have anything else you'd like to add right now or?
John Klingelhutz: Not really other than there' s a lot of dirt to take and there' s 120 acres.
Blackowiak: Yeah, that's a big spot.
John Klingelhutz: And this hill right here, I mean that can come down 20 feet.
Sacchet: So you, that's actually one of the questions I have. So you think you have enough dirt by taking
that hill down and you can move, shift things around so you.
John Klingelhutz: I'm not saying we can't move things around. I'm just saying that I'd like to keep it as
close to what I have here as possible because it's close to the house and at that point when my little kids
are riding horses, somebody can be keeping an eye on them.
Sacchet: Yeah my question is, in terms of moving dirt to fill, like you take the hill down. Is the idea that
you have the dirt from the hill pretty much still left to fill where you need fill?
John Klingelhutz: Right.
Sacchet: That's your general approach?
John Klingelhutz: Right. And I'd like to take this hill down because it's too high. I mean right now I
have a tough time even cutting grass on it and part of it's in the pasture and you can't even drive a tractor
on it.
Sacchet: Because it's so steep.
John Klingelhutz: Because it's so steep.
Sacchet: Okay, okay. The idea of cutting less into the trees, what it looks like with the grade, it sounds
like you're okay based on your latest finding. The idea of cutting less into the trees is not something
attractive to you.
John Klingelhutz: I want to replace the trees that are there.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sacchet: Yeah, I'm sure you're going to build it up and make it look real nice. Those lines that I didn't
understand between the two barns, like there's one line going through the center of the big barn. It goes
outside of the barn to the south. I mean of these three parallel lines coming out of the small barn, do you
know what those are?
John Klingelhutz: No I don't.
Sacchet: Okay. And then there was the recommendation from staff to try to maintain like a 2% slope.
Making sure it's sloped every little bit. Is that something that makes sense to you?
John Klingelhutz: I want that too.
Sacchet: You don't have an issue with that?
John Klingelhutz: No.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have from you, thank you.
John Klingelhutz: Okay.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Rich? No? I don't have anything
either. Thank you.
John Klingelhutz: Thank you.
Blackowiak: This item is open for public heating so if there' s anybody who would like to ask questions
or comment on this item, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Okay, seeing no one we will. Oh, Debbie would you? I don't think so.
Debbie Lloyd: I don't know what item we're on.
Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. We're on item number 3.
Debbie Lloyd: I left. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Did you want to say anything about this item?
Debbie Lloyd: No thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Just checking. Alright, so then I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's
time to make any comments that you have. Rich, would you like to start this evening?
Slagle: Sure. First of all you have a beautiful property. We drive by all the time and just think the world
of it. I had a concern but I think John has addressed it regarding the trees. When I first saw this my
thought was, you know why isn't it a little bit further south to avoid the trees but now hearing from him I
understand why. The grading, if it's 22.2, which I'm sure engineering and staff will confirm, I don't
have on that slope, I don't have a problem with that. I really don't have any issues with this.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any comments?
Sacchet: A few comments. I do think this is a great project overall. I'm envious of you. I do believe
that it's important to make sure that we minimize the slope of the grading and try to preserve trees but
that can be done in different ways and that' s basically your responsibility it looks like in terms of the city
framework once we confirm that it's a bit less than the 25%. It's basically in your hands. And you're the
steward of that place so that' s where it' s at. I do have two comments. One is to finding number 9 in the
staff report. It says the development of this site will not result in the loss of any features which
incorporation of staff' s condition. I would like that reworded to say, the development of this site will
result in loss of some features even with incorporation of staff conditions because I think introducing that
steeper slope and cutting into the trees is having some impact. I don't think it's prohibitive. Again that's
in the applicant's hands. And then I would also like to be affirmative in the condition number 1 where it
says the applicant adjust the grading limits by shifting the horse ring to the south so there will be no
slopes with grades that exceed 25%. Apparently that's already the case but avoiding the slope of 25%
seems not quite specific enough. That's my two comments.
Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, any comments?
Sidney: Well, you discussed the points I think that need fine tuning and I think it's a very nice project
and make for a lovely piece of property when it's finished.
Blackowiak: Okay, and I pretty much agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. I believe
that with the conditions that staff has incorporated, that we will be really kind of making sure that we get
what is best for the site. That the grades don't exceed 25% so that re-vegetation can be worked out with
the applicant and staff so there' s a nice mix and he can kind of get what he' s looking for. The only
condition that I would add, and this may not even be necessary if he does have enough fill on site but I
think that we should add that, and I don't want to say standard but the engineering. Any import/export of
fill requires appropriate permits. So if and when that happens, if there has to be fill brought in or taken
off site, that the applicant would be required to get any appropriate permits and that's just a fairly
standard condition so with the addition of that, and I agree with your finding number 9 Uli. That we can
just say that it will result in the loss of some features. And that is, or maybe minimal loss. I don't know.
I understand what you're saying but.
Sacchet: I mean it's also the grading aspect which is fairly significant.
Blackowiak: Right. But again I think that this fits within what is there, and I agree with what you're
saying so. With that I would like to have somebody make a motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval to Conditional Use Permit #01-4 to allow construction within the secondary Bluff Creek
Overlay District in an A2 District for a barn, shed and a horse ring, as shown on the plans dated Received
May 21, 2001, subject to the following conditions 1 through 13. And I'd like to reword condition
number 1 to read, the applicant shall adjust the grading limits if exceeding, if they exceed 25% by
shifting the horse ring to the south so that there will be no slopes that exceed 25%. And add a condition
number 14 with the standard language of permits being required for importing/exporting fill.
Blackowiak: Alright. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit//01-4 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of the Bluff Creek
Overlay District in an A-2 District for a barn, shed, and a horse ring, as shown on the plans dated
Received May 21, 2001, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall adjust the grading limits, if they exceed 25%, by shifting the horse ring to
the south and avoiding slopes with grades that exceed 25%.
2. The applicant enters into a conditional use permit agreement with the city.
3. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the
Maple-Basswood Forest and Mesic Oak Forest communities of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant
Species of Natural Communities").
4. The applicant shall apply for a stable permit.
5. Show the existing tree line that enters the site from the east.
6. Add a legend to the plan that defines the many different colored lines.
7. Add the benchmark to the plan that was used for the site survey.
8. Show the location of the existing culvert and nearby curb cut off of Bluff Creek Drive.
.
9. Show the proposed finished floor elevation for the small building.
10. Revise the proposed grading within the existing swale to eliminate the ponding of water.
11. Show a proposed drainage swale along the east side of the large building.
12. All disturbed drainage swale areas on the site shall maintain a minimum 2% slope.
13. A wood fiber blanket will be required over the steep slope on the east side of the proposed horse
ring.
14. All appropriate permits shall be obtained regarding the importing and exporting of fill
material on site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 18 AND 20, REGARDING THE
USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAG LOTS.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Public Present:
Name Address
Teresa Meier
1060 Lake Lucy Road.
Blackowiak: I'd like to make two comments on this before we start. First, Commissioners when we do
go ahead and go through these items, I think that the simplest way might be going section by section and
if we have any comments on a section we' 11 all kind of make our comments and then move onto the next
section. So that way we're kind of all on the same page and it will make it easier for Sharmin to make
any comments.
