Admin Section 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
Letter from Linda Barton dated January 29, 1993.
Memo from Paul Krauss dated February 2, 1993.
Program agenda for "Conference for Newly Elected Officials" on January 30, 1993.
�' g
' Letter to Mr. Russell Sorenson dated January 29, 1993.
Notice of Special. Meeting of the Youth Commission.
' Youth Commission Minutes dated January 12, 1993.
1 Letter to Mr. Chuck Van Eeckhout dated January 21, 1993.
I Letter from Roger Knutson dated January 25, 1993.
Fax from Springsted dated January 25, 1993.
1 Article from American Planning Association dated January 1993.
' Letter to Mr. Matt Entry dated January 27, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Duane Shodeen dated January 27, 1993.
Letter to Mr. , Jerry Hoffmann dated January 25, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Michael C. McDonough dated January 25, 1993.
Letter to Attorney Jeff Carson dated January 13, 1993.
Invitation to Reception for State Legislators and Council Members in Metro Area.
Memo from Kate Aanenson dated February 3, 1993.
HRA Accounts Payable dated February 8, 1993.
1993 Bonding, Official Statement.
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?Vert Cf._ A z 5 - - {.
Minnesota
1 Department of
Employee
1 Relations
Leadership and partnership in
human resource management ((
' January 29, 1993
Todd Gerhardt
Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Todd Gerhardt:
' Congratulations: I am very pleased to send you the enclosed notification of
compliance with the Local Government Pay Equity Act. Since the law was passed
in 1984, jurisdictions throughout Minnesota have been working diligently to
' meet the requirements of the act, and I commend your hard work and commitment
to achieving compliance.
' As you know, our department adopted a rule specifying procedures and criteria
for measuring compliance, and information about your situation is enclosed.
If you have any questions about the materials or about pay equity in general,
please contact Pay Equity Coordinator, Faith Zwemke at 612- 296 -2653.
' One of the things the rule requires is that our department notify each
jurisdiction when the next pay equity report is due. In your case, this date
' is January 31, 1995, and we will be sending you forms and instructions at a
later time. Also, this notice and results of the compliance review are public
information and must be supplied upon request to any interested party.
Again, congratulations on a job well done:
Sincerely,
' Linda Barton
Commissioner
Enclosures
1
RECEIVED
FEB 0 ► 1993
' CITY OF Gt-ii-trt
' 200 Centennial Office Bldg. • 658 Cedar St. • St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603 • TDD (612) 297 -2003 • An equal opportunity employer
L..
: a
( � Notice of
,- . if-
Pay Equit C
,10.4.1„. „ ,: g :,
,.
`:: presented to
r
:: Cit y of Chanhassen v: for successfully meeting the requirements of the Local Government Pay Equity Act M.S.
471.991 - 471.999 and Minnesota rules Chapter 3920. This notice is a result of an
official review by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations of your 1992 pay
equity report.
Your cooperation in complying with the local government pay equity requirements is
greatly appreciated.
// (P .(,/iL Zd--64-_,
ate Linda Barton, Commissioner
rm.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • MN • • • ! all
RESULTS OF TESTS FOR COMPLIANCE
Date:
/
Jurisdiction: C64,44445.S4 ID# S"6 7
11 1. Completeness and Accuracy Test:
Passed. All required information was submitted accurately.
1 2. Statistical Analysis Test:
Passed. Jurisdiction had more than three male classes and an
underpayment ratio of 80x or more.
' [�Prssed. Jurisdiction had six or more male classes, at least
one class with a salary range, an underpayment ratio below 80%,
but a T -test which was not statistically significant
1 3. Salary Range Test:
✓Passed. Too few classes had an established number of years
' to move through a salary range.
Passed. Salary range test shows score of 80% or more.
4. Exception Service Pay Test:
Passed. Too few classes receive exceptional service pay.
Passed. Exceptional service pay test shows score of 80x or
' more.
The enclosed material describes compliance requirements in more detail. If
you have questions, contact Pay Equity Coordinator, Faith Zwemke, at
' 612 - 296 -2653.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1'
January 19, 1993
Pay Equity Statistical Analysis Report
for
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317 -0000
�.
Pay Equity Contact Person: Todd Gerhardt
Phone: 612 937 -1900
Female Male Balanced All
Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs 1
Number of Jobs 8 26 0 34
Number of Employees 15 37 52
Ave. Pay per Employee 3,068.80 3,576.97 3,430.38
Predicted Pay Weighted
By Number of Employees Under
Payment
Jobs At /Above Predicted 4 16 Ratio
Jobs Below Predicted 4 10
Percent Below Predicted 50.00 38.46 76.9
Ave. Difference in Pay
from Pred. per Employee $ -12 S -9 T -Test .088
DF 50
Salary Range Test 0.00
Exceptional Service Pay Test 0.00
1
1
1
1
1
III
I 1/19/93 Job List Page 1
Job Male Female Total Work Max Mo. Predicted Pay
I Number Class Title Empl Empl Empl Sex Points Salary Pay Difference
1 Receptionist 0 4 4 F 46 2,676.00 2460.60 215.40
2 Community Service Officer 3 0 3 M 50 2,904.00 2764.81 139.19
I 3 Utility Operator 2 0 2 M 53 2,904.00 2989.28 -85.28
4 Light Equipment Operator 6 0 6 M 53 2,904.00 2989.28 -85.28
5 Account Clerk 0 2 2 F 54 2,904.00 3064.87 - 160.87
I 6 Secretary
7 Engineering Technician I 0 4 4 F 54 2,904.00 3064.87 - 160.87
1 0 1 M 54 2,904.00 3064.87 - 160.87
8 Planner I 0 1 1 F 54 2,904.00 3064.87 - 160.87
9 Engineering Technician II 1 0 1 M 56 3,336.00 3227.23 108.77
I 10 Recreation Supervisor I 1 0 1 14 56 3,336.00 3227.23 108.77
11 Heavy Equipment Operator 1 0 1 M 57 3,336.00 3333.10 2.90
12 Senior Utility Operator 2 0 2 M 57 3,336.00 3333.10 2.90
II 13 Mechanic 1 0 1 M 57 3,336.00 3333.10 2.90
14 Planner II 0 1 1 F 57 3,336.00 3333.10 2.90
15 Heavy Equipment Oper /Leadman 1 0 1 M 60 3,624.00 3543.78 80.22
I 16 Park Foreman 1 0 1 14 60 3,624.00 3543.78 80.22
17 Fire Marshal 1 0 1 M 60 3,624.00 3543.78 80.22
18 Building Inspector 2 0 2 M 62 3,624.00 3684.35 -60.35
19 Plumbing /Heating Inspector 2 0 2 M 62 3,624.00 3684.35 -60.35
I 20 Office Manager 0 1 1 F 65 3,624.00 3624.05 -.05
21 Senior Engineering Tech 1 0 1 M 72 3,624.00 3806.75 - 182.75
22 Shop Foreman 1 0 1 M 77 3,624.00 3851.29 - 227.29
I 23 Building Official 1 0 1 M 78 4,020.00 3901.20 118.80
24 Park and Recreational Coord 1 0 1 M 78 4,020.00 3901.20 118.80
25 Data Processing Coord 1 0 1 M 79 4,020.00 3940.80 79.20
26 Treasurer 0 1 1 F 80 4,020.00 3980.40 39.60
I
27 Senior Planner 0 1 1 F 80 4,020.00 3980.40 39.60
28 Street Superintendent 1 0 1 M 82 4,020.00 4111.21 -91.21
29 Utility Superintendent 1 0 1 M 82 4,020.00 4111.21 -91.21
I 30 Asst City Manager 1 0 1 M 87 4,440.00 4386.97 53.03
31 Planning Director 1 0 1 M 92 4,848.00 4657.08 190.92
32 Public Safety Director 1 0 1 M 98 4,848.00 4696.46 151.54
I 33 Public Works Director
34 City Manager 1 0 1 M
1 M 110 4,848.00 5128.05 - 280.05
1 0 128 5,784.00 5747.35 36.65
II
II
1
1
C ity Chanhassen
6000
5500 -
5000
4500
c6 4000
0.
3500
3000- ::
0
2500
2000
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Points
Pred Pay + Male Jobs 0 Fem Jobs ® Bal Jobs
N. Ns = — — m - - .. - .. - - - - - - - -
1
� Guide to
i( Understanding
� Pay Equity
1 Compliance and
� Computer Reports
1
1 1
Minnesota Department of Employee Relations
Pay Equity Office
1 (612) 296-2653
1
1
1
1
1
1 December 1992
1
Guide to Understanding Pay Equity Compliance
g Y Q Y P
In 1984 the Minnesota Legislature passed the Local Goverment Pay Equity Act (LGPEA). Local governments I
were given until December 31, 1992 to comply with the law and were required to file reports with the
Department of Employee Relations (DOER) by January 31, 1992. DOER has adopted a rule describing how
data from the local government reports would be analyzed and tested for compliance. This booklet provides a 1
general overview of these tests and criteria for complying with the pay equity rule.
For example, the statistical analysis test, generally applied to larger jurisdictions, is described on pages two
through four. Examples of computer reports resulting from the statistical analysis are on pages five through
seven, followed by a guide to understanding the reports on pages eight through ten. Tests for analyzing salary
ranges and exceptional service pay are described on pages 11 and 12, and the alternative analysis test, generally l
applied to smaller juriidictions, is explained on pages 13 through 15.
Categories of Anal sis
� _ Y
One of the first steps in determining compliance is to categorize jurisdictions by number of male classes and 1
compensation structure.
1. Statistical analysis only
y y
• Six or more male classes and at least one class with an established number of years to move through a
salary range. •
• More than three male classes and an underpayment ratio of 80% or more. May or may not have classes
with an established number of years to move through a salary range.
2. Start in statistical but go to alternative 1
• Four or five male classes and an underpayment ratio below 80%.
• Six or more male classes, no classes with a salary range and an underpayment ratio below 80 %.
3. Alternative analysis only 1
• Three or fewer male classes.
1
1
1
1
Guide - Page 1 December 19921
1
I STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
I A computer program called the "Pay Equity Analysis System Software" is available from DOER which does all
of the calculations described below for the statistical analysis test.
1 I. Criteria for passing the test .
A. Underpayment ratio is 80% or above.
I B. Underpayment ratio is below 80% but t -test not statistically significant.
II II. Basis of the statistical analysis
A. The definition in the Local Government Pay Equity Act for equitable compensation relationship
I means that "...the compensation for female- dominated classes is not consistently below the
compensation for male- dominated classes of comparable value..."
I B. The formula for the statistical analysis uses three concepts found in the above definition:
"comparable value," "male compensation as the standard for comparison," and "consistently below."
1 III. How the formula works
A. First it defines comparable value by drawing a 20% window. Each window extends 10% of the range
I of points on each side of the class being analyzed. In the example, there is a range of 200 points from
lowest to highest, so 10% would be 20 points. Each window must have at least three male classes
(two of which have different points) and must include at least 1/5 of all male classes in the
1 jurisdiction. The drawing below shows one window for one class.
4000
1 3500- F M
M
1 9000- M
t4 Pi
a t F
. 250 0• $
1 :' M
2000-
p 1 i class Wes mama'
•
1500- '
1 1 1
4
1 i
1000 4 ,
100 1 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 260 300
1 Points
1
1
Guide - Page 2 December 1992
1
B. Second, it defines male compensation by drawing a "mini" regression line through the male classes. I
4000 M 1
M
3500- F M 1
3000- M M
aft d 2500- 1 F I
1 M 1
2000-
f 0 t
1500 1 1 1
1 '
1
t
100 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Points
I
C. Third, it looks at the class being analyzed and the same point on the mini regression line. This point
is called "p" or predicted pay. 1
M M
., F M 1
M
___ K 1
� 2500 f + M F M
F I .
1 .
1 $
1 " $ 1
1 1
1
1.11 .
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Pants
1
D. Fourth, it tabulates whether the class being analyzed falls above or below predicted pay. In the
example, the female class being analyzed is above predicted pay. 1
1
1
1
Guide - Page 3 December 1991
1
i E. Fifth, it draws a new window when the next class is analyzed. This continues until all classes
have been analyzed.
I 4000 M
1 3500- ... M.r. F M
3000- N0 •- _ M
M mu I d 2500• L • • F , ! F
N um class tn* ma.•••
1 2000- F . t %
•
• • •
1500- • . : •
• . 1
1000 00 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 .
1 Points
G. Sixth, it counts the number of male and female classes above and below predicted pay.
For example:
1 Ft3 Mt 8
F4 1 M 4 2
1 Total 4 Total 10
H. Seventh, it calculates the percentage of male and female classes below predicted pay.
1 F 4 1 M 4 2 .
= 25% - = 20%
I Total F 4 Total M 10
I. Eighth, it divides the percentage of male classes below predicted pay by the percentage of female
I classes below predicted pay. This is called the "underpayment ratio."
