2001 10 08 AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILIHNG, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, COURTYARD CONFERENCE ROOM
2002 Budget Presentations:
A. Engineering & Public Works Department
B. Park & Recreation Department
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR Mle~ETING, CITY COUNCH~ CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Alleei_anee_)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and
will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these item~. If
discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and consi~
separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the
council packet for each staff report.
Approve Amendment No. 2 to Coopexative Construction Agreement No. 80068
for West 78t~ Street/TH 5 Improvement Project 97-6.
b.
d.
e.
Approve Street Lighting Contract for Century Boulevard, Project 97-1C.
Approve Certificate of Compliance for Highlands on Lake St. $oe, Project 93-3 1.
Call for Assessment ~gs for Crest-dew Circle, Century Boulevard, BC7 &
BC8 Tnmk Sanitary Sewer Improvements, TH 5 Improvements, and Quinn Road.
Item moved to New Business
Approve Amendment to City Code Clarifying that a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of
the City Council is Required to Rezone Parcels.
g. Item Deleted **
h. Approval of Bills.
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 24, 2001
- City Council Minutes dated September 24, 2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated September 18, 2001
j. Approval of Designating Southern LRT Trail as a Snowmobile Trail.
vISITOR PRF_~ENTATIONS
2. Update on District 276 School District Referendum.
3. Update on Roundhouse Renovation Project, Deanna Bunkleman.
PUBLIC HEA~GS
4. Vacation of a Driveway Easement; 8175 Hazeltine Boulevard, City of Chanhassen.
UNFINISHED BUSINF_3S
5. Highway 101 Tumback Project Update, Project 97-12.
NEW BUSINES~
5.5 Consider Amendment to City Code to Permit Only One Driveway Access Per Lot.
COUNCIL PRESE~ATION~
6. Council/Commission Liaison Update
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 937-1900 to verify that your
item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
The following item was published and then deleted from the agenda:
lg.
Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County Concerning the
Chanhassen Library.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
every regular City Council meeting during l~or Pr~s~n~
2. If ~ are a number of individuals ~ to speak on the ,~,~ topic, please d~igna~ a spo~ that
can summarize the issue.
.
During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listm to commenls ~ will not eagage in discussion.
Council ~ or the City Maxml~ may ask questions of you in order to gain a thom~ understanding
of your concern, suggestion or request.
.
either by name or infereo~ will not be allowed. Personnel ~ should be dh-coted to the City
:
CTFYOF
PO liox147
~ M'~ 55317
952.937.1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
TO:
Park & Recreation Commission
FROM:
DATE:
Todd Hoffman, Park & Re~eation Director
September 18, 2001
SUB J:
Recommendation to Submit Apphcation to the Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park Dish-ict for a 2001-2002 Winter Use
Permit Authorizing Snowmobile Use on the South LRT Trail
Attached please find a letter from Sue Woodrich, Director of Park and Trail
Operations at Hennepin Parks, inquiring as to the City;s interest in applying for
a winter use permit for the Southern Light Rail Transit IRT Trail. The City has
applied for and received a permit for snowmobile use on this trail annually since
1994. The Chanhassen Snowmobile Club assists the City in mainta~ng this
trail by signing and grooming the trail each season. To date, citizen concerns
over this use have been virtually non-existent while at the same time the
snowrnobling public enjoys a nice trail experience.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission recormnelld the City Council submit an
application to the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District for use of the
southern LRT trail located in Chanhassen as a designated snowmobile trail.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from Sue Woodrich dated August 20, 2001
2. Application
3. Chanhassen Snowmobile Rules & Regulations
PARK & RECREATION COMMLqSION ACTION
On Tuesday, Septeml~r 25, Park & Recreation Commissioner Karlovich
recommended that the City Council submit application to the Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park Dis~ct for use of the southern IRT Trail located in
Chanhassen as a desi~ snowmobile trail. Commisaioner Spizale seconded
the motion and all commissioners voted in favor.
PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP THROUGH RECREATION
AND EDUCATION IN A NATURAL RESOURCES-BASED PARK SYSTEM
" August 20, 2001
,'
Todd Hoffrnan, Director~ Parks & Recreation
·
City of Chanhassen '
690 Coulter. · --,
Chanhass.en, ~ 55317
Dear Todd:
l~trict H~er= · 12615 Court, Road
Telephone 763/559-9000 · TDD 763/559-6719'· Fax 763/559-3282.
www. hennepinparke.org · an pqual opportunttyemploym.
AUG, 2001
CiTY OF
Since 1993, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District has required a Winter Use
Permit for those cities that have bordered the Southwest LRT regional trail and desire to
use the trail during the winter months. Recently there have been numerous regional trails
added to the Park District, some which are located within your community. In order to be
consistent with the operating plan which was established in 1993, we are forwarding the
Winter Use Permit to your community.
The Winter Use Permit ultimately authorizes your City to utilize the section of trail for
the use you request. Permitted activities are determined by individual communities,
contingent upon approval from the Park District's Board of Commissioners. Please note
that permit requests should be submitted to Ann Basseth Administrative Assistant, and
include verification of formal City Council action approving the proposed activities (a
copy of appropriate meeting minutes) and a Certificate of Insurance, naming Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park District as an additional named insured. Please contact your
insurance carrier to provide us with an updated copy. Coverage will need to show
inclusive dates from November 15, 2001 and March 31, 2002. Please include proposed
rules and regulations for winter use, as well.
Enclosed is an application for the 2001-2002 Winter Use Permit. Please determine the
level of winter use you are requesting, fill out the application form and follow the
procedures outlined above. If your community does not plan to authorize any winter use
activities, please indicate (none) in the box at the top of the permit and return'this form so
that the trail can be signed as CLOSED, by order of your city council.
If you have questions 'regarding this, please contact me at 763-559-6701. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sue Woodrich
Director, Park and Trail Operations
Douglas F. Bryant, Superintendent
Don DeVeau, Development Administrator
B0e Carlson, Trails Coordinator'
Ohl/lrt/regi0nal winter use permit/new cities.01-02
)
Help ~ mowmobmng Alive in
~annha~nn. Johl mnt:
At 7:30PM
~ery 2=' The. of the month .
lllCl..P ~ OUR TRAIL $YS'I~M OPI~I
THINK SNO ~
The Chanhassen Public Safety Department has received numerous complaints about snowmobiles being operated illegally. We
wish to remind Chnnhnssen residents of the following ordinance regulating snowmobile operation:
IT IS UNI~VfflrUL FOR ANY ~N TO OP~IATE A SlVOWMOBILIL-
1. BEFORE DECEMBER Isa'. ON ANY STATE OR GRANT AND AID TRAIL SYSTEM.
ON A PUBL}C SIDEWALK OR WALKWAY PROVIDED OR USED FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL, OR ON A
BOULEVARD WITHIN ANY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY:
A. THIS MEANS YOU CANNOT RIDE ON THE CURB OF KERBER BOULEVARD OR ANY OTHER CURB,
YOU MUST RIDE ON THE STREET.
.
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY' OR EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE
OWNER OR LESSEE.
ON THE LRT (THE ABANDON RAIL ROAD BED BETWEE~ CHANI-IASSEN AND CHASKA) BEFORE 7:00AM.
& AFTER 7.'00PM. THE SPEED LIMIT ON THIS TRAIL IS 30 MPI-L
ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL GROUNDS EXCEPT AS PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY OBTAINED
FROM RESPONSIBLE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES:
A. CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY NORTH oF CHAN CITY.'
HALL ARE OFF LIMITS.
B. ON ANY PUBLICLY OWNED LANI~, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PARK PROPERTY',
PLAYGROUNDS, RECREATION AREAS AND GOLF COURSES UNLESS AUTHORIZEr) FOR SUCH USE
BY THE PROPER PUBLIC AUTHORITY:
C. YOU CANNOT RIDE IN LAKE ANN PARK EXCEPT ON THE DESIGNATED TRAIL.
6. TO TOW ANY PERSON OR THING ON A PUBLIC STREET OR HIGHWAY.
'8.