Sacchet: Point of clarification. Are we getting input?
Blackowiak: That was my second item. It's technically not a public hearing but if anybody has
comments that they would like to make tonight, we will take comments in person tonight or you could
make comments in writing. They may be submitted in writing as well so with that, Sharmin would you
like to give us your report please.
A1-Jaff: Sure. You've been working on this ordinance for.
Sacchet: More than a year.
A1-Jaff: More than a year. And over this time period what we've done is basically taken your input and
incorporated it into ordinances. As well as clarified definitions. The model that we chose is basically
similar to that that's followed by the flood plain ordinance. You have flood plain, flood way, flood
fringe. That was, it's an established model that works for the entire nation. So that's what we tried to
model this ordinance after and briefly I will go, this is an illustration, I would like to make that clear. It
is not to scale. It's just to basically show what each definition is. This area is a public right-of-way or
street. What you see in yellow is a roadway. It's the paved portion. It includes the shoulder on a street.
What you see in green is a boulevard. Within that area you could have utilities, you can have sidewalks.
This portion is a private street serving more than one home. It is the shared portion that is also
highlighted in yellow. What you see in gray is individual driveways. Again, another scenario for private
drive or private street, sorry. And these are individual driveways. These are just individual driveways
serving individual properties, and this is a flag lot with a private driveway. The individual private
driveway. So with that we began amending the ordinance. Basically the intent is to go through the entire
city code and unify the definitions. What you see before you is only Chapters 18 and 20. Assuming that
you approve this, we will then go before the City Council with Chapters 1 through 20, so all definitions
read the same throughout the ordinance. We struck out certain words. We added new ones. What you
see highlighted is added definitions that are used within the ordinance yet not clearly defined and in other
areas we have taken out words that we thought are not needed for the definition. How would you like me
to proceed with this? Do you want me to go one by one or?
Blackowiak: Well I think that maybe what might be most effective is if we just went through section by
section and started with 18-1, if you have anything that you'd like to point out to us.
Sacchet: Can I ask a question as it relates to the whole thing?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: Certainly. Go ahead.
Sacchet: First before we go to specific. I just want to clarify two things. One is, this has all been
reviewed with the city attorney? The definitions because like last time when Kate presented these things,
her point was that the city attorney had found that these definitions weren't in place yet so I just want to
clarify that we're clear on the legal side with all these definitions.
AI-Jaff: We had a meeting with the city attorney, staff and the city attorney approximately 2 weeks ago
and these definitions are at his direction.
Sacchet: Okay. That's what I wanted to confirm. Okay, so then the other thing on the other side we had
a lot of input from residents, the Paulsen's and Debbie Lloyd specifically to all these different
definitions. Did they have some input at this point?
Al4aff: No.
Sacchet: That's what happens tonight basically?
Al4aff: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, I just wanted that, I just want to clarify that for the whole thing. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I think it might just be easiest, I mean if anybody's got a different idea, jump
in but I'm thinking that if we just go section by section. We'll let staff make any comments they have.
We can ask questions. Make comments and kind of close out a section and then move onto the next one
so we aren't jumping back and forth too much.-
Al4aff: Okay.
Blackowiak: So why don't we start with 18-1. Definitions. And if you have anything Sharmin that you
think we need to specifically look at, go ahead. Otherwise we'll just start with questions or comments.
AI-Jaff: Okay. The only thing I wanted to point out is that the definitions that we've added are used
within Chapter 18. Only there wasn't a definition of them here. Within Chapter 18. Although Chapter
18 does reference Chapter 20. That if you can't find a definition within Chapter 18, you can reference
Chapter 20. We pulled them in for.
Blackowiak: So it's just basically to clarify and to make it a little simpler to find it.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well, Rich, anybody have questions or comments? I'll just start with Rich this time.
We'll kind of go back and forth I guess. No?
Slagle: No I don't.
Blackowiak: Uli.
Sacchet: 18-1, I have no comments. This looks really nice to me.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn?
Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. I was just wondering if you were, where you were going to include the
illustration, if at all, because I think up front it might be useful. Does it make sense to include it in the?
A1-Jaff: We can do that.
Sidney: I think right when you're talking about the definitions, it would be good to have the illustrations.
A1-Jaff: We can do that.
Blackowiak: And maybe in both 18-1 and 20-1, definitions. Again, just to simplify and make it easy to
find.
AI-Jaff: Okay.
Blackowiak: I just have one, are you done? I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Sidney: And I guess right-of-way, is this the legal definition that Roger wishes to use?
A1-Jaff: Again, this was at Roger's direction. He has not commented on the final draft.
Sacchet: To clarify right-of-way could mean different things than the road, correct?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay.
AI-Jaff: You can have utilities within a right-of-way. A roadway. A sidewalk.
Sacchet: Right-of-way.
AI-Jaff: Right-of-way.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well I just have one comment on this and Sharmin I told you this a little, right
before the meeting started. In the definition of street and this ties me into Uli's comment. It means a
public right-of-way or private right-of-way, and then I'd like to add occupied by a roadway. Because you
pointed out street, or the right-of-way can be different things so I think you need to just specify that it's
the right-of-way occupied by a roadway.
Sacchet: That's a good comment.
Blackowiak: Alrighty so, we'll just move on from Section 18-1 and go to 18-2. Compliance. There's
not much there. You must comply. 18-3. Commissioners, just sort of jump in if you want to say
anything otherwise I'll just keep going through. 18-4. Any questions? Comments? Okay, let's go to
Article II, Section 18-21. Building Permits. Okay, 18-22. Variances. Okay, 18-23 through 35 are
reserved. 18-36. Okay, Section 18-37. I just have a couple questions here. A couple comments.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sharmin, we're talking about in the first sentence, minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for a
buildable lot and are on an existing public street or, are we talking about existing private streets?
A14aff: Yes. Yes we are.
Blackowiak: Okay. Could we add existing there? And also on the next page, in the definition that abut
an existing public or an existing private. So we clarify that it's not something new coming in. Okay,
Section 18-38. Section 18-39.
A1-Jaff.' We don't require transparencies.
Blackowiak: Okay. I see that. Section 18-40.
Slagle: I have a question if I can on 18-39.
Blackowiak: Oh sure.
Slagle: Are we okay in the 500 feet?
Blackowiak: The notification?
Slagle: Yeah. Is that not raise any issues?
A1-Jaff: State statute requires 300. We already go 200 feet beyond that and if directed by Planning
Commission or City Council, in the past on special projects we've gone beyond that~
Slagle: Sure, okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, good. It's good to hear. Okay, Section 18-40. Okay, 18-41. Oh I have a question.
Talking about the final plat application, kind of the second paragraph. If the final plat is not filed within
this period, which is one year, preliminary plat will be considered void unless for good cause showing an
extension as requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by City Council. Now can that extension
be requested at any point in time or do you need to have it be requested before the one year anniversary?