M% 4 20
1 : = 80%
I F% X 25-.-
5
J. Ninth, it defines "consistently below" as an underpayment ratio less than 80%. If the underpayment
ratio is below 80 %, go to step ten.
I K. Tenth, it calculates the average dollars that female and male classes are from predicted pay.
L. Eleventh, it calculates, using a t -test, whether or not the dollar difference is statistically significant.
I The t -test, found in tables in standard math books, is based on the dollar difference and the number
of employees in a jurisdiction.
Sample reports showing results of the statistical analysis and a guide to understanding reports follows.
1 Guide - Page 4 December 1992
i
Samples of Computer Reports
oa2o/92
I D
� � Listing Page 1
Male Female Work Kin Mo. Max Mo. Years Nbr Yrs Exceptional
Job Nbr Class Title Employees Employees Points Salary Salary to Max Service Service Pay
1
1
1 Box Office 1 1 110 1,200.00 1,400.41 4
2 Stage Crew 6 1 130 1,250.00 1,45026 5 Longevity
3 Props Chef 1 0 140 1,260.00 1,460.94 5 Longevity
4 Costume Designer 0 1 142 1,375.00 1,575.89 5
5 Set Tech. 1 0 150 1,360.00 1660.75 5 Longevity
6 Lighting Tech. 1 0 164 1,400.00 1625.50 6 Longevity
7 Effects Eng. 1 0 179 1,425.00 1645.22 6
8 Stage Manager 0 1 180 •1,425.00 1,610.30 5 Longevity
9 Writer 1 0 180 1,400.00 1,590.19 6
10 Marketing Director 1 0 200 1,490.00 1,690.85 4 •
11 Actor /Aareu 10 12 217 1,500.00 1,730.85 4 Performance
12 Director 1 0 248 1600.00 1,795.76 I
13 Producer 0 1 260 1,700.00 1,900.00
14 General Manager 0 1 300 1,800.00 2,100.67
- 1
04/20/92 Job List Page 1 1
Job Male Female Taal Work Max Mo. Predicted Pay
Number Oats Tickle Empl Empl Empl Sex Paints Salary Pay Difference
1 Box Office 1 1 2 B 110 1,400.41 1344.82 55.59
I
2 Stage Crew 6 1 7 M 130 1,450.26 1447.15 3.11
3 Props Chief 1 0 1 M 140 1,460.94 149559 - 34.65
4 Costume Designer 0 1 1 F 142 1,575.89 1505.17 70.72
5 Set Tech. 1 0 1 M 150 1,560.75 1540.12 , 20.63 1
6 Lighting Tech. 1 0 1 M 164 1625.50 159854 26.96
7 Effects Eng. 1 0 1 M 179 1,645.22 1617.17 28.055
8 Stage Manager 0 1 1 F 180 1,610.30 1616.50 -6.20
9 Writer 1 0 1 M 180 1,590.19 161630 -26.31
10 Marketing Director 1 0 1 M 200 1690.85 1689A3 1.42
11 Actor /Actress 10 12 22 B 217 1,730.85 1714.27 16.48
12 Director 1 0 1 M 248 1795.76 1799.79 -4.03
13 Producer 0 1 1 F 260 1.900.60 1830.73 i 69.87
14 General Manager 0 1 1 F 300 2,100.67 1933.91 1 166.76
II
1
1
1
1
Guide - Page 5 December 1992 1
1
1
•
1 Sample of Statistical Analysis Report
1 • for
Stageville Theatre •
1 ( 100 Broadway
Stageville, MN 55555-5555 .
1 Pay Equity Contact Person: Susan Starr
Phone: 999 999-9999
1 Female ( 6.. / Male Balanced All
Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs
1 Number of Jobs 4 8 2 14
Number of Employees 4 14 42
1 Ave. Pay per Employee
1,79632 1,537.22
Predicted Pay Weighted 106.8C-4-D—ft
I
by Number of Employees Under
I Jobs At/Above Predicted 3 5 Payment
Ratio
Jobs Below Predicted 1
1 Percent Below Predicted 4.* , (25.00) 0 37.50 150.0 4
Ave. Difference in Pay 4
1 from Pred. per Employee 'a -3.732
— CO
DF 16}
1 Salary Range Test (10531) .14
-...:,.$,.
Exceptional Service Pay Test 50.00 0
1
1
1
1
• Guide - Page 6 December 1992
I
1
Theatre
Stageville
2200
2100- °
2000-
1900- 0
>, 1800-
as
°' 1700-
+
1600- ❑ +
1500
1400-
1300 � � � eo � � � ' 100 120 140 160 1 200 220 240 260 280 300
Points
Pred Pay + M Jobs o F Jobs ' . Bal Jobs
.w or — r - - .. 1111 -
Guide to Understanding the Computer Reports
1 Information contained in the next few pages is intended to help in understanding the reports produced by the
Pay Equity Analysis System Software. Look at the sample reports as you read the following explanations.
Each numbered explanation below corresponds to a shaded number on the reports shown on pages 5 and 6. For
1 informational purposes, a sample of an optional graph produced with Quattro Pro software is shown on page 7.
1. Data Entry Listing
' Shows what has been entered for computation. This report should be carefully reviewed before computing
the results. If any errors are found, they should be corrected using the "modify jobs" function in the
1 software.
2. Jobs List
' This report can be printed after the results are computed. The predicted pay and pay difference columns
are helpful in analyzing the dollar impact of adjusting the salary for any given class.
' 3. Predicted Pay
1 Predicted pay is calculated by averaging the maximum monthly salaries for male classes in the jurisdiction.
It is the standard for comparing how males and females are compensated. Predicted pay is a mirror, or
reflection, of the current compensation practice within a jurisdiction for male classes, but is not necessarily
1 the salary that "should" be paid at any particular point level. The method used to calculate predicted pay
is explained on pages 2 through 4.
1 4. Pay Difference
Shows the dollar amount that maximum monthly salaries fall above or below predicted pay.
' 5. Average Maximum Monthly Salary for a Female Employee
6. Average Maximum Monthly Salary for a Male Employee
7. Overall Average Maximum Monthly Salary for an Employee
• 8. Percentage of Female Classes Below Predicted Pay
1 This percentage is calculated by dividing the number of female classes below predicted pay by the overall
total of female classes. In the example on page 6, the total of female classes is four, and one of those falls
below predicted pay. Therefore, 1 _ 4 = 25%.
9. Percentage of Male Classes Below Predicted Pay
1 This percentage is calculated by dividing the number of male classes below predicted pay by the overall
total of male classes. In the example on page 6, the total of male classes is eight, and three fall below
predicted pay. Therefore, 3 : 8 = 37.5%.
Guide - Page 8 December 1992
•
10. Underpayment Ratio �.
This is the most important number in the statistical analysis. To pass the statistical analysis test, the
underpayment ratio must be 80% or greater. This percentage is calculated by dividing the percentage of
male classes below predicted pay by the percentage of female classes below predicted pay. In the example
on page 6, 37.5: 25 = 150%. The underpayment ratio will change if salaries are changed and a class
moves from being below to above predicted pay. Classes exactly at predicted pay are counted as above
predicted pay.
If the underpayment ratio is less than 80%, a jurisdiction may still pass the statistical analysis test if the 1
t -test results (explained in item 13) are not statistically significant. The t -test measures the average dollar
difference from predicted pay for male and female employees.
11. Average Dollar Amount a Female Employee is Above or Below Predicted Pay
In the example on page 6, the maximum monthly salary for female employees, on average, is $75 above 1
predicted pay.
12. Average Dollar Amount a Male Employee is Above or Below Predicted Pay 1
In the example, the maximum monthly salary for male employees, on average, is $2 above predicted pay.
13. T -Test & Degrees of Freedom
These numbers are used only for jurisdictions with an underpayment ratio below 80%, at least six male
classes and at least one class with a salary range. If an underpayment ratio is 80% or more, these
numbers are not used nor are they used for jurisdictions in the alternative analysis.
These numbers answer the question: Does the dollar amount males and females are from predicted pay
show that:
A. females are paid less than males on average and,
B. the underpayment of females is statistically significant? 1
It is possible for a jurisdiction to pass the statistical test with an underpayment ratio below 80% if these
numbers do not show statistical significance for underpayment of female classes.
To determine if these numbers show statistical significance, they must be checked against the table on page'
10. Find the DF number in the "Degrees of Freedom" column and then look across for the "Value of T."
If the t -test number on the report is less than the value of t on the table, it means that either there is no
underpayment of female classes or that it is not statistically significant. If the t -test number is the same or
more than the value of t on the table, the underpayment for female classes is statistically significant and the'
jurisdiction would not pass the test.
1
1
Guide - Page 9 December 1992
1
1
1
In the example on page 6, t -test results would not be used because the underpayment ratio is above
I 80 %, but let's assume we needed to check these results. First, we would find 16 in the degrees of freedom
column and then look across to find the value of t at 1.746. Since our t -test number is - 3.732, well below the
value of t on the table, these results would not T statistical significance for underpayment of females.
I • (5% Signficance)
DF Value of t DF Value of DF Value of t
> :;fi. < <> .... 26 Value o
1 6.314 Y.? >: °:::"
< v. .
2 2.920 17 1.740 27 1.703
1 3 2.353 18 1.734 28 1.701
4 2.132 19 1.729 29 1.699
5 2.015 20 1.725 30 1.697
1 6 1.943 21 1.721 40 1.684
7 1.895 22 1.717 60 1.671
1 8 1.860 23 1.714 120 1.658
9 1.833 24 1.711 Infinity 1.645
10 1.812 25 1.708
1 11 1.796
12 1.782
I 13 1.771
14 1.761
15 1.753
1
While the entire method for calculating t -test results cannot be explained here, it is a commonly accepted
1 mathematical technique for measuring statistical significance. Tables similar to the one above are often
found in math textbooks. The formula used is fairly complex, but basically it factors in predicted pay, the
dollar difference from predicted pay and the number of employees. The DF number is the total number of
1 employees in male or female dominated classes only, minus two.
14. Salary Range Test
I This number must be either 0% or 80% or more to pass this test. A result of 0% would mean that either
there were no established number of years to move through a salary range for any of the male classes or no
I established number of years to move through a salary range for any of the female classes or both. In the
example, 105.71% is passing. A description of how the salary range test is calculated is on page 11.
I 15. Exceptional Service Pay Test
I This number must be either 0% or 80% or more to pass this test. A result of 0% would mean the
jurisdiction does not have exceptional service pay for at least 20% of male classes and at least one female
class. In the example, 50% means the jurisdiction would not pass the exceptional service pay test. A
description of how the exceptional service pay test is calculated is on page 12.
Guide - Page 10 December 1992
1
1
Salary Range Test Example
•
This is an example to show how the salary range test is calculated. I
Jurisdiction: Stageville Theatre
Record information for male or female classes only, not balanced classes.
Step 1:
Idriiify male classes with an established number of years to move through a salary range.
Title Years to Max I
Stage Crew 5
Props Chief _ 5
Sr Tech - 5_
I
Lighting Tech —6_
$ffects Tech —.§._
Writer
Marketing Director 4 I
7 Total Classes Total Years
Step 2:
Calculate the average years to reach maximum salary for male classes:
A. Total years from Step 1 I
B. Total classes from _
Step 2
C. Divide 2A by 2B 37 _ 7 = 5.28 average years to max
Step 3:
Identify female classes with at established number of years to move through a salary range.
Title Years to Max I
Costume Designer 5
Stage Manager 5 .
2 Total Classes 10 Total Years _
I
Step 4:
Calculate the average years to reach maximum salary for female classes: I
. A. Total yeas from Step 3 _ID_
B. Total classes front Step 3 _2_
C. Divide 4A by 4B 10 ; 2 = _i,_average years to max
I
Step 5:
Divide 2C by 4C and multiply by 100 5.28 : 5 = 1.05 x 100 = 10S% 1
Enter this result in Part C of report form. To pass this test, the result in Step 5 must be at least 80%.
1
1
Guide - Page 11 December 1992 '
1
1 Exceptional Service Pay Test Example
I This is an example to show how the exceptional service pay test is calculated.
1 Record information for male or female classes only, not balanced classes.
Step 1: R
• Calculate the percentage of male classes receiving exceptional service pay.
A. Total number of male classes where an employee
receives exceptional service pay. ' 4
1 B. Total number of male classes in the jurisdiction. 8
C. Divide lA by 1B and multiply by 100. 4= 8 = .50 x 100 = 50%
I If result of 1C is less than 20 %, stop here and check appropriate box in Part D of report form. If result is 20%
or more, go on to Step 2.
I Step 2:
1 Calculate the percentage of female classes receiving exceptional service pay.
A. Total number of female classes where an employee
1 receives exceptional service pay. 1
B. Total number of female classes. 4
I C. Divide 2A by 2B and multiply by 100. 1= 4 = .25 x 100 25%
Step 3:
Calculate the ratio of female /male classes receiving exceptional service pay.