In other words, before the final plat becomes void. Or I mean excuse me, the preliminary plat becomes
void.
AI-Jaff: Typically what we do is 30 days prior to it expiring, we talk to the applicant and let them know
that we need to bring this back before the City Council.
Blackowiak: Before the one year anniversary?
AI-Jaff: Correct. Okay. Well then maybe could we please add some language at the end, after an
extension is requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the City Council prior to the one year
anniversary date of preliminary plat approval. So we really specify that they've got that one year and if
they don't act within that one year, either to do something or to request an extension, that it becomes
void. Okay, Section 18-42. Questions? Okay, Article m. Section 18-56. Section 18-57.
Sacchet: Now we're getting into it.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sidney: It includes the flag lots? I believe it does.
Blackowiak: It does.
Sidney: Madam Chair, one question for staff about that? And we went over this many times about
adding the criteria on variance section blah, blah, blah should be met. Now would it be appropriate to list
the criteria for a variance at this point or do you always refer back?
A1-Jaff: We always refer back to that section.
Sidney: Okay. I guess I'm just concerned that if, like individual property owners you know would turn
to this. It might be good to write here.
Al-Jaff: Repeat?
Sidney: Repeat the variance language.
A1-Jaff: We hope that they would meet with us prior to such application coming forward. It is a
requirement of the ordinance and that would be the time to.
Sidney: To go through the requirements.
AI-Jaff: Go through all of that.
Sidney: Okay.
Blackowiak: Any other questions? No? Uli.
Sacchet: Yes I have a few things too. First I want to clarify that in section (o), private streets may be
permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12 and R-16. So they don't need a variance there?
A1-Jaff: They don't need a variance, no.
Sacchet: But then the continuation is we crossed out the other districts but then we say districts might be
served by the private street. I think we have a little bit of a language issue there, don't we? We have
twice with may and twice words but only one sentence. See what I mean Sharmin? Private streets may
be permitted in business, industrial districts.
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: May be served, and I think the language. I don't know whether, I'm not a native English
speaker but it seems like English doesn't quite work in there.
A1-Jaff: Okay. I think we need to take and R-16 districts. Private streets may be permitted in business,
industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16 districts.
Sacchet: Period?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sacchet: And cross out the rest? Or do we want to say, if the city finds...
A1-Jaff: If the city finds, so we're taking out may be served by.
Sacchet: Okay, by private street because we already said. So we said private streets may be permitted in
business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16 districts if the city finds the following conditions to
exist.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay that's, I wanted to clarify that. And then I'm so happy to have number 6. That added
thing in there about specific building orientation, increased setback. That was really one of the key
things I believe that we're shooting for for this whole year. Now in letter (q), that's really the heart of
this here. We're talking about flag lots or private streets, should that be plural? Is there an s missing or
should we just say a private street?
A14aff: Yes.
Sacchet: We want the s?
Al-Jaff: Yes you do. Q?
Sacchet: In (q).
Al4aff: Flag lots or private streets.
Sacchet: Okay. And then you already said that by referring back to Section 18-22, if the criteria in there
on Section 18-22 is met, criteria is plural. It probably should say are met. I didn't even notice that until
now so excuse me. So that is, I bring in where the variance is and I think LuAnn your comment was
certainly appropriate. But then on the other hand, 18-22 is not that far away for people to look it up. My
concern was just to make sure that it's clearly anchored in that the variance is needed. Now I'd like to
ask, that's sort of my key question here. Why did we put the private street and the flag lot together? I
think up til the last meeting where we worked through this, we already had it on two separate tracks like
parallel so to speak. And here we merge it together and I'd like to know why. What is the benefit or
what's the process that led to merging the two into one thing?
A1-Jaff: Two things. Number one, the criteria for flag lots, as well as private streets is identical.
Sacchet: One doesn't go without the other basically?
A14aff: No. They have to meet the same criteria. 1 through 3.
Sacchet: Because one could go without the other?
Al-Jaff: One could go without the other, absolutely.
Sacchet: Actually in your example you have the flag lot, which I believe was a driveway. Not a private
street.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Al-Jaff: Correct. With a flag lot you're only serving one parcel only.
Sacchet: Right, right.
A1-Jaff: That has a neck to a public street.
Sacchet'. So we're saying because it has the same requirements...
A1-Jaff: We put them together and we wanted to make sure that both of them go under the variance
procedure.
Sacchet: Let me take it one step further, and that should answer my question. Because when we look at
the following condition exists as required, you have those three conditions. It appears to me only number
3 applies to flag lots specifically. If we look at the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible
and inappropriate to construct a public. That should say public...cross out private. We don't want
private in there, do we? That's another thing I wondered. On the condition 1 Sharmin. It's unfeasible
and inappropriate to construct a public street, then we allow a private street? Or are we saying
public/private street really clash of images?
Saam: If I could. It also applies to flag lots though. I think so you could have possibly a private street
where a flag lot comes off of that.
A1-Jaff: Well we haven't had such, I can't think of such a scenario.
Saam: Yeah. I'm just saying though, you could have that so then.you may need to keep that private in
there. At least that's the way I read it.
Sacchet: Public/private street. I don't think we have defined.
Blackowiak: Maybe an or instead of the slash.
Sacchet: I think the, yeah that maybe should say or. Sorry I'm picky here but this is the time to try to get
clear about these things. Okay. To construct a public or private street. The prevailing development
pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public or private street. In making this
determination the city may consider location of existing property lines, homes, local or geographic
condition and the existence of wetlands. So this applies, does this apply to both flag lots and private
streets'?.
AI-Jaff: h should.
Sacchet: It actually does. Once we untangle that public/private, it does apply to both, okay.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: I'm happy with that one. Number 2. After reviewing the surrounding area, bear with me
please. It is concluded that an extension of the public or private street system is not required to serve the
other houses in the area, improve access.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Al-Jaff: This one means you don't automatically get a flag lot. That you need to investigate the other
options which include public street, private street. Your third option is.
Sacchet: So it does address both, okay.
Al-Jaff.' Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Now that answers my question really well. And then of course the last one
addresses both and that's clear. Good, thank you. Thanks for bearing with me.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, any comments or questions? No. I have just a little question here Sharmin.
Uli started with Section (o)1, 2 and 3 and you struck out the up to the 4 lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4
districts. Then we go back to a number 1 and we're bringing those districts back in. I'm not quite
following. I need a little help here.
AI-Jaff: We're allowing.
Blackowiak: We're allowing them in business, industrial, etc.
AI-Jaff: Without a variance.
Blackowiak: Without a variance. Okay, and then we get down to the number 1. Do we need to talk
about when they're allowed in these A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts or how do we get there from?
AI-Jaff: In number, I see.
Sacchet: It's the second number 1.
Blackowiak: Right. The second number 1. Almost the middle of the page.
Al-Jaff: So it's sequencing?
Blackowiak: I think so. I'm not quite sure. I was just a little confused because it above in the letter (o) it
struck out those specific districts and then in the number 1 below that, the second number 1 below that it
added them back and I'm just kind of curious, do we need to explain why they're back there? And I
don't have an answer for that. It's more of a question then an answer or a comment.