I Divide 2C by 1C and multiply by 100. 25= 50 = .50 x 100 = 5O%
1 Enter result in Part D of report form. To pass this test, the result in Step 3 must be at least 80%.
1
1
1
Guide - Page 12 December 1992
1
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
I. Criteria for passing the alternative analysis test: 1
A. there is no compensation disadvantage for at least 80% of female classes compared to male classes;
or, •
B. compensation differences can be accounted for by years of service or performance.
II. A compensation disadvantage for a female class exists if one or more of the following situtations occur:
A. A female class with higher points has less compensation than a male class with lower points.
1
Example:
Job Title Class Type Points Max. Monthly Salary
City Clerk F 275 $1665
1
Maintenance Sup. M 171 $1925
1950 1
M
1900-
1850-
1 1800-
1750- '
1700-
1650 F 111 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Points
1
1
Guide - Page 13 December 1992
1
1
1 B. A female class has the same points as a male class but less compensation, and there is no male class
with more points and less compensation than the female class.
I Example:
I Job Title Class Type Points Max. Monthly Salary
City Clerk F 275 $2265
Maintenance M 171 $1900
I Secretary
2300 F 171 $1630
F
I 2200
2100
I •••
a
1 1800
1700
I F
1 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Points
1 C. A female class has points between two male classes but compensation is not between or above the two
male classes.
1 Example: s
Job Title Class Type Points Max. Monthly Salary
1 City Clerk F 275 $2370
Maintenance M 171 $1900
Receptionist F 141 $1250
1 Custodian M 111 $1500
2400
I
F
2200
I _ 1••
M
a 1800
1 1600
M
1 1400
1200 F
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
I Points
Guide - Page 14 December 1992
1
D. The lowest -rated female class is not compensated as reasonably proportionate to points as other class'.
Example:
Job Title Class Type Points Max. Monthly Salary
City Clerk/Admin F 275 $3800
Police Officer M 236 $3200
Maintenance Sup M 213 $2900
Admin. Sec. F 173 $2400
Custodian M 111 $1800
Retail Clerk F 105 $1100
4000
3500-
3000-
a 2500 F ,
2000 -
M
1500-
_F
1000 120 140 160 180 260 220 240 260 280
Points
1
1
1
1
1
Guide - Page 15 December 1992
1
1
Minnesota
Department of
Employee
Relations
200 Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St Paul, MN 55155
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
&Ai
C ITYOF
:10,10‘ ClIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: February 2, 1993
SUBJ: Hwy. 5 Corridor
As you know, work is proceeding on the Hwy. c rrridor planning program. In the process, we
have attempted to keep area property owners as well informed as possible even though no plan
has yet been developed for public review and input. In this process, a few of the property
owners have been quite vocal in their opposition o -what is being considered. One of those
individuals is Mike Gorra, who owns land north of Hwy. 5 and west of Lake Ann Park. Mr.
Gorra has objected to any consideration pt a parkway= hough his property in the manner that 1
was originally described in the Morrish` study. We have attempted to take his concerns into
consideration noting that there are two alternatives crossing his property. The southern route runs
near to Hwy. 5 and minimizes impact on this property, while the northern route, which is more
of an extension of the main street of Chanhassen which is envisioned by Morrish, bisects areas
guided for medium and high density housing from low density neighborhoods to the north. We
further note that the Comprehensive Plan, which establishes uses on Mr. Gorra's property, reflects
his input of two years ago.
Mr. Gorra has often stated a desire to locate a golf course on his property indicating that any
road consideration would adversely impact his plans. You should be aware that there has never
been a plan that staff has seen for a golf course on this property and we have some doubts as to
the economic viability of one. It appears that the amount of land available for a golf course in
this area poses some significant limitations.: We also note that after having discussed similar
projects with developers in other communities, it appears that all of the money in golf course
development is sales of adjoining residential lots and in this case there is no room for any of
these to be platted. Be that as it may, we asked the Hwy. 5 Task Force to feel comfortable in
placing the road wherever they believe the community's interest dictate. Where that will
ultimately be, we are not sure at this time.
za PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Don Ashworth
February 2, 1993
1 Page 2
In any event, Mr. Gorra has been quite vocal in his opposition and we received a copy of the
1 attached letter recently. We also want the Council to be aware that he has requested and will
receive a sign permit for his property on which we fully expect him to state his position. The
law is quite clear that the city must allow individuals the same right to free speech as we allow
for commercial signage. Under these provisions, a sign 24 square feet in area would be
permitted but the city has no control over what kind of text is placed upon it. Thus, when you
see the sign in the future, please be aware that to a large degree it is simply beyond the city's
1 ability to control.
pc: City Council
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
- CONSTRUCTION
ENTERPRISE
= CORPORATION
323 WEST 59th ST. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55419
Honorable Mayor January 28, 1993
City Council
Chanhassen, Minn.
Re: Corridor # 5 Task Force. 1
The formation of e Task Force of citizens to study high- -
way # 5 development sounds €ood in theory, but in reality
. is a bad idea. Maybe the City should also enlist Ecktnkars
space travelers for expert advice?
To even consider putting a service road through the center
of Chanhassens most valuable undeveloped property with
little regard for common sense or property. owners is ignor-
ant! It is also not going to happen, at least on ray property!
What is wrong with the proposal supplied by Bill Moorish? Is
it being rejected because its feasible, looks good, minimiz-
es the damage to undeveloped property and makes sense?
It appears as if your planners are trying to out do the
"Great Downtown Street Abortion Fiasco ". Great idea, I
think they have the proper tools for the job.
1
'Sincerely,
1
Michael J. orra
•
1
•
1
1
RECEIVED
FEE 0 1 1993 1
CIT Ur 4r,r rtkSSE!v
Li 1
3490 Lexington Avenue North
' _ __ - St. Paul, MN 55126
League of Minnesota Cities (612) 490 -5600
' Conference for Newly Elected Officials
Saturday, January 30, 1993
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
1 Final Program
Morning Sessions
7:15 a.m. Registration, Ballroom Foyer
Continental breakfast, Terrace Ballroom
' Meet the League of Minnesota Cities and other local government
organizations
An opportunity to meet informally on a one -to -one basis with key staff
members
8:15 a.m. Welcome and introductions, Park Ballroom
Larry Bakken, President, League of Minnesota Cities
8:35 a.m. Councils: What they can and cannot do, Park Ballroom
Desyl Peterson, City Attorney, Minnetonka
Moderator Stan Peskar, General Counsel, League of Minnesota Cities
9:35 a.m. Refreshment break, Ballroom Foyer
' 9:50 am. Personal liability and conflict of interest, Park Ballroom
George Hoff, Attorney, Hoff & Allen
' Moderator Stan Peskar, General Counsel, League of Minnesota Cities
10:50 am. Open meeting law and data practices act, Park Ballroom -
111 Timothy Kuntz, Attorney, LeVander, Gillen, Miller, Anderson & Kuntz
Moderator. Stan Peskar, General Counsel, League of Minnesota Cities
' 12:00 p.m. Luncheon, Terrace Ballroom
(more)
1
Afternoo n Sessions
Governing your city— getting a good start
Participants attend three sessions designed specifically for their size city.
Feel free to attend the sessions that would best meet your needs
1:10 p.m. Budgeting and finance, (choose one) 1
Cities under 2,500 population, Park Ballroom
Tom Thelen, Field Representative, League of Minnesota Cities
Moderator: Jean Mehle Goad, Publications Director, League of
Minnesota Cities
or Cities 2,500 -4,999 population, Courtyard 5 -6
Lori Johnson, Finance Director, Elk River
Moderator: Carla Heyl, Senior Staff Attorney, League of
Minnesota Cities 1
or Cities over 5,000 population, Courtyard 1-4
Karl Nollenberger, Chief Administrative Officer, Duluth
Moderator: Ann Higgins, Federal Liaison, League of Minnesota 1
• Cities
2:15 p.m. Planning (choose one)
sr Cities under 2,500 population, Park Ballroom
Mike Black, Associate Planner, McCombs Frank Roos
Associates
Moderator: Jean Mehle Goad, Publications Director, League of 1
Minnesota Cities
s. Cities 2,500 -4,999 population, Courtyard 5-6
_ - -- Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner, Chanhassen
Moderator. Carla Heyl, Senior Staff Attorney, League of
Minnesota Cities
Dr Cities over 5,000 population, Courtyard 1-4
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director, Fridley
Moderator: Ann Higgins, Federal Liaison, League of Minnesota '
Cities
3:15 p.m. Refreshment break
3:30 p.m. Personnel and labor relations ,
▪ Cities under 5,000 population, Park Ballroom
Karen Olsen, Consultant, Labor Relations Associates
Moderator: Jean Mehle Goad, Publications Director, League of
Minnesota Cities
SW Cities over 5,000 population, Courtyard 1-4
Morris Lanning, Mayor, Moorhead
Moderator. Sherrie Le, Personnel Advisor, League of Minnesota
Cities
4:30 p.m. Adjourn 1
1
1 CITYOF
i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
X
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
January 29, 1993
1 Mr. Russell Sorenson
Lower MN River Watershed Dist.
5000 W 112th Street
1
Bloomington, MN 55435 •
1 Dear Mr. Sorenson:
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I am proud to be able to present you with a copy of our
I community's Best Management Practices Handbook. The handbook was developed utilizing
available reference materials and city resources end has been officially adopted into city
ordinances. From this date onward, all development, grading, and erosion control activity will
I be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the manual. The manual is one of
a growing list of products being spun off by the city' & Water Management Program. In
addition to keeping a copy of the manual for your records, I would appreciate it if you would
I take an opportunity to review it and send us any proposed changes that you may think are valid.
We view the manual as a living document and the format is designed so that we can upgrade it
as better techniques and methods are c :-
eveloped. ,
1 Sinc ly, ' `^
- `:':4,-,.,:.-. , . : �
Paul Krauss, AICP -- � --- ° -... ; '11.4.7.1—'7-'----------•-:-.7-7-7,
1 Planning Director ._ ° r; _ ._. :° =
Enclosure -
I pc: City Council
Planning Commission
Surface Water Management Task Force
1 41t, -
Ve PRINTED ON REC'VCLED PAPER
CITYOF
• ClIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
•
January 29, 1993 1
1
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
• Attn: Ellen Klanderman
14600 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55345 -1597
Dear Ellen: 1
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I want *o o forward a copy of our newly adopted Best
Management Practices Handbook for your review and use by the Watershed District. This
document is one of an ongoing series of products from the city's Surface Water Management
Program. As we discussed, I am also forwarding ttyou a copy of our newly adopted Wetland
Ordinance. Lastly, I am enclosing a copy of testimony that was provided by the Urban Wetlands
Management Coalition. I am asking that you bring this back up before your Board and hopefully
you and other representatives will be able to join us at our February 11th meeting. Please revisit
the possibility of Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distris`i's participation in the coalition in our
efforts to work with the legislature to revise both the rules and the statute in the manner outlined
in our testimony. I would be happy to meet with you and other staff or board members at your
convenience to discuss your participation or could arranje to have Linda Fisher or another
member of the group to do so.- : -
Si e}y;
_ ;7' - . ..ter- _- __�. - --
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director - _
r -:
PK:v
Enclosures
pc: Linda Fisher, Larkin Law Firm 1
City Council
Surface Water Management Task Force 1
et
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
i
i .
CITYOF
1 CHANIIASSEN
: ,:‘,..
; COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 January 29, 1993
I Mr Bob Obermeyer
Riley Purgatory Bluff Cr Watershed
I Barr Engineering, Suite 300
8300 Norman Center Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55439
I
Dear Mr. Oberi a er:
I r Y
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I am prcrtd be able to present you with a copy of our
community's Best Management Practices Handbook. The handbook was developed utilizing
I available reference materials and city resources `fnd has been officially adopted into city
ordinances. From this date onward, all development, grading, and erosion control activity will
be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the manual. The manual is one of
I a growing list of products being spun off by the city'surface Water Management Program. In
addition to keeping a copy of the manual for your records, I would appreciate it if you would
take an opportunity to review it and send us any proposed changes that you may think are valid.
I We view the manual as a living document and the format is designed so that we can upgrade it
as better techniques and methods are developed. .;
1 Sinc ely,
i
1 Paul Krauss, AICP _
te e.
Planning Director -
" _-. _ ^_ : _ - -
PK:v _
p
1 Enclosure _.
pc: City Council
I Planning Commission
Surface Water Management Task Force
1
Vo, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C1TYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
January 29, 1993 i
Mr. Carl Schenk 1
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Schenk: 1
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I am proud to be able to present you with a copy of our
community's Best Management Practices Handbook. The handbook was developed utilizing
available reference materials and city resources rid has been officially adopted into city
ordinances. From this date onward, all development; grading, and erosion control activity will
be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the manual. The manual is one of
a growing list of products being spun off by the city'surface Water Management Program. In
addition to keeping a copy of the manual for your records, I would appreciate it if you would
take an opportunity to review it and said us any proposed changes that you may think are valid.
We view the manual as a living document and the format is designed so that we can upgrade it
as better techniques and methods are developed. 1
Sincerely, _
Paul Krauss, AICP •
Planning Director
PK:v
Enclosure
t
pc: City Council
Planning Commission
Surface Water Management Task Force
1
ss
� a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
i
CITYOF
1
t i b l--- CHANHASSEN
I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 January 29, 1993
1
Mr. Greg Larson
I Board of Water & Soil Resources
Suite 104
155 South Wabasha Street
1 St. Paul, MN 55107
Dear Mr. Larson:
1 r On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I am proud, Jo be able to present you with a copy of our
community's Best Management Practices Handbook. The handbook was developed utilizing
i available reference materials and city resources s tend has been officially adopted into city
ordinances. From this date onward, all development, grading, and erosion control activity will
be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the manual. The manual is one of
i a growing list of products being spun off by the city's Surface Water Management Program. In
addition to keeping a copy of the manual for your records, I would appreciate it if you would
take an opportunity to review it and send us any proposed changes that you may think are valid.
I We view the manual as a living document and the format is designed so that we can upgrade it
as better techniques and methods-are developed. -
X *-
1 Sincerely, -
..e.___ ...?,..,„:„.-4142...ttta.,_;::,,,:s;i1..„..1.._=.1_5.,,..._...;,;...:_
..5..,
1 Paul Krauss, AICP -_,_ _ 2.,r.
Planning Director .. . °;
PK:v . -
1 Enclosure : ,-
1 pc: City Council
Planning Commission
Surface Water Management Task Force
1
1 NO le PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C C ��v//
/,k J' '4' 1
RECEIVED
Notice of Special Meeting
JAN 2 8 1993 a
(ITY U!= Ct-h. fHASSF1
The Youth Commission was selected for a research project conceming
adults and youth working together in community organizations. Tanya
Bishman and Jeanne' Straus attended a workshop in which we became
aware of the responsibilities the Youth Commission will have. We also
were presented with some very exciting information about working with
youth. A meeting has been called to share this with the rest of the
commission and also to discuss an opportunity the youth have to work
with the League of Women Voters. It is set for February 1,1993 at 6:30 1
p.m. in ECC building. If you have any questions, contact Tanya Bishman
(443 -2730) or Jeanne Straus (368- 3686).
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Youth Commission Minutes
The meeting was called to order by Chris Czerwonka, Vice
Chairperson, at 7 :10 p.m. on January 12,1993 in the ECC building.
Members present were Lori Johnson, LeeAnn Olinger, Louise Lehner,
Molly DeBower, Jeanne Straus, Chris Czerwonka, and Tanya Bishman.
Also present was Phyllis Lindstrand who was observing with the
1 intention of serving as the Chaska Adult representative.
Jeanne Straus has also had contact with Sue Hurm,.who would like
to represent Chanhassen as their adult member.
Minutes were reviewed; Lori Johnson motioned to accept, Molly
DeBower seconded. Motion passed.
Youth Commission was selected as one of thirteen organizations
to be involved in a research project with the MN Department of
Education. The criteria for which we were selected was:
multi- communities represented and youth working with adults
with equal votes to make decisions. There is a meeting to meet
other organizations and become familiar with our task on
' Thurs. Jan.14, 1993 at the Radisson in St.Paul. Chris
Czerwonka will be the youth representative there, and the
adult is unknown as of yet.
Chaska City Hall had asked us to call on area organizations and
clubs to check to see if their contact person has changed.
' Various people volunteered from Youth Commission to call. Their
findings will be reported to Tanya Bishman by Friday Jan. 22,
1993 and then mailed to City Hall.
LeeAnn Olinger and Rich Lambert were present at the CEAC meeting
where the recommendation for youth representatives was made.
CEAC approved the recommendations but would like the Youth
Commission to make the final decision. Youth Commission
voted silent ballot for our representative (one year only)
after they quickly said why they would like to be
' considered. Molly DeBower declined being a possible
representative. A decision needed to be made between
Natalie Rossini and LeeAnn Olinger. The first vote brought
a tie; Phyllis Lindstand had voted. Upon a re -vote, Molly
DeBower tallied and Phyllis Lindstrand didn't cast a vote.
LeeAnn Olinger will be the Youth Commission's
representative on the CEAC beginning as soon as she can.
1 LeeAnn Olinger made the motion to table the amendment to the by-
laws concerning the CEAC youth representative on Youth
Commission;Lori Johnson seconded. Motion carried.
Values Week is coming in February; the speaker is Mark
Scharenbroich and he will speak on March 1,1993. Awards are
' being sponsored by the Chanhassen Bank and 1st National Bank of
Chaska for outstanding youth and citizens. The award banquet is
set for Saturday, Feb. 27,1993. It is in need for some help, the
Youth Commission thought we could be available for various
1
duties. Tanya Bishman and Chris Czerwonka will consider the
"Unsung Heroes" article again and notify Jeanne Straus if
they are able to write the article. Youth Commission will
write up our exact thoughts concerning the amount of our
involvement with Values Week so all parties are clear. 1
Natalie Rossini will call and reserve the board room in the ECC
for meetings each month. 1
The next meeting is set for February 9, 1993 at 7 :00 p.m. in the
ECC board room. Lori. Johnson made the motion for adjournment;
Molly DeBower seconded.
Submitted by, - ��.LU"' 1
Tanya B hman
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-11,..,..- 5 . r Q " el la-01c_ buf lPI+�. -'h: S '�o� ;.„ w , J �,a l S to
1 tf . N s,7n74�1• I f `id a c:: ITY OF
i c am,s k.-:,,,.„. cHANHAssEN
i •
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 Jan 21, 1993 'Cave.
' ",
y INr Ott. G[•s1..✓ W r /GGt P
Mr. Chuck Van Eeckhout "'tell, M ii. 4/ /�7 4 �1 ~ il.
1 Van Eeckhout Building Corporation r j r S I 4d-et e• . .. s 4� /6.441.. 1935 Wayzata Boulevard ° �' � ,,
Suite 165 y... 41 '" Oto 1 `
1 Long Lake, MN 55356 w x , ca,, rt.. N „
Re: Application for Building Permits e t, r.-t c/ `” c `r 4. ".° 1 File No. PW 331 " . , .(.ems �.-1r Ire, at 46 ..,
w� . T M
�: .4 rs� ...he Ce4....K)
Dear Mr. Van Eeckhout: e �, "e ''s. - -•4 M A c. ` 4./
' 4 P. ". f C/Dlt
This letter is a follow-up to our meeting
on Friday, January 15, 1993 with lMr. Steve ` ,, A . ,,i,
Kirchman, Building Official, regarding issuance of building permits. I have also received ,o.. o....#
I a copy of your letter dated January 15,1993 swnanarizing our meeting. I felt it was
necessary to respond to your letter to clarify several items that were misconstrued on your " " '
part. I have summarized below responses to your summarization of the meeting and added aalni•. -✓
i additional comments accordingly. � ,a,ti,.,.,f _,____
,A0 t I ITEM NO. 1- As we discussed at the meeting, the City may consider changing Ordinance
No. 167 to allow for qualified and prescreened individuals to prepare site plans on a / .4
registered certificate of survey.It is important to note that the City is in no way obligated
1 to change the current ordinance _nor � the - ordinance in .violation of Any statutory ,,<&_
regulations. Our city attorney has advised us that the existing ordinance that is in effect is
lawful. This ordinance was specifically drafted as a protective measured Control problems
I the City has been experiencing with individuals falsifying certificates survey. If staff feels 44
comfortable that a prescreening and qualifying system can be effectively administrated, then . ,
the change will be recommended. Amending the ordinance will require City Council N -
1 approval and will take approximately 6 to 8 for processing.
ITEM NO. 2 - The City has extended a good -faith gesture to work with you in issuing a
1 building permit for Lot 2, Block 2 in conjunction with potentially amending Ordinance No.
167.
1 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ee /Lk - At'
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. ■
Attorneys at Law ■
Thomas J. Campbell (612) 452 -5000
Roger N Knurson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G Fuchs
Jame, R. Walston
Elliott B. Kncrsch
Michael A. Broback
Rena,: D. Steiner January 25, 1993
r
The Honorable Phillip T. Kanning 1
Carver County Courthouse
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318 '
Re: City of Chanhassen v. Eckankar
Court File No.: 89 -25440
Dear Judge Kanning:
Earlier this month Jim Larkin and I, attorneys for the
parties in the above - referenced matter, discussed with your clerk
the continuance of the trial in this matter that had been
scheduled for January 12, 1993. We requested a continuance
because we believe this condemnation matter can be resolved by a
negotiated settlement. You graciously granted us the continuance
and requested we reduce the matter to writing and submit it to
you for your signature. Enclosed herewith please find the
Stipulation and Order we have prepared continuing the trial date
to May 3, 1993 at 9:00 a.m.
If this Stipulation and Order meets with your approval, we
request that you sign it and forward it to the clerk.
If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to
contact either of us.
Very truly yours, '
CAMPBELL, SON, SC•TT
& FUCHS , `" . A . 1
•
By: . 1110W /'
Ga i.. 7 . - ,
GGF:kjh
Enclosure RECEIVED 1
cc: Jim Larkin - JAN 2 6 1993
Don Ashworth
CITY or i.,riptivrukbsErN
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 1
01/25/93 16.03 $612 223 3000 SPRINGSTED Z001/002
I
F SPRINGSTED IA- lk
1 PUBLIC rINANCE ADVISORS
,,; Ini: : fa 551012143
1 •
1 Fax 1 2 223 -3002 Date: i r 2--��( e t)
cumber (6 )
1 FACSIMILE DATA
dip
Zb: da . \.d' * Fax #: — rl
•
Attention: br ■S i s. '116. Phone C. _:) 1 Fran: /PTV L.- Phoneli:
II This is transmitting from a Canon Fax -L770 Telecvpier. We are sending 7-- pages,
llC13DIN3 this cover page. If you do not receive all of these pages, plea call
(612) 223 -3000. Thank you.
1 Notes: "-` \ Cit."1
I 1 `.....,4
r--.. ‘40 t- J \..t- aMe-
1 ( 6 r..t sb 4 i - L+rsv c_
+r 4.- r , �,i.L y\ S. a NA.. ecNtJ ..re.."- t,•J
I Ca)(1A.i t ......
1
original material Will:
1 Be sent VIA overnight messenger
De sent VIA courier
I Be sent regular mail 23 f„ 1
Not be sent Client$: -- -_
1
01/25/93 16!03 0612 223 3000 SPRINGSTED I1 002/002 '
4A Maur sari, Now Yari / lAgowliwy Jnw..ry 23 1 P23
/ REVIEW and OUTLOOK SUPPLEMENT '
I
Congress Likely to Follow Where Clinton's Budget Leads
8vPaIRIC e (It .
II
Ast,INGTt,)N - President Ire to hu id it rnns.•,1'. "inn Ito. • •.w , 1.1n WI11 hr the tnvest• this month.
W ciiiiiim Y' first budget Chilton budge, „ .,,x.,.t -lit Ninon o year In A key element 01 CI1nitm'7 Infra-
neon month is expected to rim( .n1 rt'l - ,Ilarlr w the am ...0 „ r,Nr tJutugh that figure structure Initiative will be In•
r N bla'kh bemuse 01 the meouton „r 1.14 predr, r4•.or termer ••. 1,k,•ts to e"• , ul 1r: I. acswmmo- creased spending on the. highway
Sheer soma. • us pnr1x)sala to CUl Mop. Leon l'anrlta. i'' -r :Ih1' 111.• d1• .tare too •/corn ptan..nrrnrding to and other transportation proRralna
1hr •ttiirtt to "vrr A100 billion and rt4•Vw "1 the 1)11ire of Manairment , 1.u..pn, T..t on; '+ up to the immix anthnrtsrtl by law I
lo up uurnylrvclure spending and Radom undrt i•t1 1',inrtla ,1; Fr•Irru•n Pena anti other Clin. and available, to the highway and
by 011110414 ul ,1n1{are. Nall al his rnnllrtnat heaving 'sin uttlrials airport trust funds. fens said.