AI-Jaff: These are the specifications for a private driveway.
Blackowiak: Where we need to say that they would be possible in these districts with a variance or, I
mean what do we need to say because it just doesn't flow well to me. And I guess I don't need to belabor
it right now but maybe some word smithing between the time that we see it and it goes to council. Uli,
do you have a suggestion?
Sacchet: Yes, but go ahead Sharmin. Do you have something?
Al-Jaff: I was going to suggest that you add it under (q) that they would meet the specifications outlined
in.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sacchet: That's what I was going to say. I mean since the letter (o) does not relate anymore to this
districts, while (q) does. It should he going under (q).
Blackowiak: Okay, I'm happy with that. I just want to make sure that we're kind of tying it all together.
A1-Jaff: We can do that.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, any more comments or questions on Section 18-577 If not, we'll
move onto 18-58. Alleys. 18-59. Blocks.
Sacchet: Are we at 60?
Blackowiak: Rightnow. 18-60.
Sacchet: Yes. (a). Lower case a. All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a
publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or be accessed. Should there be a be in
there? Or be accessed via private street or flag lot which shall have minimum. I think the be is missing.
Instead of that crossed out on. Does that make sense? Is that English?
Blackowiak: All lots shall abut their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as
required by the zoning ordinance or on a private. Well.
Sacchet: Or be accessed.
Blackowiak: You could say or be accessed or you could even take accessed via out of there and say or
on, just how it was kind of. Or on a public...full required minimum frontage, whether it be a private
street or public street. Correct? That's what we're looking for.
Sacchet: Right, and they need to be accessed or it's one of the options they be accessed via a private
street.
Blackowiak: Right. Okay. Well Sharmin we can kind of, Section (a) just clarify in some way, shape or
form, all lots shall abut their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by
the zoning ordinance.
Sidney: Or on a private street.
Blackowiak: Or on a private street, because that's, to me that makes a little more sense.
Sacchet: If you go back to all lots shall, number 1... Number 2, be accessed via. I mean if you go
linguistically, it all goes back to the all lots shall.
Al-laff: May I point something out?
Blackowiak: Please.
A1-Jaff: This parcel. Here is your property line. Here is the front property line on this parcel. It is not
on.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: The private street, yeah.
AI-Jaff: ...via.
Blackowiak: The private drive.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Let's say be accessed then. Not on. Yeah, that's a good reason why not to say on.
Blackowiak: I agree. I'm convinced.
Sacchet: So we add the word be. Be accessed.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'm happy. Any other questions on 18-607 I have one. The lot remnants. Could
we further define that? I mean a lot remnant is what? I mean just a little.
A1-Jaff: You'll see a.
Blackowiak: An outlot or what?
AI-Jaff: Let me use the, the road came through. Now granted, these are substantially larger than, this is a
fairly small scale.
.
Blackowiak: Right.
Al-Jaff: But if it would have created a parcel that was 100 feet long and 20 feet deep, it doesn't meet any
of the standards of the ordinance. It' s unbuildable. I would consider that to be a remnant lot.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well maybe we could just, remnants that are.
Sidney: Remnant lots are prohibited.
Blackowiak: Remnant lots? Yeah, remnant lots. Yeah, just switch them around. That's good. Remnant
lots. Okay, that's simple enough.
Sacchet: Should we say unusable remnant lots? I mean do you want to validate...?
Blackowiak: I think by definition a remnant lot is unusable.
Sacchet: Okay, because I was thinking if you have a development of lots and then all except one, that' s a
lot.
Blackowiak: Not if, not if it's platted as a lot. It would be.
Sacchet: It's the one that remains. Remnant lot. I mean it's logical thinking. That's why I'm saying, if
we imply it's unusable, maybe it'd help to be...
Blackowiak: But the owner would still own it, or the developer would still own it. I don't know.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sacchet: It doesn't make that much of a difference. I think if we want to be real clear.
Blackowiak: Well think about it Sharmin. Come to a decision before City Council. Decide if you want
to deal with that or not. Okay. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. Do you have
any comments on 18-61 ? I have one little comment on number 7 near the end. It talks about
conservation easements. Generally Sharmin, conservation easements are recorded.
A1-Jaff: Again the property.
Blackowiak: Again the property. Do we need to mention that? I mean maybe just say that they should
be recorded? I mean I guess as a matter of course they are. Is that, is it information that would be
helpful? I don't know. I don't have an answer to that. I'm just kind of throwing.
AI-Jaff: I'm reading it but.
Saanm Madam Chair, if I could just add typically easements are recorded so in my mind by definition an
easement is recorded.
Blackowiak: It's just redundant?
Saam: Yeah.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that I was looking into
that. Rich, did you have a question on this section?
Slagle: Yeah, on 61.
Sacchet: Which one?
Slagle: 18-61. Are we on 61 yet?
Blackowiak: Yes we are.
Slagle: Okay. All the way to the very end, 11. Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be
required, and I don't know if this area, this sub-point talks to the concern that I know I've addressed.
Uli's addressed. Craig's addressed, is to how do we guarantee that people adhere to for any damage to
trees to whatever, natural resources and I guess my question is, what is an acceptable financial
guarantee? I mean what is the folks, the one right next to the church. The old church. What are they
putting down as a financial guarantee that those large trees will not be damaged? Is it 50 bucks? Is it
1,0007
Al~Jaff: We receive a bid from the contractor and then we take 110% of whatever that value is.
Slagle.' So additional 10% to protect. Okay.
A1-Jaff: Correct. And if the requirement is to preserve trees before any grading takes place, we require
the fencing to go up. Jill Sinclair, our City Forester would go out there. Make sure that all the trees that
are supposed to be saved are tagged and fenced.
20
Planning Commission Meeting- June 19, 2001
Slagle: Well let me ask this. One of my first meetings, and Matt I think you addressed it, we voted on
what to provide as an escrow or protective amount and we ended up with a minimum, and I apologize for
not remembering what it was, but is that what we're talking about here or is that a totally separate, in
essence an escrow account?
Saam: That was by definition for erosion control. Sometimes those areas cross together when you're
talking slopes, trees. You know we want silt fence around the trees so little bit of a gray area but we do
have, I think what Sharmin was referring to was landscape escrows. That's just for trees so.
A1-Jaff: It's been a while since I looked at the figures but typically it's approximately $250 for a tree.
And then you take that at 110%.
Slagle: Okay. So, I mean if I can summarize and what I think I hear is $250. 110% so 275.
AI-Jaff: Per tree.
Slagle: Per tree.
A1-Jaff: And it depends on the species of the tree as well.
Slagle: Sure. And 275 will get you in essence a starter tree.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Slagle: Okay. So in essence you know one of these 30 some inch trees that we talked about preserving
could unfortunately get damaged, die and what will replace it will be a starter tree. In essence. Worst
case scenario.
Al-Jaff: If it's a 30 inch that was proposed to be saved, then you replace it with 30 inch calipers, 2 ½
inch minimum each so you will have 30 divided by 2 ½.
Slagle: Okay. And the feeling is we're pretty tight on that? Okay.
Al4aff: It's been working.
Slagle: Fair enough. Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any more on 18-617 Let's go to 18-62. 18-63. Surface water management. I have
one comment on the second page on the right hand page Sharmin. Second line down. Subdivision will
be given a credit for any on-site storm. That should be two words.
Al4aff.' Yes.
Blackowiak: Just clean it up a little bit. 18-76. Any questions? Easements. This is Article IV. 18-77.
18-78. Okay, 18-79. Parkland dedication requirements. Okay Sharmin, I have a question on that. On
the second page there' s a table of the calculations. The population calculations. I remember Kate saying
that the 2000 census numbers came in and she was really surprised by some of the numbers that she had
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
seen. Based on those numbers and that information, are we comfortable with the numbers that we have
in here or should we be updating those as well?
Al-Jaff: Single family was at.
Blackowiak: 3.7 or something like that.
Slagle: I thought it was higher.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I remember them being a little higher so I'm just wondering if we shouldn't be, you
know if it's 3.7, 7.4, you know what I mean? Whatever it is. I think we should look into at least
adjusting this for a current census data.
AI-Jaff: I will make a point.
Blackowiak: I mean since we're going through this.
AI-Jaff: I will make a point of that.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, that's my comment for 18-79. Now we're into Section 20.
A1-Jaff: And before you go over Section 20. Everybody got a copy of.
Blackowiak: Adding the (q).
A1-Jaff: Again with Section 20, there was no definition of boulevard yet it' s a term that' s used in the
zoning ordinance. Clarifying the meaning of driveway. The only addition that you received to date was
street. The definition of street.
Blackowiak: And I guess Sharmin we could add occupied by a roadway or whatever that verbiage was.
A1-Jaff.' Yes.
Blackowiak: From the earlier section. Thank you.
A1-Jaff: And then Section.
Blackowiak: Section 20-1103, which refers back to the requirements.
A1-Jaff: Of the variance.
Blackowiak: Right, okay. Okay, any questions on those?
Sacchet: Yeah. On the definition of the setback.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property
line or right-of-way.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
^l-Jaff: And I have an answer for you.
Sacchet: And within shoreland areas. I'm still thrown by that within shoreline areas. I know there are
setbacks within the shoreline area but the way it's worded here is, I felt very.
A1-Jaff: Okay, within shoreland areas comma, and put in a small s for setback.
Sacchet: Comma setbacks.
AI-Jaff: So and, within shoreland areas setbacks also means the minimum horizontal distance between a
structure or sanitary facility and the OHW.
Sacchet: Okay. That does make sense. Excellent. I love it. Thanks Sharmin.
Slagle: You thought you had her, didn't you?
Al-Jaff.' He did have me when he called.
Sacchet: I gave her forewarning of this one. Good job.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions or comments on this section? Okay, well. As I said I will open
this item up for comments. So if you'd like to come up and comment on any of these fun and exciting
amendments to Chapters 18 and 20, please feel free to do so. I would just ask that you state your name
and address for the record and if you could go through numerically, similar to what we did, that would be
very helpful for us to follow. So if anybody would like to make any comments.
Teresa Meier: I'm Teresa Meier and I'm at 1060 Lake Lucy Road. I want to go back to, let's see. It is
18-57. And it goes back to the (q) which I know was brought up before with flag lots or private streets.
If you read it and you read the conditions below, I think you would want to take the private street out
because if you say flag lots or private streets serving up to 4 lots may be permitted if the criteria on
Variance 18-22 are met and if the city finds the following conditions, the prevailing development pattern
makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. I don't know why, if you put private
street you're really being redundant there because you're saying that you're private flag lot or private
street may be permitted if the development pattern is unfeasible to construct a public street. But then
you're using private in there again. See what I'm trying to say?
Blackowiak: Yeah I think, I understand what you're saying. Sharmin, is this the discussion about the
driveway. The private drive versus private street or what are we, when we're talking.
Teresa Meier: Private streets on the top and in that condition.
Blackowiak: Right. No, I understand that. What do you think Sharmin?
Al-Jaff: I know why it's there. Your first option is a public street. Second option is a private street.
Your third option is a flag lot.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, I understand what you're saying too. So then maybe in (q) we need to separate flag
lots and private streets. And I'm not sure, you know what I'm saying. Just to take that private street out
of there.
Sacchet: I personally think it would be safer to have it separate, the flag lot from the private street. Just
avoid this type of confusion.
Blackowiak: In other words, let me just offer a suggestion. Read, flag lots may be permitted in the A-2,
RSF, blah, blah, blah district, if the city finds the following conditions exist, 1, 2 and 3. Leave those as it
is and then maybe add a condition R. Private streets serving up to 4 lots may be permitted in the A-2,
RR, RSF, etc. And then in condition 1, take out the word private. So in other words, then we have
conditions 1, 2 and 3 but then condition 1 would read only, the prevailing development pattern makes it
unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. So in other words flag lots is addressing both the
public and private street issue, whereas the private street is only addressed by the public street issue.
Does that make sense?
Sacchet: The same would hold true for number 2, because there we also say private or.
Blackowiak: Or public.
Sacchet: So the private would come up there as well.
Blackowiak: Okay, so then when we talk about flag lots we talk about public and private streets. And
then when we go to condition, what would be condition r or Section r, we would talk about private streets
serving up to 4 lots. The same 3 sub-conditions, i, 2 and 3 but take out the mention of private streets on .
those 3. Would that all mesh together? Is that what you're trying to get at? Okay.
Teresa Meier: Yeah.
Sacchet: It applies to number 3 also. It applies to all 3 of them, yeah.
Teresa Meier: Okay, so we just have to take out the private street mention when we talk about private
streets but if we just kept r separate and broke it out, I think that's what you were talking about earlier.
Sacchet: Right. I prefer to go that route. That's why I was trying to understand why staff in discussion
with the attorney found it beneficial to merge them. I personally think it'd be better to keep them
separate.
AI-Jaff: Okay. We can do that.
Blackowiak: Okay, great. Good comment. Anything else?
Teresa Meier: No.
Blackowiak: No? Okay. Debbie.
Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive, and just first off I want to say
I'm really disappointed I didn't have a chance to review this until I walked in here tonight. I couldn't,
unless I missed something and the Paulsen's missed something, I didn't see it published as an agenda
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
item in the Villager for the last 2 weeks. It was also not on the web site today, and as you all know you
asked if we could review this beforehand. We've put in about a year's worth on all of this and there's
just a lot of fine detail that I can't even recollect.
Blackowiak: Yeah. Okay, just so.
Debbie Lloyd: I do know I can address it in writing but I did want to state that because I think that is a
real problem with the city is informing citizens and if we've been on top of things, and we don't even
know°
Blackowiak: Right. Well this item is not technically open for public hearing. I just thought that you
know I would like to open it up tonight and I certainly encourage you to do any comments in writing and
also Sharmin, correct me if I' m wrong. This was in the packet that went out Thursday so it would have
been available up in City Hall on Thursday. Okay. So this was in the packet on Thursday, which is
when we all get.