And. tu.1 A.. .dramatically a Is ex Ihtc Iltenttt Iha, as brad of Ihr laud• The former Denver mayor, who
/Kited to M•1 the rongrevOrtnal get t "matinee he Sateen dl InfrR5tructure Favored championed the rnnatru•ekm and
agenda tar ti.c weer After a decade the Premotenl • hurigei when the financing of Denver'* new airport
111
rh.rta9 wnit•h Republican preel- time rater iv droll the Cumm sa
utee s fn:rnslrla•rurr tnvertmenl — IIuie id he will try to en tm
s*,f. that RAM-
dents budgets were deemed "dead own blueprint « duratatu anti government re- One taxes and airport tees that are
011 arrival” in Congress. leglelative With the stake art its an unuau ararrli and iirvetnpmrm prOgrams levied to build new fardllles are
leaders 11,1* sear have made It clear ally warm rnngrrxstnrnit reception. -- full he" shik•►M nut fee an in' axed that way, not an make the fed-
411A4 Iher 4'111 lake (heir rue fmm details of Clinton a blueprint for errece tug runty bitause aueh eon- seal defidi nk timelier.
their fellow Democrat's package 1994 and beyond nave been atesdt• litrn Wu. etlan spending ran create i• Sen. Ernest ff. Hollings. enair-
Wr hope to work very closely ty leaking nut. hue llermnsr n adds t0 the mono man of the senate Canmerre, scot. I
with the new admlglstratlnn" in tt will contain a major economic tfy's overall aaaeta and prnductive once. and Transportation Commit -
putting together the House 1 Own investment pnrgrant. as well as a Plgennal. rhr hlflrlals Bald, tee Is one of the many
spending plan. tart films 1994, said Bench leduenon plan armed at rut "A lona• feral re'orl,mtr recovery congressional bemncrata who en..
lirp Marrhi t). Sato. A- Mlnn., tlnq between 8300 h111111n and F4nn rennet( he .trhleve without the dossed that Idea. The goal 01 Dem.
Shortly niter hr was rlecird Vila hilliun ulf al annual th•Hrlte ost erii- r••r' Iprral support 1rl our roads and ¢cads leaders in Congress for sever. f I
month to h t l' the new {louse trig $A(x) billion in the next lour braises. our waterways. our transit at year has been to increase
tktdg mm
rt t'nlure chairman. He years. according to Panetta systems. anti nor Airports." Pena highway and other transportation
said he sees his Joh iargely as help. The "rnrnrratonr" al Cllnton's said at his tssnftrnlallun hearing spending programs.
"The pubtle expects the govern -
Arent to provide what the clllaena
E they rc paying ns '
y 4 partaiton believe funds a must bef (01. Spent T i on
the programs for which they are In-
tended. ' 11e111nrtg�&* said.
Clinton's Infrastructure Initia-
tive. whilegivingprimary emphwls
I . to the traditlonat transportation '
'''''''''' --- .,:s.- -- -:_. C. C. 4 .._... f.,..., ,
. . ,
r
+'A' {y -.!A .3C:' ._:L ..�' +^-.i. 'Y.. W.,l.a.:, „•N • i ' ,_-__— -
. . o i , . t.
aft, . ` __. J i •
_• '441'4' �� - J ^..3 _ t 1
I K an water infrastructure programs.
likely to be "multitlered” and i
• , Q u tom so
ato rtie new Ideas as well, 1
I
Sent James Smith. executive three-
for of the Council Ot Infrastructure
l ` Financing Authorities and a C.Itn• I • ti ion transiting, volunteer
s ' Smith. within the Clinton tamp.
• t of the 01 expansion
f unds f or wastewater treatment 1 '
r plants sponaonsd by the Knvlmn•
'� a / mental Protection Agency. 'that
i t system la designed to augment 91 A
x Willem of caprtalieolinn entitle pro -
klM by the federal government
i �,, . ._ ol io � � '� \ - v with the Ittiondee of "tale anti Meal
I ?�°� bends through the revolving lilnris. I
Smeh Is weft the admanaalra-
� 41411 r ton to expand the program to help
w F• '
� ` + finance an estimated 84(M) billion
' M new construction required to
meet drinking water and wastewa•
t er treatment standards. as well as
billions of dollars more in solid
- waste disposal facilities also man -
THEY MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA. dated by the EPA.
The infnstnictlm Investment
I
BUT THEY KNOW STANDARD & POOR'S.
Commission of alsohaselt n the
creation of a National Infraattue-
ture Corp. with the dual role of pro.
In1t)rmeti ":.tnelai decisions begin with a rating from of f st seed money rota new of l og
of late Infrastructure revolving I
Standard a c , ax s. No matter who you arc VI when: you're funds. and Insuring marginal infra -
Irom, a r - opal rating Imm S&P provides you with tillable. structure tinerrcinge.
'Ant y rat Clinton transportation official
objector' . -:'In assessments. '. +ar Tillman b1Cve Kaplan has expressed Inter.
1.« •1 ".e M 11mir tl est In the Infrastructure corpora-
Panilai•.r". ii the financial markets export unparalleled „, t'""t'r lion Idea. u nave the chairmen of
rating stn ;ex Imm S&P —and they get them. Sorb is1ue'ra . • SIR t`23 the /twee and Senate public works
sin,`: •'< tx Heist from our commitment to fit \'1dr11 •t"trr n ecn committees. Bald commisaton staff
Ind
V 4 .1•... f, "x.m.1.WD member Douglas Koelemay.
unbiu.t :sill inhumation 10 the municipal narks.' Ihnnigll t''4..0014 n".1t'" gut $mnh said he has u Cltn.
rl 'u 7i:, SiMtt ton officials to be "cautious” about
nut cn t, ' ' • +It slti, le"""an and puGlft:3hrtns establishing any new federal ggen-
W.' m•ilr ..r utquml'• lnh) our ratings sod cen.it e•, cy to Insure Infrastructure financ-
ing* because of the coat and time ft
r would take tenet up such ■ new t2U-
ir/ cr&�I)ARi) R NX)R'S RATINGS (aROI1r E l; Y l .1"— r . r . r) '_'_.. -...._ ...___L _
0-0--- ha 1 .t V�
1
1 F A. smemo iii AMERICAN
PIANNiNG
..;
ASSOCIA ._
.....
.,
JANUARY 1993
-
1 Survey of What Projects are Subject to Design Review
1 All Cities over
Design Review ,r uisdictiotts 100,000 pop. •
1 Practices Special DlsMcts febI.•t to Design Review
By Brenda Case Lightner Historic districts 60% 79%
Waterfront or other scenic as 17 21
I The practice of design review is expanding at a rate comparable to Environmentally sensitive areas 19 14
the adoption of zoning ordinances in the 1920s and '30s. It has Downtown or center 31 46
been fueled by ever-greater acceptance by the courts ofa Rod neighborhoods 19 19
government's interest in controlling aesthetic quality. Design review Residential I is the local government practice of scrutinizing private and public Neighborhood commercial districts 22 25
projects for their design, aesthetic or urban design quality, or fitness.
It includes historic district review, but not subdivision controls or
review by a client of an architect's work. Special Cases fabled te ridge Review
,' This report describes the results of a survey of design review Zoning variances . 1996 1996
practice conducted in April 1992. Surveys were mailed to 700 city pup Approvals 56 49
and county planning departments that subscribe to the Planning V im, L Pm 28 24
I Advisory Service, plus all nonsubscribing planning departments in
cities of greater than 100,000 population. The rate of return was Public buildings 24 44
exceptional: 371 responses, 369 of which proved usable (a return Public infrastructure 18 26 -,:-
rate of about 52 percent).
II The survey was designed to find out what kinds of projects are In those jurisdictions where design review varies, rapondents 7,7r;,,
• subject to review and the scope of design review across the country; were asked what areas of the city or what types of projects are
to discover who participates in design review decisions to describe subject to review. Multiple answers were allowed. As shown shove, `°`°
and categorize standard review processes; and to determine what the most prevalent use of design review reported was in historic {
:' principles of design were being used to evaluate projects. The latter districts, followed closely by planned unit development (PUD)
proved to be the most elusive. approval. Further analysis revealed that very few jurisdictions (three ;.
One of the most interesting findings is the rate of growth at percent) limited design review to historic districts. Most 4*."
II which design review has been adopted. Sixty percent of jurisdictions respondents said that they applied design review in more than one
II with design review have adopted it since 1 980, and only three type of drauastance (often with separate aitetia for each). This
percent had some form of design review prior to 1960. suggests a fragmented series of design review systems rather than an _:
Furthermore, one - fourth of the 22 percent of jurisdictions that do across-the -board mechanism. Large cities were more likely to have
I not have design review are currently considering adopting k. many different review systems. -
The survey sample was limited to cities and counties of greater When asked to categorize their reviews as voluntary or . _
than 10,000 population. Because the PAS list was augmented with mandatory, 60 percent of the respondents using design rev 4i.
I large cities, the sample is more likely to reflect the activities of the claimed that it is mandatory and said the recommendations must be 4ii6 .
large cities and towns. Selective analysis has revealed few differences followed for zoning or subdivision approval or building permits. __
between the responses of large cities and response percent cities under Only four perct of the respondents with design review use a y
100,000 population. Where they are significant, they are noted voluntary process, in which review is not a requirement but a show _
I More than 100 respondents also sent copies of their design of good faith by a developer. Some 21 percent use an `advisory" further
guidelines, providing a tremendous resource for ther research. process that, upon closer examination, is nearly mandatory. ."
r
The Scope of Design Review Design Guidelines
P 9 9
I Of the 369 respondents, 78 percent claimed to be using some form Design guidelines are often mentioned in the same breath as design -, ?-'
of design review. When counties were eliminated this increased to review. Indeed, written guidelines do accompany the majority of _ 'u
83 percent. Large cities (more than 100,000) were even more likely review processes. However, 22 percent of the respondents with
to use design review, with 93 percent using some form of it. design review do not publish guidelines, relying instead on a general -
1 The 285 jurisdictions with design review were asked whether consensus of the reviewers. For another 15 percent, guidelines are
review was consistent for all projects or if it varied with just than recommendations, not mandatory rules. For 48 percent of
circumstances. Of these, only 18 percent of jurisdictions subjected the respondents with design review, guidelines are mandatory or
I all projects to the same design review process; while 82 percent regulatory, making them more precisely "design laws" or standards,
noted that the process they applied varies with t circumstances, rather than guides. Another five percent develop guidelines on a
for example, the location or type of Projea- Pmt by-Prnjecs basis.
There is no consensus on the form written guidelines should Who Writes Design Guidelines? - 1
take. Twenty percent use quantifiable rules (such as limiting sign
areas or stating specific amounts of landscaping), 13 percent use Agency staff with planning background 73% 1
drawings and diagrams to illustrate what is desirable rather than
providing quantifiable language, 21 percent are general (describing
principles and goals and giving examples rather than specifics), and Agency staff with design background 55%
36 percent fall between or combine two or more of these forms. 1
Design guidelines generally were composed by agency staff with Community residents, leaders 32%
help from community residents or attorneys (see'table at right).
Most of the guidelines were assembled from several sources (52
percent) or created new (16 percent). Very few were modeled on Attorneys, on staff or consultant 24%
1
another jurisdiction's guidelines (five percent), suggesting that
guidelines usually are specifically tailored by loci agency planners. Elected officials 22%
This specificity of place is probably related to the use of context as a —
measure of design quality, which will be discussed later.
1
Planning consultant 2196
Who Reviews Projects? •
The survey indicated that planning agency staff (with and without Architect consultant 16% 1
design backgrounds) and planning commissions and zoning boards were the most likely to review projects Design review boards were
present in only 36 percent of places with review. Where they do Other 1496
crust, they are highly influential in the outcome of the review. Large
I
cities were more likely than small cities to have design review boards Namur, ant a jonnnre etiese rnpo/rsa wia mid they west. nainv
(47 percent). In places without design review boards, the review
outcome was influenced Primarily by agency staff (especially those Who Participates in Design review?
1
with design background) rather than any other participating body. e
Remarkably, citizen participation in design review is relatively Who Is Most Influential .
rare: this occurs in only 18 percent of places and only two i eer�ew' re influence
Who ins mesa
respondents claimed that citizen groups exerted the primary mac' staff with design background 71% 3696
influence on the outcome of the review. This suggests two distinct
patterns of review: review by agency staff, with the imprimatur, but Plan Commission/zoning board/
little influence, of the zoning board or commission; and review by board of appeal 60 16
design review boards, which are more likely to snake judgments Agency staff without 1
without being influenced by agency staff. specific design background 57 14
Given the two patterns of review and die range of possible Special design review panel or board 36 26
outcomes, and given the diversity of individuals who approve and ,
disapprove of design, the author thought it would be interesting to ' 0a°d officials 28 4
discover what architects think of the design decisions being made. Volunteer citizens/residents
In a recent survey (separate from this design review sandy) that through public process 18 1
'Wolfgang Preiser and I conducted in cooperation with die Professional consultant 10 2
I
American Institute of Architects Memo, ardniteca declared Other 5 2
themselves fairly unsatisfied with design review. Twenty-five
percent of the respondents found it "petty, meddling, and useless,' wit is Being Reviewed?
and 50 percent said it was 'a good idea with serious flaws.' The In this section of the survey ° ndents using design review were I
biggest complaint of the architect- respondents was the lack of
qualified professional reviewers —in other words, the lade of asked to detail which project dements are reviewed. Respondents
architects on review boards and staffs. Thus the composition of were asked to check one of three options for 39 dements under two
review bodies or staff may become the critical issue in architects' site planning and building desig Respondents dhedced I
often revolves whether a) the dement was covered by a guideline, b) the dement
acceptance of design review. Indeed, the controversy o
around the question of whose tastes will prevail, who has the tight was en covered by .a guideline, but was reviewed anyway, ore) the
determine "good design.' dement was not reviewed.