Debbie Lloyd: It wasn't noticed. There wasn't notice in the paper and as far as I know there should be
notice in the paper.
Blackowiak: Not if it's not a public hearing.
Sacchet: The agenda was published.
Blackowiak: This isn't, the agenda was published. Yeah.
Debbie Lloyd: Was this in the agenda?
Sacchet: Yeah I'm pretty sure.
Debbie Lloyd: Published in the paper?
Blackowiak: As far as I know. You know again.
Sacchet: I believe it was, but I'm not 100% sure. I usually look in the paper because I look there before I
get the package.
Blackowiak: Well regardless. Like I said, it was available on Thursday so if you have comments. If you
could just go through section by section.
Debbie Lloyd: Well I do have. I think we'll probably be addressing most everything in writing. Section
18-37(a). Basically you're exempting lots from having to go through the platting procedure if they're on
an existing public street or private street. That does not clarify private streets with up to 4 lots so I think
that could be misconstrued because all the way along we say there can only be a maximum of 4 lots there
by a private street. So that little clarification is not in that section.
Blackowiak: Okay, Sharmin can you look into that? Okay.
Debbie Lloyd: Your comments on 18-41 about the 30 day notification. This is just an off the wall
comment. I'm surprised the city would want to have the burden of needing to notify the citizens because
25
Planning Commission Meeting -June 19, 2001
that is a burden. I think the citizen should be on top of their own, what they want to do with their own
property and lot. If they brought it for approval to the city, if they' ve let it expire I think it' s their burden.
Not staff to have to follow.
Blackowiak: That' s a good point and you know I wish that everybody was really on top of things.
Sharmin, is this a state law that we're following or where did this come from? Do you know?
Sacchet: Service oriented.
A1-Jaff: It is a city ordinance.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'm just wondering if we're following state law on something or if it's just.
A1-Jaff: We don't want, what we don't want to see happen is a preliminary plat comes in. It's approved
and it sits and ordinances change and nothing happens with them without a deadline.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Debbie Lloyd: I mean there's a year deadline I believe for prelim/nary plat approval.
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Debbie Lloyd: Also then, Section 18-57 under (b).
Blackowiak: B as in boy?
Debbie Lloyd: Yes. We take the effort here of defining the width of the streets. Private street has a
defined width. It's 30 feet. It's a private street easement of 30 feet. There's requirements in the code, I
could dig them up but I' 11 just leave that as a comment.
Blackowiak: Sharmin, any comment on that?
AI-Jaff: We can add it.
Blackowiak: It could be added to the table, okay.
Debbie Lloyd: Under the same 18-57(0). I don't know if it's good to strike up to 4 lots there. That's
just only a comment because again carrying that through might be a wise thing to do.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I think this whole area has a little more word smithing to do before it reaches council
that's for sure. Sharmin, any comments?
A1-Jaff: What we did was we struck out the up to 4 lots in (o) but then we moved it actually to (q).
Blackowiak: Okay, that's right. So it has not been eliminated entirely.
Sacchet: That's where it really applies is in (q).
Blackowiak: Is in (q), okay.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
AI-Jaff: Correct. Because densities that are higher than R4.
Blackowiak: Are addressed.
^l-Jaff: Are addressed and there are more than 4 units being served via a driveway.
Sacchet: It's a different.
AI-Jaff: It just has different classifications.
Debbie Lloyd: I'm mostly concerned about the RSF.
AI-Jaff: And that is under (q).
Blackowiak: Under (q), okay. Thanks Sharmin.
AI-Jaff: Sure.
Debbie Lloyd: I have a problem with 18-60(a). The original intent of private streets, and I can provide-
all the lingo back years from when it was approved by Planning Commission and City Council, was not
to create the opportunity for anyone to just cut a driveway through their neighbor's lot. Now if there's a
30 foot width, 30 foot easement or right-of-way that helps with the setback, and that's really one of our
concems because you could have indiscriminate driveways, as you'd call them, going through parcels Of
land and I think we're going to have to write that up a little bit more.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Debbie Lloyd: Indeed this could be a flag lot ideally.
Blackowiak: Could you flip it up the other way. There we go. Now which one are you referring to?
Sacchet: The one with the long driveway?
Debbie Lloyd: This is a private street easement as it would be called...or a private drive or a driveway.
In order to subdivide the original intent was, there has to be, it has to be, each lot has to meet the
minimum frontage requirement. Like you said before, 30 feet is the minimum would be a flag lot and
that was designed originally a private street. If you go back to 1990, that's what the council at that time
approved as a quote, "private street". I have to tell you that we researched how many private streets there
actually are. There were like 4 private residential streets I think that were approved that were never even
built on. Most of the private streets, if you look on the city plats, are not really RSF private streets.
They're in PUD's and I think that's very different than RSF situation.
Sacchet: Just to clarify the example you showed on the drawing Debbie. Basically what were you trying
to show Sharmin, the idea of flag lot versus having just an easement to get across, because I know there
are situations where people just have an easement and not necessarily own the land, but the have a right-
of-way easement.
AI-Jaff.' State law permits them. We want to stay consistent with the state law.
27
Planning Commission Meeting -June 19, 2001
Sacchet: So it's anchored beyond our grasp. Our reach anyhow, okay.
Debbie Lloyd: But in order to subdivide you have to have a minimum requirement of frontage. So that's
where it gets sticky.
Sacchet: Right, right.
Debbie Lloyd: I think there was one other little, yeah back to Section 20-1. Definitions. Lot line means
a line of record bounding a lot which divides one lot from another from a roadway right-of-way or other
public space. I had a big question there. I can't, I know in my mind it's pertaining to setback.
Blackowiak: Or even, roadway right-of-way or other lot. I mean it maybe needs to be expanded a little
bit because those aren't the only two possible dividing roadway and public space are not the only two
possible neighbors for a lot let's say. We could have another lot. We could have a private space that
isn't, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, so I agree. We need to maybe expand that just a little bit
Sharmin to.
A1-Jaff: If you look at the definition of lot, because...we decided to leave it as is.
Blackowiak: To leave it separate because you' ve expanded in the definition of lot.
AI-Jaff: Because definition of lot, plats, metes and bounds, subdivision, occupied or intended to be
occupied by a principle building, group of such buildings, accessory buildings. It really covers.
Blackowiak: Okay. So then you're comfortable just leaving it there because it's defined right above?
Al-laff: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay. I understand.
Sacchet: Understand Debbie?
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah. Okay, that's it. Thank you very much. I know you're tired...
Sacchet Thank you Debbie.
Blackowiak: Rich, did you have a comment?
Slagle: Yeah, and I can address them Debbie as you sit down. First of all it was, Debbie, in the paper.
Upper left page 10, so I just wanted to let you know but my point of making a comment is this.
Wonderful job on this, and I know time and effort plus, plus, plus has been put into this. But I have to
share to the city staff as a whole my disappointment in what appears to be some serious and sincere
efforts by residents who are our customers, point blank. That is who we serve and to hear with their
energy and their time they've put into this and I'll be honest, more well versed than I on this commission,
and to hear that we didn't even invite them to participate from a month or two ago when I asked that they
be involved. I know they gave input, and I would just think we would look at them as an additional
resource to further assist us. Now I know that they're not the ones to make these decisions. That's our
role and the council's, but I would just again ask for your consideration that they be brought in, in some
28
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
form of discussion because we've already come up with 3 or 4 points that are raised that at least raise a
question for us that we're not directing back to staff and I hope it's nothing that they're doing that's
causing us not to seek their input. And again I just, this time I really want to strongly ask that we seek
their input. Why not? So, that's all I wanted to say.
Blackowiak: And I think we did a really good job of going through this tonight, because it was pretty,
not the most scintillating reading at times but it is nice to go through and get comments and that's one
reason I wanted to make sure we opened it up for public hearing tonight. And also you know written
comments are always appreciated and I think that's maybe even more appropriate than specific meetings
which are often not well attended. And then we get charged with not including people and those types of
things but I mean written comments I think are always a very good way and it's easy to refer and you've
got your comments and if we can go down section by section, I think it really makes it easier and very
helpful for all of us because this is not a very easy thing to go through. Not terribly exciting at times.
Anyway, I think what we need to do is, do we need, we don't need to make a motion do we?
Sacchet: I think we do need to make a motion.
Blackowiak: Do we need to make a motion?
Sacchet: I'm anxious to make a motion.
Blackowiak: With comments and changes and public input and then any other written comments that
may come in, you know and just kind of send that all to council.
Sacchet: Do you want me to comment on this?
Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead.
Sacchet: I mean I was prepared last time when this came up just for our information, I felt very clear that
I would like to pass this through to council so we have something in place for the flag lot and private
street aspect. And really the heart of that is two things. One is that we are requiring a variance for flag
lots and private streets. We are requiring a variance. And then the other thing is that we specify what
type of conditions that could possibly be attached, which we expressed by saying specific building
orientation, increased setbacks, so we set an expectation of what we would possibly attach as conditions.
That's at the heart of it. But in order to put that in place, I was told at the previous meeting that we have
to have all the definitions lined up. I do believe that we lined up our definitions very well. I think it's a
tremendous job and it was done in very short time. I think it's extremely commendable. I believe that
it's very appropriate to make a motion to pass the heart of what we were trying to accomplish, and at the
same time we accomplished a ton more. We put definitions in place. We lined up some of the wordings
and some of the way this is understood in the rest of the context. And I certainly invite, if there are
residents that have comments to make, to make those in writing and I do regret that you didn't have a
chance to look at that a little bit beforehand. That is unfortunate. But I do believe that a lot of what we
see in front of us is a direct result of your input Debbie and the Paulsen's and I think you have been
heard. It's unfortunate that in this last stage you weren't included a little more proactively. I regret that
personally but I'm sure you have a chance to give your input still in writing into this process as it is going
onto council. And I do think we would want to make a motion from the Planning Commission to pass it
on as we discussed tonight with emphasis on those points that we want a variance as private.
Blackowiak: Well be my guest.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sacchet: So yes. So my motion, if you want me to make a motion, I do make a motion.
Slagle: Now you know you can, if I can just point of clarification. From what we learned by the City
Council, you can make a motion as discussed tonight, as included in here and that really is it.
Sacchet: That's it.
Slagle: That's right.
Sacchet: That's it. I mean the motion basically that we recommend approval of the attached
amendments to Chapter 18 and 20 as shown in the report and as further discussed tonight with, and I
would like to say with emphasis of introducing the variance procedure to the flag lot and private street
environment, and by defining or giving the indication what type of conditions could be attached, because
that's at the heart of it. That's my motion.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. And do we have a second?
Slagle: Second.
Blackowiak: Okay, it's been and seconded.
Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission of the attached amendments to
Chapter 18 and 20 as shown in the report and as further discussed., with emphasis on introducing
the variance procedure to the flag lot and private street by defining or giving the indication of
what type of conditions could be attached. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
4toO.
Blackowiak: This goes to City Council what date Sharmin? Do you have a date for this yet or not?
A14aff: I shall do my best.
Blackowiak: Okay, but it will be in the paper like it was last time?
A1-Jaff: It will be in the paper. Bear in mind that what I'm working on now is going through the rest of
the chapters, so at that point 20 chapters will go before the City Council. Kate and I talked about it,
whether we should have a work session with them first because.
Blackowiak: That would probably be really good to get them up to speed because this is something that
unless you spend a lot of time looking at it, it's very formidable.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. So you'll just keep us apprised of when it's going to council and we would
appreciate that I think. Alright.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated June 5, 2001 as presented.
3O
Planning Commission Meeting- June 19, 2001
ONGOING ITEMS.
AI-Jaff.' Actually I have one, I' ve heard a comment often from Planning Commission regarding the last
CSM building that was built. It's brick with gray block on top.
Slagle: CSM?
Blackowiak: CSM on East Lake Drive. Or Lake Drive East.
Al-Jaff: Right next to Abra.
Slagle: Okay.
AI-Jaff: And it faces Highway 5. That it looks like it's unfinished. So gave them a call and they came
visited the site and they agreed. They're not required to but they're doing it and there are two options.
And they were separating today some of the parking lot...painting the existing block with warmer colors.
Down below the windows it would be a shade of brown. Up on top it would be a shade of beige. The
other option to go with the same color both on top and the bottom. Staff prefers the darker under the
windows, lighter up on top.
Blackowiak: Boy either way I think we're gaining something so I would certainly encourage them to do
whatever works. I think it's great that you made the phone call and.
AI-Jaff: They're wonderful to work with.
Blackowiak: Gmat. That's nice to hear.
Al-Jaff: Very responsive.
Sidney: We had a discussion about painted block before and are they going to, indicated that they'll
repaint it when necessary?
AI-Jaff: That's one of the things we're waiting on right now. We're going to ask for a guarantee on the
paint. Typically they last 10 years, the type of paint that the city will approve. And CSM is pretty
committed to their building. I mean they always keep them up.
Sidney: Well it has to look good on Highway 5, otherwise they're not...
Blackowiak: Great. Well that's nice to hear. Okay, any other ongoing items Sharmin?
AI-Jaff: Kate listed all the items that staff is working on. Really your next session is going to be full.
Blackowiak: I heard that and Kate mentioned that she would try to maybe get the packet out a day earlier
or something so we'd have a little extra time to go over things because it sounds like it is a full agenda
so, it would be nice to have it early I think.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Blackowiak: Okay, open discussion. I know LuAnn you had something you wanted to talk about.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
Sidney: A couple things I guess, since the next meetings going to be really long, it sounds like and a full
agenda. I'm thinking maybe either the Chair or Vice-Chair might put out a notice and encourage
commissioners to call ahead and discuss things with staff. Maybe that could expedite things. So I think
maybe the commission should take that Ono
Blackowiak: Certainly, I will do that.
Sacchet: E-mail.
Blackowiak: E-mail.