Although architects are more likely than any other professional There was a lot of consensus among respondents in the site
I
to be found on a review board, 44 percent of all review boards do Pig ° cry. More than 90 percent of all jurisdictions said
not have a single architect. Community representatives were the
they review parking lot landscapirhg, fences and buffers, setbacks
nett most likely to be found on a board. Lawyers were the least screening trash' and parking configuration. Fifty percent of 1
likely to have a seat at the design review table. Not surprisingly, lthrhsdhcnons have written guidelines covering these five dements
reviewing bodies are dominated by white males. Statistically, the Environmental issues ranked lowest on the list, with fewer than 30
average board of 7.1 people includes only 1.8 females and .6 percent of the Jurisdictions claiming to review sunlight and shadows
persons of color. or response to microclimatic issues. Perhaps this is because these are I
not strictly aesthetic issues.
There was less consensus among respondents on the
building design elements reviewed. "Building height" and
Brenda Lightner is an assistant professor at the School ofPlamring en "on premise signs" were the two most common dements
1
the Unity nr3 ((Cincinnati. scrutinized In both cases, written design guidelines were present
2
I in more than 70 rcent of all jurisdictions. one - fourth regularly use context. For large cities, the percentage
Overall, most of the elements of building design that were listed increases significantly.
111 I were reviewed by more than half of the jurisdictions. Only four of Respondents who claimed to use context as a guiding principle
the 19 elements were reviewed by fewer than 60 percent of the were asked to agree or disagree with statements about
jurisdictions with design review. This suggests that building design, contextualism. The greatest level of agreement (82 percent)
in all its pieta and parrs, is thoroughly reviewed in most places. followed two statements: "new buildings should respect the existing
I The discrepancy between site planning and building design urban pattern of buildings and open space," and "designs which
dements covered by guidelines and those that are reviewed without diverge widely from the surroundings should not be allowed." Next
guidelines is interesting. Every respondent routinely reviews items most common (73 percent agreed) was "new and rehabbed
1 for which there are no guidelines, suggesting that guidelines do not buildings should not stand out noticeably." Statements drawing the
significantly limit the scope of design review. This was especially lowest level of agreement were those that queried about using
true for building design, where written guidelines were common for stylistic resemblances or similar details. This suggests that cities are
only the four most prevalent elements. Perhaps this is benI'ce of the looking for buildings that are imitative of existing urban patterns
I dilEiailty of writing objective guidelines for building design issues. and sit quiedy in their places, but need not always look like the
buildings next door.
Cenfoxt and aslgn Review It should be noted that there was not a significant level of
In this section and the next, the common principles that underlie disagreement with any statement except on the issue of style (38
I design review decisions will be described. The author assumed that percent disagree), and respondents were likely to answer "not
most review systems depended primarily on context to guide the applicable" instead of act+' "sly disagreeing. The suspicion is that
review process. That is, most review decisions and changes are based respondents were reluctant to actually disagree with a reasonable
I on making a project fit into the "contort" of its surroundings. Since aounding principle, a phenomenon also encountered in the
ennurt is a word with multiple meanings for planners and archi- responses in the section on design principles discussed below.
ear, it was necessary to delve a Gale deeper into what `fit with the
context" means to agencies that use it as a principle of urban design. Principles of Good Design
' The assumption that the notion of content is widely applied in Respondents using design review were asked to agree or disagree
design review decision- making is based on a study conducted 10 with several "principles" of good architectural design and urban
years ago by Wolfgang Preiser. Every city surveyed for that study design. These principles were really restatements of common design
claimed to be using context as the primary urban design guide. guidelines. They cannot be described precisely as principles in the
I In 1992, the picture is different Twenty -three percent of the - - _ -_ sense of Vrtruvius s firmness, commodity_, and delight Rather,
respondents with design review claim not to use "fit with context" as they represent the usually banal but occasionally profound rules that
a principle. About half use context "sometimes," and more than are being promoted as good design in cities. In general, these are
"' Spesific Site siren Elements Reviewed " ivildiy Design Elements Reviewed
Covered by Not Coveted by Not
Guidelines Reviewed Both Reviewed Goiddines Reviewed Both Reviewed
I Fences and buffers 68% 27% 95% 3% Building height 72% 22% 94% 4%
Parking lot landscaping 67 27 94 4 On- premise signs 74 18 92 6
Screening of loading, trash 59 34 93 5 Building bulk 49 38 87 10
I Distance from the street 67 26 93 5 Mechanic equipment
Location of parking lots 52 40 92 6 saeening 50 36 86 12
Exterior lighting 51 37 88 9 Materials 41 43 84 15
• Disturbance of Building dimensions 40 42 82 15
natural landscape 37 42 79 17 Service areas 39 42 81 15
Pedestrian amenities 34 42 76 21 Facade articulation 39 37 76 21
' Conservation of vegetation 35 40 75 20 Location of entrances 22 49 71 25
Utilities 39 35 74 20 Color of materials 25 46 71 26
Public open spaces 28 43 71 24 Roof profile 23 47 70 27
II Off - premise signs 56 15 71 20 Details 26 41 67 30
Obstruction of views 20 43 63 32 Horizontal or
I Visual privacy 22 40 62 34 vertical proportions 23 41 64 31
Street furniture 19 34 53 42 Window size, shape 23 39 62 35
Security 9 38 47 47 Style or character 23 37 60 36
I Outdoor an or fountains 13 30 43 51 Ground floor activities 14 32 46 49
Generation of pollution 17 26 43 50 Maintenance 16 27 43 52
Sunlight, shadows 10 18 28 66 Energy efficiency 12 18 30 64
111 Response to microclimate 7 17 24 70 Interior lobbies 7 17 24 71
3
, operational and direct, ( "reduce the variety of signs "), rather than mentioned by one -third who had one or more improvements to
aesthetic or design - oriented ( "use harmonious proportion from one suggest, was to make existing guidelines more explicit, dearer, or
,:.;-•.;„, parr to another "). Aesthetic principles were left out of this survey stronger. The second most common suggestion (18 percent) was to
because they are generally missing from design guidelines, and, in create design guidelines or standards, apparently in places that have
any rase, there is very little agreement over such principles in today's none. Other suggestions for improvement mentioned by more than
'_ pluralistic architectural world. 10 percent of those responding were: to broaden the review process
We have already noted how little agreement there is that "fit by including more types, uses, areas, or sizes of projects (12
`°'' with context" means "stylistic similarity." Planners, like architects, percent); and to consolidate the process, reduce delay, or reduce
steer cleanly away from making rules about style or aesthetic issues overlapping jurisdictions (10 percent). Other improvements that
I
whenever possible. However, this does not mean planners have no received 10 or more mentions were to give staf (as opposed to
opinions about style or aesthetic issues, or that they refrain from boards) more control, to use more professionals on review boards,
reviewing these issues in a normal design review process, as we have and to give design review more authority or "teeth." I
j seen in our discussion of the dements reviewed. It does mean that
these principles are seldom explicitly stated To be fair, k is Conclusions
, ., extremely difficult if not impossible to devise principles of good One of my hypotheses about design review is that it is being applied
design and aesthetics. Most people rightly evaluate works of art and somewhat universally across the country, since so many guidelines
; . architecture on their singular response to an individual project seem to be simile from place to places I feared the coming ofa day 111
rather than measuring it against universal principles. This is why the when all cities would be modeled on quaint townscaape ideas or
issue of who reviews projects always will be critical. other EuroDisney ideas of urbanism. The data fortunately do not
Having said that, we can offer what may be the "top nine support such fears, although the universal themes they do suggest
I
__. design guidelines explicidy stated by localities ("fit and contact" are somewhat disturbing. There is a huge agreement about the use
makes it 10). The top nine on this list were named by more than 63 of certain guidelines, none of which are very profound or constitute
y k
percent of the localities, with the non-glamorous "screen service and what might be thought of as an urban design theory or a set of
utility activities and uses" coming in at a whopping 92 percent. consistent principles. Most of these have to do with hiding or
Roughly three- quarters of respondents listed "encourage signs tidying up the most blatant environmental offenses: screening
integrated with building facades," "encourage retention of existing equipment, landscaping parking lots, and regularizing signs.
vegetation," "reduce the variety of signs," "minimize disnubance of Compared to a real urban design idea such as those represented by I
environmentally sensitive land," "favor site- specific response to London's Regent Street or Sinus V's plan for Racine or even Seaside
' ,• topography," "limit the visibility of parking from the street," and (distant cousins though they are), these guiddines cannot be said to
`discourage boxy, unadorned buildings." A majority (63 percent) constitute urban design at alL
also chose "encourage facade offsets to break up the mass of large or More interesting are the cedes that we context as a principle of
continuous buildings." good urban design. Here, the ideas that draw greatest agreernent I
As in the statements about contra, respondents were reluctant actually do begin to suggest a kind of universal idea about good
to actually disagree with any principle. One esoeption 5 the urban design: let new buildings augment the existing pattern
principle, associated with Traditional Neighborhood Design wherever possible, let them be quiet and noncontroversial, let them 1
(TND), of favoring narrow lots and grid street arrangements over be similar to their neighbors without actually copying than.
wide lots and cul-de -sacs. Planners rejected this principle Disquieting as this vision of urban conformity is, perhaps the
resoundingly (40 percent disagreed; 41 patent said not applicable) greatest disappointment in this universal theme is the newly limited I
which may be interesting to those who believe TND is a significant definition of context, that is, contact as the man-bulk environment
influence in planning today. Another principle that drew in the immediate vicinity of the site to be built upon. Context
disagreement was "favoring traditional over modern styles" (31 might be used to mean the whole array of ideas of a place: its
_ percent disagreed; 38 percent said not applicable). Again, planners history, its culture, iu politics, its weather, its ecology. Without this I
ask are reluctant to say that they prefer certain styles. perspective of eontot, the universal theme of conformity promotes
a simplistic and one-dimensional interpretation in new de sign.
'- -_ Improving !ho Process Although the thane of urban conformity is widely embraced, it
` In an open -ended question, respondents were asked to suggest is not universal in the sense of yielding similar environments across I
.. revisions in their design review process. A little more than 50 the country. Because places are essentially different, the same
percent of those with design review responded, suggesting a general guiddines about urban conformity an lead to broad variations
.,` ` level of satisfaction with the status quo. The most popular revision, from place to place. Perhaps the idea of context will even be
.. _ • • • • • • • • • • a• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a• reopened and expanded in planning at some moment, as is has been
:- The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory atthiteeture �"0" the Ideas of Qltial tlg l O rfallim. At that
simplistic and d , will have to be
uide};i es
�research Service, a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: point, of course, P b"""�"•"
, lase! Stofman, Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director. discarded and reviewers will need an ever-increasing degree of
..,1. The PAS Memo is produced by APA staff in Chicago. Research and writing by Raear h sophistication.
Department staff: Marys Morris, Editor. Production by Publications Department staff: In any case, what is demonstrated through the principles widely
=•=,e Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor, De nnis McC lendon, Design Diteaor.
f:. used by design reviewers is that design review is not ovawhdmnngly
: • ` Copyright 01993 by American Planning Association, 1313E 60th St.,
Chicago, IL 60637. The American Planning Association has badquaexea supportive of or helpful to urban design, per ere. Design review, I
•
offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. while essentially harmless in its principles of tidying and hiding,
All tighu reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized a any does not speak to urban form or the importance of streets or axes or
d` form or by any means. electronic or mechanical. including photocopying, molding formal arrangements. In its theme of conformity, design review is
or by any information aorage and retrieval system, without permission in writing I
. from she American Planning Association. more influential and perhaps damaging. It is not concerned with
r;:
Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled Ikea . . urban design, but a kind of automatic, replicating urban non -
- 'i.r . ° and 10% posteonsumer waste.
• &sign-
_—,e 4
1
IIIPtk
I
., CITYOF
I
1
oby ClIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 .
.. (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' -- 4
1
January 27, 1993
1
1 Mr. Matt Emry
Vice - President
I Chanhassen Snowmobile Club
7281 Conestoga Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 Dear Matt: _
On behalf of the Chanhassen City Council, I_ o'oulc like to thank the Chanhassen Snowmobile
,, Club for your generous donation. The Council officially accepted their donation to the city on
Monday, January 25, and publicly thanked your organization at that time. Councilwoman
I Colleen Dockendorf also wishes to thank .the club fot ►our efforts in raising the awareness of
snowmobilers in regard to local snowmobile regulationsby procuring an advertisement explaining
such in the Chanhassen Villager. .1-'
1 - >;
We look forward to your continued involvement in Chanhassen's community events.
z
1 Sincerely, ;,g.
--
Todd Hoffman .'" .
1 Park and Recreation Director -,- :.. .:
TH:k `_.
I c: Administrative Section, City Council Packet, February 8, 1993
P � tY � ary
1
1
eit
1 %op' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITYOF
1
isil,,, CHANHASSEN 1
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
r (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
January 27, 1'93
1
Mr. Duane Shodeen
Regional Fisheries Manager
Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
I
Dear Mr. Shodeen:
I respectfully submit the enclosed application for permit
I
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, pectf y pp permit
to install and operate an aeration system in public waters, i.e. Lake Susan. The operation and
maintenance of this aeration unit would fall un re auspices of the city's park and recreation
administration and maintenance departments. .Lh
s You are aware, in addition to the progressive
management initiatives being carried out by the DN on Lake Susan's behalf, the city is very
interested in sustaining this resource. Planned land acquisition has allowed the city to secure 1
ownership of over 50% of Lake Susan's 'shoreline,'_ taus minimizing potential alterations to
riparian areas. The city has invested a great deal in the development of Lake Susan Park, a 32-
acre community recreation area which includes a public water access and an 84-ft. fishing pier. 1
The procurement of the subject permit and the future acquisition of a portable pump and baffle
aeration system represents one of the final steps in the master plan for Lake Susan. 1
I would be happy to discuss my interests in Lake Susan with you further. I can assure you that
this application is being submitted with a full awareness of the city's responsibilities for public
safety and welfare. The city is supportive of the regulations mandated by the DNR in regard to
aeration systems, and intends to , plylully. _:, :. —,:.
. _. - ..:,-,2:-.:32.....; .. 4_-voia.'-'1174 : :
. � , _ -_ _ .. . - _ w
I
Thank you for your consideration.
.2
Sincerely, .fix'
. -_- - - _ -
,,,
Todd Hoffman
II
Park and Recreation Director I
pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent I
Administrative Section, February 8, 1993, City Council Packet
Administrative Section, Feiiary 23, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission Packet
t at PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
CITYOF
ClIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
. January 25, 1993
1 Mr. Jerry Hoffmann
6830 Utica Terrace
1 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Hoffmann:
1 I am in receipt of your letter to the city dated December 20, 1992. I am happy to react to and
respond to the issues you raised concerning bicycle trails.
78th Street: I concur with your findings that West 78th Street is not conducive to bicycle
travel. I also agree that serious riders do not find the concrete sidewalk north of the street
' a good alternative. I do, however, observe a good amount of family and other low speed
bicycle riding occurring on the sidewalk. *Tour alternative route of utilizing Coulter
Drive, Chan View, and West 77th Street is a .,good one.
1 Connections to Eden Prairie Trail System: Your route, as explained in your letter, to
access the Eden Prairie trails via Valley View Road, although disjointed, affords riders
1 a good comfort level. Councilperson Mark Senn is currently exploring options available
to the city for the construction of a trail along Highway 101 from South Shore Drive to
Pleasant View Road. Unfortunately, as I am sure you can recognize, the costs that would
be associated with this construction are significantly higher than with other more typical
trail segments. I can assure you that even under these difficult circumstances, the city
will continue to advocate .lhe construction of this trail as identified on the city's
Comprehensive Plan (see enclosure).— _ :_. ;; « =, x r
In the interim, I encourage you to explore the new trail along the north side of Highway
' 5 which leads directly to Eden Prairie. The future also promises an additional connection
with Eden Prairie south of Highway 5, leading east from Rice Marsh Lake Park.
1 Connections to Chaska Trail System: As you can see, the Comprehensive Trail Plan
identifies three connection points to the City of Chaska. I understand your concern over
' the safety and desirability of currently available bicycle routes to Chaska. However, I am
unable to force the extension of the trails identified on the city's Comprehensive Trail
Plan. Trail development, as you can understand, corresponds with the upgrade of roads
1 in our city. This scenario of joint construction of roads and trails leads to a high design
' t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Mr. Jerry Hoffmann
January 25, 1993
Page 2
standard for trails and results in the most economical construction costs. However,
continued development, be it residential or commercial industrial needs to occur prior to
many of these road improvement projects being initiated. Don't misunderstand me. The
points you raise continue to be accurate. At present, however, I can only advocate your
continued patience in awaiting the future development of these bikeways.
Access to the Arboretum: The trail which the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) constructed as a part of the Highway 5 project currently terminates at Powers
Boulevard. The city's trail (which is deteriorated due to age and construction damage)
picks up from this point to Lake Ann Park. Again, in this case, I advocate your patience.
From all indications, MnDOT will continue the trail from Powers Boulevard west to
Highway 41 with their next phase of Highway 5 construction. This leaves the challenge
of completing the connection to the Arboretum and beyond to the new trail being
constructed along Minnewashta Parkway. The wide shoulders on Highway 5 from
Highway 41 to the Arboretum provides a viable interim solution prior to a permanent trail
being extended. Unfortunately, the interim solution for access to Minnewashta Parkway
is not as good (the city will explore an internal connection through the Arboretum
property).
In closing, we have found common ground in your reference of access to the Carver Park
Reserve via the north railroad grade. Our family, however, initiates our rides in Victoria,
travelling east to Excelsior, then south on Powers Boulevard to Chanhassen. Recent dramatic
shifts in federal transportation policy, i.e. the Intennodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA), is bolstering an exciting future in bikeway transportation. The city continues to keep
abreast of these new transformations in policy and will take advantage of them at every juncture. 1
If you would like additional information on the future of bicycle routes in Chanhassen, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank ou for your comments in this regard.
y y g
Sincerely, 1
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Chi�'les Folch, City Engineer
'dministrative Section, February 8, 1993, City Council Packet
Administrative Section, February 23, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission Packet
1
1
ams-
!A 11 8 is C _1_ •�� ! t E� 1 �i lFl 1_.
1 - - Aim : f•� tip _
1 _ _
•
"' I II % 1y �`_. '�
• • . • • : . 4 :1111W___411 1 , .... ..• .. ,.. 7: .,,s6 ....
ION
I .._ i ,,,..
e
.7:: ...it .ii.:0...111. . _ ,,,
!. . IVACO .
r
I t
fig. •��
. �• �/ 3
•
I -F ..y� - 'IT ' i
-"Nallfri■ a ..„ ,.....
1 - - , -.4.1„--
1
i ' ' ! • .. rte .._
f •■•■ • .. P
1 1. CITY OF • 4
1 CHWASSEN
�. i r ..n ��
Trail Plan es. .m. - - — �. s
llt.
__•_ •
' Walkway/Bikeway • •• . ...A4/4,
•
■ = �
-- --..1 • .. _ ...._. 5 •
I ..• • • • Nature Trail �� •• • • •
1. •MIIIB
Conne ction Points " '- •
1 j . . .. '' •
- 6
MN(
IN
■
M
0 I : /r, --- - 1.
•
• r
MI•�. 1 ' . ft - 1 ! 1 1 I 1 l ! f
• ! 1 4 1 4 1 1 j 1/ 1 1
1 Rasa • UM
II
. as
.
CITYOF
. 0:10 CHANHASSEN 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Vq&
January 25, 1993 1
1
Mr. Michael C. McDonough
Water Recreation Specialist 1
Trails and Waterways Unit
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155 -4052
I
Dear Mr. McDonough:
The City of Chanhassen welcomes your investigation of possible shore fishing sites on
1
Chanhassen lakes. From your observations, you can see that the city feels strongly about
providing access to a variety of fishing opportunities. Shore fishing from piers, docks, and flat
I
spots, in addition to public water accesses, are important resources in the city.
I am confident the parking situation at South Lotus Lake Park can be adjusted to accommodate 1
shore fishing. The city would like to continue to be considered for future funding for improving
shore fishing at South Lotus Lake. Hook forward to' your continued correspondence in this 1
regard.
Vi
Sincerely, ,--
1
7 , M# 1
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director: , ..... } ' - 1
- i 3..
r:
pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Administrative Section, February 8, 1993, City Council Packet
Administrative Section, February 23, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission Packet 1
1
fir
. Not PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I 0
■ CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & U_CHS, PA, ems _ ( ' �-
Attorneys at Law /" ` 1
I Thomas J Campbell (612) 452-5000
Roger N Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
j James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
Michael A. Brohack
Renae D. Steiner January 13, 1993
i
!II Attorney Jeff Carson
CARSON & CLELLAND CO 0 y
Brookdale Corporate Center
I Suite 305
6300 Shinglecreek Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55430
_ Re: Your Client: Harry Lindbery RECEIVED
Chanhassen Conditional Use Permit 88 -11 JAN 1 81993
I CITY OF CMAtvn,,�
i Dear Mr. Carson:
•
We represent the City of Chanhassen. We have been
• w
I instructed to notify Mr. Lindbery that the City Planning Director
Paul Krauss has made a determination regarding the above
referenced conditional use permit.
3 1 The determination is as follows:
i
C 1. CUP 88 - is void. City Code Section 20 -236 provides as
I ' follows:
"If substantial construction has no taken place
within one (1) year of the date on which the
conditional use permit was granted, the permit is
void except that, on application, the Council,
after receiving recommendation from the Planning
I Commission, may extend the permit for such
_. additional period as it deems appropriate."
1 Mr. Lindbery installed concrete footings in 1989. Since
that date, no further construction has taken place. Mr. Lindbery
has not made an application for an extension. Therefore, it is
the City's determination that CUP 88 -11 is void.
2. In the alternative, the conditional use was discontinued
for six (6) months so the permit is void. City Code Section
j 20 -236 states as follows:
"If the conditional use is discontinued for six (6)
I months, the conditional use permit shall become void.
II Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
1
Attorney Jeff Carson II
January 13, 1993
Page 2
- This section shall apply to conditional use permits
1
issued prior to February 19, 1987, but the six (6)
month period shall not be deemed to commence until I
4 February 19, 1987."
Mr. Lindbery has not conducted any contractor's yard
activities on the subject property at any time, other than
illegal storage of containers and concrete pipes. Therefore, the
) conditional use permit is void. City Code Section 20 -236 does
apply to any permit issued after the effective date of that
II
section, which was December 15, 1986. The reference to February
19, 1987 allows a grace period for permits issued prior to
a February 19, 1987. It does not have the effect of limiting I
section 20 -236 to permits issued prior to February 19, 1987.
4 3. The time to extend the permit has expired. City Code
Section 20 -236 allows a person to file an application to extend a II
1 conditional use permit. Mr. Lindbery's permit was issued
September 12, 1988. Mr. Lindbery had until September 11, 1989 to
n file for an extension. Mr. Lindbery did not file an extension
within the time specified by the ordinance. Therefore, the City II
Council has no power to grant an extension at this time.
.s 1
If your client is aggrieved by this determination, he may
4 file an appeal with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals pursuant
to City Code Section 20-28(b)(1) (copy enclosed) .
II Your client also has the option of meeting with City staff
' prior to the hearing with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
I You may contact Sharmin A1-Jaff or Paul Krauss directly at II
(612) 937 -1900 to arrange the meeting. You previously indicated
to me that you wanted an opportunity to review the City's file on
this matter. I do not object to this request provided I am given II z
notice of when you will review the file.
ti
Please call if you have any questions or comments.
3
CAMPBELL, 4 SON, SCOTT
& FUCH A.
By: ....Y I Mri . 1
, $ � Elliott B. Kn ■�
EBK:mlw
Enclosure 1
=; cc: Don Ashworth
Paul Krauss
Sharmin Al -Jaff
III
1
1
1
1
1 The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Cordially Invites you to a Reception For nj"
1 State Legislator from the Metropolitan Area and
ec
Metropolitan Council Member
' Wednesday, February 10,1993
' 4:30 pan. to 6 pan.
Program from 530 p.m. to 5.45 p.m.
Buffington - Gilbert Rooms
Kelly Inn - St. Paul - State Capitol
St. Anthony at Rice Street
Karen Anderson, Council member David Childs, Manager
' Minnetonka
President New Brighton
Vice President
Please Reply to Carol Williams, 490 -3301
By Friday, February 5,1993
'
Briggs tit Morgan Supported financially in part by:
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly dr Lindgren, Ltd.
Miller & Schroeder Financial Inc. Holmes lc Graven
Piper, Jaffray Companies 4 Faegre & Benson
1 as er
(5 Ofl flQ j lOf1 3
c
1 Eve
1
1
1
1
1
-1
■
V -
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ' f / 1
PRESIDENT association of
Karen Anderson metro of i to n
Minnetonka ` munici 1
VICE PRESIDENT p es
David Childs
1
New Brighton
PAST PRESIDENT
Bob Long January 20, 1993
St.