Sidney: And then also I guess listening to the discussion following the discussion about the ordinance
amendments to chapter, well additions to Chapters 18 and 20, I guess I'm wondering if we have in place
an understanding of what is the process for making or suggesting ordinance amendments and I'm
wondering if that should be clarified because I was kind of surprised that everything came a public
hearing right away, or at least that was my experience and maybe if we talk about dealing with that
maybe on a workshop level or a work session level first. And I really think that's the point where we get
the most citizen and resident input because I believe the intent of the commission is to be the interface
with the residents. We are the representatives of City Council and I think at that point that' s where we
should have the most impact and the most contact with people in the community. And in that forum that
we can bring forth the things that are of concern. Then you move to the next level which might be
involvement with staff. Staff will have input and then we move into the public hearing format, and at
that point everything should be worked out and it should go smoothly but I think we were dealing, like
tonight, you know more in a work session format than really necessary. And I guess I'd like to make a
comment too that I was surprised, even though this seems to be an important type activity and we've had
numerous discussions about the amendments, I still as a commissioner have received no calls from
residents about the amendments to the ordinance and I guess I'm a little surprised about that. Usually in
public hearings or anything of that nature, development issues, citizens will call so I'd just like to make
that comment. So I guess to wrap up all that blabbering, I'd make a suggestion as to how we approach
these in the future and maybe step back and not go right to the public hearing is the first step.
Blackowiak: That's a good thought. I mean I think we got a lot done tonight but yeah. Maybe it is more
of a work session interfacing and discussing.
Sacchet: Well we were lucky that we didn't have a very full agenda. It kind of lend itself tonight for this
but it was more workshop than anything.
Sidney: And I think, you know what I view our role is, is like I said, to interface and be a direct contact
with the residents and then really take the burden off of staff and off of City Council in these kinds of
discussions, so anything we can do to help staff and City Council I think we should do.
Blackowiak: Good point. Okay. Any other discussion? Rich?
Slagle: Go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have one thing. And just to add to LuAnn's comment. We're representing the
citizens on one hand and on the other hand to council. It works both ways. The discussion I have is, I
already mentioned this to Kate and I want to bring it up here for the record that I think it's something we
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
could consider as a city, it'd be nice to have a historic preservation ordinance of sorts. I don't think we
have anything along those lines at this point in our city. I don't think it's a really high priority but I
would like to add it to the action items that we are working on that eventually address. I do have, and
this was brought up to me by a resident and I do have some copies here that were collected for, actually it
is on there already. Wow!
Blackowiak: Yeah, I was going to say, it is on there already.
Sacchet: Well I don't know it might have been put on based on my comments.
Blackowiak: So is that for staff then to look at?
Sacchet: I'd like to throw that at staff. It's some examples. Apparently Chaska has quite extensive
framework for it. There is something for Bloomington. There is Eden Prairie also has something, and I
think it would be a nice, overall addition to our city so I'll pass that on.
Blackowiak: Well it's on the list so just keep checking these off.
Sacchet: I've been heard before I even said it here. That's really encouraging, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Did you want to?
Slagle: Sure, just two things that I wanted to discuss briefly, and they're both I guess sOrt of again
reminders of what I brought up but I haven't seen it come back yet. And the one is a discussion I made in
open discussion, oh 3 meetings ago or so about sidewalks. And I noticed in Section '18-59 1 almost
stopped us and asked, but it says pedestrian ways may be required on blocks longer than 900 feet, or in
other areas to provide access to schools, parks and other destination points. And I guess I just want to,
not tonight but I want to hear in a work session format what staff' s position on sidewalks is because I
have yet to see any requirements for a sidewalk and it's again, something that I'm interested in. And then
the last thing is, is the idea of a training session and that could coincide with a work session, because I
think it's absolutely critical that myself and new folks here get an introduction to the city, to what staff' s
complete role is. Their objectives. How they see things and I laughed with Uli and I laughed with this
earlier but a flag lot, I thought they had flag poles initially and you know that could be I'm really ignorant
but my guess is most residents when you say a flag lot would be like, you know something to do with
flags. And so I really, and to me when I look on these lists, I think training or an introduction is as
critical as some of these so I don't know how I go about making a case to get a training session. I'll just
keep bringing it up until we get one.
Blackowiak: Well I think one good thing is that there are other training sessions offered by GTS.
Government Training Service. And I' ve attended one.
Slagle: And I know the benefits but I really want to know.
Blackowiak: Specifics, right. And I was going to say Sharmin, do you know if we have any kind of a
work session on the books? I mean normally we have 2 a year.
Al4aff: Kate is working on that.
33
Planning Commission Meeting -June 19, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, because that would certainly be something that I think we all could benefit from,
whether we' ve been on the commission for you know a couple few years or not.
Sidney: Yeah, and I think to have Roger there...
Blackowiak: Exactly.
Slagle: Absolutely.
Sidney: Ask Roger those burning questions.
Blackowiak: Because I remember before when we did the presentation of the pyramid and discretionary
power and what you can and cannot do and levels of decision making. That' s very good. I mean that' s
something we could all, or I certainly could use a refresher course on and I think that that would be good.
Slagle: And one more just slide it into that. And that is, from my own experience, which is my own
experience in Woodbury, the City Council and the Planning Commission, and I want to use the word
often but often, I can't tell you whether that was twice, every 6 months or whatever the number was.
They got together in work sessions and talked and I'm hoping that we get a chance to do that, because
right now I think there' s, in my opinion, there's an unfamiliarity at least in my role as to council's
thoughts and objectives and what not.
Blackowiak: And that would be nice for the council liaison to give some feedback to us and maybe at the
open discussion at the end of every meeting, where have things gone. You know is there feedback? I
mean that might be an appropriate time to talk about it too.
Slagle: I'm done, thank you.
Sacchet: Question. Are we still getting little summaries from council meetings? Or did we abandon
that?
Blackowiak: Well I went to the council meeting that was less than an hour long that had to be adjourned
because there wasn't a quorum. So that was not, there was not much to talk about. A couple things
happened. They did the consent agenda. They did some visitor presentations and that was it. That was
basically the meeting so there really wasn't much to report on. That was the meeting I attended which
was maybe a month ago. I don't know who went to the last meeting.
Sidney: It might have been me I guess.
Slagle: I think you and I.
Sidney: Yeah, you were there. I guess the only thing I remember was a lot of trail about trail easements
and things like that and utility easements. And then also we had the Holiday Station came up and I guess
there's going to be improvements and additions...
Slagle: You know I should throw out to the group, and LuAnn I think was amazed as I was, and I did call
Todd Hoffman afterwards and asked him just from my own position in trying to gain some background.
How a house could have a trail easement literally to the wall and you know what his comment was, he
goes, they're out there. He says it isn't just this house and I said, I'm just amazed that this just appeared
34
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001
and he said yeah, I mean there's a lot to the story but he said Rich, there are homes out there that the
easements go right up, almost to the wall. I mean if that trail was built, here's the wall and literally
here's the trail. Right next to their house. It's amazing.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well any other discussion items? No? We are adjoumed.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
35