II Paul
TO: Mayors, Managers /Administrators, and Contact Persons
DIRECTORS
Don Ashworth Enclosed is an invitation to a legislative reception 1
Chanhassen
sponsored by the AMM for Metropolitan Area Legislators and
Bill Barnhart Metropolitan Council Members. The purpose of the reception
Minneapolis is to explain the AMM position on various issues to the
I
William Burns legislators and Met Council members through one -on -one
Fridley discussion and a short program which will concentrate on
city aid, HACA and the Local Government Trust Fund.
Joan Campbell II Mnneapolis As an AMM member city official, you are invited to attend
Tom Egan the reception. As indicated on the enclosed invitation, the
Eagan reception is on February 10 at 4:30 P.M. at the Kelly Inn II in St. Paul. We hope that at least one person from each
Richard Enrooth member city will attend. More are welcome!
St. Anthony
JenyLinke To make this year the most successful, we ask that you 1
Mounds View please call your legislators and urge them to attend.
KennethMahteJr. Also, since this invitation is being mailed to Mayors, 1
Woodbury Managers, and contact persons only, please extend this
Betty McCollum
invitation to others on your council or staff who might be
North St. Paul interested in attending. 1
Frank Ongaro Thank you.
St. Paul
Barbara Peterson
(//eiN)- � 1
Orono
Vern Peterson, Executive Director
Jim Prosser Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 1
Richfield
Craig Rapp
Brooklyn Park 1
Tom Spies
Bloomington
Brenda Thomas 1
Roseville
Gene White 1
Prior Lake
EC F'NEp
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Vern Peterson 3490 Lexington avenue north, st. pan!, minnesota 55126 (612) 490.3301 c `�'�� 21 1 993
• i'rr of C H 1
AhN,btll
1 CITYOF
I , i o ' oir
1 CHANHASSEN
X 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
1 DATE: February 3, 1993
SUBJ: Non- Conforming Recreational Beachlots
1
The ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code requiring all non - conforming
I beachlots to receive a non - conforming use permit within one year after adoption of this
ordinance or the use must cease and desist. Ile date for compliance is quickly approaching,
I The one year deadline is March 5, 1993.
To date, the following beachlots have received a non - conforming use permit:
1 1. Minnewashta Creek
2. Trolls Glen F 'f
1 3. Frontier Trail '
4. Sunrise Hills
5. Pleasant Acres -,
I 6. Minnewashta Heights
7. Sunny Slope
8. Lakeview Hills Apartments - -
1 The following beachlots have submitted applications and staff is processing their applications:
1 1. Minnewashta Manor
2. Schmidts Acres
3. Colonial Grove
I ^
These three beachlots will not meet the March 5, 1993 deadline to receive a non - conforming use
permit but because they have submitted an application they will not be ordered to cease and
1 desist unless a non - conforming use permit is not issued by the city.
1
1 � 4/ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
Don Ashworth 1
February 3, 1993
Page 2 1
Even after several reminder letters and one certified letter, we have not received a response from
the Boyer's Sterling Estates Recreational Beachlot. They may be the only beachlot in jeopardy
of losing their non - conforming use status.
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Ordinance No. 163, Non - conforming recreational beachlots.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 163
' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER P 20 OF
THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING
' NON- CONFORMING BEACHLOTS
' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding Section 20 -79 to read:
Sec. 20 - 79. Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlots.
(a) Intent. The intent of this section is to prevent the
expansion of non - conforming recreational beachlots by estab-
lishing a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal
' non - conforming recreational beachlot.
(b) Within one year after the adoption of this ordinance
all non - conforming recreational beachlots must receive a non-
conforming use permit or the use must cease and desist. The
permit shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof
concerning the nature and extent of the legal non - conforming use
as it existed on or before January 18, 1982. The permit shall
describe the nature and extent of the allowed use. The use may
not be expanded or intensified over what is described in the
permit.
' (c) Applications for a non - conforming use permit shall be
filed with the Zoning Administrator on prescribed forms. The
' Zoning Administrator shall set a time and place for a hearing
before the Planning Commission. At the hearing the Commission
shall hear such persons as wish to be heard. Notice of the
' hearing date shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before
the date of the hearing to all owners of property on the lake
where the beachlot is located. Published notice shall also be
made once at least ten (10) days before the hearing. Failure to
1 give notice, however, shall not invalidate the proceedings.
At the close of the hearing the Planning Commission
shall make a recommendation to the City Council. Upon consider-
ation of the Planning Commission recommendation the City Council,
shall then make the final decision and the non - conforming
beachlot permit, establishing the nature and extent of the use
1 shall then be issued.
Section 2. Violation. The violation of any provision of
111 this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable to the maximum
•
r03/13/92
('82 Baseline)
I/
extent authorized in Minnesota Statutes Section 412.231. Each day
any violation continues is a separate offense.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th
day of February , 1992.
ATTEST:
,
4040=r_ -
Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J , mie1 Mayor ~ —
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 5 , 1992.)
•
1
IL
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 02-08 -93 PAGE 1 -
CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
048042 284.88 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY TRAVEL & TRAINING
1 284.88 NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
Ei
AL
IYY
1
1
Revised
i Recommendations
For
1 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
1 $5,675,000
Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series
1 1 993A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Study No. CO236 N1
I SPRINGSTED Incorporated
February 3, 1993
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SPRINGSTED 120 South Sixth Street
Suite 2507
y " PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Minneapolis, MN 55402-1800
,, .. (612) 333 -9177
Fax: (612) 349 -5230
Home Office
' 85 East Seventh Place 16655 West Bluemound Road
Suite 100 Suite 290
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2143 Brookfield, WI 53005 -5935
(612) 223 -3000 (414) 782 -8222
Fax: (612) 223 -3002 Fax: (414) 782 -2904
6800 College Boulevard
Suite 600
Overland Park, KS 66211 -1533
(913) 345 -8062
' Fax: (913) 345 -1770
February 3, 1993 Suite Street NW
' Washington, DC 20006 -2200
(202) 466 -3344
Fax: (202) 223 -1362
Mr. Donald Ashworth, City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -0147
' Re: Revised Recommendations for the Issuance of $5,675000 Taxable General Obligation
Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1993A
We respectfully request your consideration of our revised recommendations for the issuance of
these bonds according to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached proposed "Official
Terms of Offering." Subsequent to the City Council meeting on January 25, 1993 the principal
amount of the above mentioned issue was reduced from $7,025,000 to $5,675,000.
' On December 14, the City Council approved Modification No. 12 to the Redevelopment and
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Chanhassen Redevelopment Project. Pursuant to that
modification, the HRA may now proceed to acquire certain properties within the redevelopment
project area and within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 thereof. Attached as Appendix I
is a listing of property to be acquired and the estimated costs of that acquisition together with
associated administrative and issuance expenses.
' Included in the principal amount of bonds to be issued is a provision for discount bidding in the
amount of $85,125. This discount, representing $15.00 per $1,000 of bonds issued, provides
the underwriters with all or part of their profit and /or working capital for issuing the issue and
permits them to reoffer the bonds at or close to a reoffering scale. The City has used this
successful marketing tool in the past, and we recommend its continued use herein.
These bonds are being issued pursuant to Chapters 469 and 475, Minnesota Statutes. As
noted earlier, the proceeds will be used primarily to finance the land acquisition costs within TIF
No. 1 for resale to private developers. As such, federal regulations require the issuance of
taxable bonds for which the interest paid to bondholders may be subject to both federal and
' State income taxes.
The City currently has 10 bond issues outstanding and other contractual obligations which are
payable primarily from the increment income generated from TIF No. 1. This new issue will
' place further demands on that revenue stream. However, pursuant to the City's Debt Analysis
Report, dated October 1991, for all TIF Districts the current fund balance, together with the
City's estimated increment income, will be more than sufficient to take care of all debt and
contractual obligations as well as leave room for other annual expenditures. We have therefore
structured this issue around the current level of debt as well as the future expected stream of
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
February 3, 1993
revenue and the cash balance of $1,438,000 as of February 2, 1993, which date is after making
the February 1, 1993 payment on current tax increment debt.
Attached as Appendix II is the revised maturity schedule for this issue. The bonds will be dated
March 1, 1993 and mature each February 1 from 1994 through 2001. Columns 1 through 6
show the years and amounts of principal and estimated interest due on these bonds. The first
payment will be an interest payment due August 1, 1993 in an estimated amount of $157,940
which will be payable from the first -half collections of increment generated from TIF No. 1. The
next payment will be a principal and interest payment due February 1, 1994 in a combined
estimated amount of $339,525. This amount will be payable from the second -half collections of
increment income, together with the surplus of first -half collections. The same payment
sequence will continue throughout the life of the issue. The projected level of tax increment
income is shown in Column 7, and the surplus of tax increment revenues over projected debt
service on the bonds is noted in Columns 8 and 9.
' While bond issues of this duration generally do not have a call feature we have, pursuant to
continuing discussions with City staff, provided that bonds maturing on or after February 1,
2000 be subject to payment in advance of their stated maturity on February 1, 1999, and any
date thereafter, at a price of par and accrued interest. This call feature represents $2,700,000,
or approximately 47.5% of the bond issue. This will provide the City with an opportunity to
refinance a substantial portion of the issue should there be a surplus of increment income
and /or market conditions warrant such course of action. We note that, pursuant to current
' statutory provisions, increment from this district for new debt issued after April, 1990 may not
be collected after April, 2001. Thus, the last full year of increment income for this issue will be
the year 2000. We have provided for the final maturity of this issue to be February 1, 2001.
' We recommend an application be made to Moody's Investors Service for a rating of this issue.
The City is currently rated "Baa -1" by Moody's, and we will assist in providing them with the
data necessary upon which to make their rating analysis. The agency will charge a fee for this
' issue, which will be billed directly to the City and will be payable from bond proceeds.
We recommend these bonds be offered for sale on Monday, February 22, 1993, with bids
received in the offices of Springsted Incorporated at 12:30 P.M. We will then tabulate and verify
all bid proposals received and present them to the City Council for consideration of award at
7:30 P.M. the same evening. Bond proceeds should be available on or about March 15.
' Respectfully submitted,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
mmc
1
1
i Page 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I APPENDIX
i CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
$5,675,000
1 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds
1 Composition of Issue
Land Acquisition:
I Taco Shop $ 313,000
Apple Valley Redimix 1,000,000
James Property 490,000
I Burdick Property 2,736,000
Miscellaneous Property Acquisition
and Improvements 750,000
1 Subtotal $5,289,000
Administrative Costs 264,450
Allowance for Discount 85,125
I Issuance Costs 37,500
Less: Investment Earnings (1,075)
1 Total Bond Issue $5,675,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Page 3
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
APPENDIX 11
I CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Prepared February 1, 1993
$5,675,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
II TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1993A
Dated: 3- 1 -1993
I Mature: 2- 1
First Interest: 8- 1 -1993
Total Projected
Year of Year of Principal Available Annual Cumulative
II Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest & Interest Increment Surplus Surplus
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1992 1994 150,000 5.00% 347,463 497,463 1,335,000 837,537 837,537
1 1993 1995 150,000 5.60% 371,550 521,550 1,155,000 633,450 1,470,987
1994 1996 150,000 5.90 363,150 513,150 1,190,000 676,850 2,147,837
1995 1997 650,000 6.20% 354,300 1,004,300 1,915,000 910,700 3,058,537
II 1996 1998 700,000 6.40% 314,000 1,014,000 1,895,000 881,000 3,939,537
1997 1999 1,175,000 6.70% 269,200 1,444,200 2,180,000 735,800 4,675,337
1998 2000 1,225,000 7.00 190,475 1,415,475 2,135,000 719,525 5,394,862
1999 2001 1,475,000 7.10% 104,725 1,579,725 2,500,000 920,275 6,315,137
11 TOTALS: 5,675,000 2,314,863 7,989,863 14,305,000
II Bond Years: 33,952.08 Annual Interest: 2,314,863
Avg. Maturity: 5.98 Plus Discount: 85,125
II Avg. Annual Rate: 6.818% Net Interest: 2,399,988
T.I.C. Rate: 7.120% N.I.C. Rate: 7.069%
Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule.
II The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II Page 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE
ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$5,675,000
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS,
SERIES 1993A
Proposals for the Bonds will be received by the City Manager or his designee on Monday,
February 22, 1993, until 12:30 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85
East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and
tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M.,
Central Time, of the same day.
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated March 1, 1993, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1993. Interest will
be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will be
issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the
purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main
corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of
the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the
books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding
month.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
1994 $150,000 1997 $ 650,000 2000 $1,225,000
1995 $150,000 1998 $ 700,000 2001 $1,475,000
1996 $150,000 1999 $1,175,000
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 1999, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or
after February 1, 2000. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of
the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected
by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge tax
increment income from the City's HRA Redevelopment District. The proceeds will be used to
finance land acquisition and other eligible costs within Tax Increment District No. 1.
Page 5