AT A SPEED GREATER THAN I0 MPH WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY-LAKESHORE' FISHERMAN, FISH ORICE
HOUSE, OR ANY SLIDING AREA OR SKATING RINK WHEN IN USE:
IN A MANNER AS'TO CREATE A LOUD, UNNECESSARY OR-iJNUSUAL NOISE, WHI .CTI-I DISTURBS, ANNOYS
OR INTERFERES WITH THE PEACE AND QUIET OF OTHER PERSONS.
ON WEST 78TM STREET, OR THE BOULEVARD OF WEST 78TM STREET. TO SUM IT LIP, THE S3~ AND
THE TRAIL SYSTEM IS THE ONLY LEGAL PLACES YOU CAN RIDE. THE ROAD BANKS OF KERBER
BOULEVARD, CITY PARKS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE OFF LIMITll
{N ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, NO SNOWMOBILE SHALL BE OPERATED ON STREETS OR HIGHWAYS AT A
SPEED EXCEEDING TEN (10) MILES PER HOUR. AT NO TIME MAY A SNOWMOBILE BE OPERATED WHEN
THE OPERATION WOULD REASONABLY IN DANGER OTHER PERSONS OR PROPERTY. ORGANIZED
PATROLLING WILL BE TAKING PLACE TO ENFORCE THESE LAWSll
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL: CHANHASSEN SNOWMOBILE MEMBERS: GREG HAVLIK 937-5678
CHARLIE UTI'FIN 937-8392 OR SCO3'I' TRUEMPI 949-7372 OR ATTEND CHANHASSEN SNOWMOBILE
CLUB MEETINS EVERY 2t° TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7:30 AT CHAN LEGION.
SUPPORT YOUR SPORT - JOIN YOUR LOCAL CLUB
HAPPY TRAILS
SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
2001-2002 WINTER USE PERMIT
Name of City,
Con~c[ Person
Regional Trail From
Authorized 2001-2002 Winter Activities
City Hall Pho~.~
Phone,
to
Regional Trail From
Authorized 2001-2002 Winter Activities
to
Regional Trail From
Authorized 2001-2002 Winter Activities.
to
Regional Trail From
Authorized 2001-2002 Winter Activities
to
Authorization is hereby requested from the Park District Board of Commissioners to use portions of the
Regional Trail Corridor for winter use activities between November 15, 2001 and March 31, 2002, as
determined by each municipality within guidelines set forth herein on District property located within
individual City boundaries.
It is understood and agreed that approval from the Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners is contingent.
upon the following conditions:
The City will provide the Park District with a Certificate of Insurance, naming Hennepin Parks as an
additional named insured. Such certificate shall provide at least $1,000,000 aggregate or combined single
limit of general liability coverage for the requested winter use activities, with 'a maximum $10,000
deductible per claim.
The City agrees to maintain the trail, including, but not limited to, any plowing, sweeping, sanding,
packing, trash pick-up, and sign replacement, between November 15, 2001-March 31, 200Z The City
further agrees to immediately address all safety issues on or adjacent to trails.
The City will provide signage at locations approved by the Park District notifying the public of
authorized winter activities within its dty limits; activities may include, but are not limited to, hiking,
biking, snowmobiling, cross-cotmtry skiing, snowshoeing, or pet walking. Winter use signs must be
installed by the City at designated locations prior to November 15, 2001 and removed by the City no
later than April 15, 2002. These signs are totally the responsibility of each munidpality.
· Snowmobiling is not allowed on asphalt trails. Permitted use for snowmobiles will be limited to direct
crossing and/or in areas where the snowmobile trail is kept from running on paved tr,,il,, and bridges. If
bridges and other property.
a W'mter Use Permit.
· The City agrees to repair all trail surface damage that occurs a~ a result of winter trail activities and/or
maintenance, indudin~ but not limited to, bituminous/concrete repair, bridge deck repair, grading &
adding aggregate pursuant to guidelines established by the Park District . ' '
· The City agrees that winter trail use will be available to all persons, regardless of resin_
Each Ci~ is required to submit its annual permit requests, including proposed rules and regulalions,
by , after which the Park District may take up to 45 business daN to process.
Each permit request must be submitted as a result of formal City Council actian, with accompanying
verification, agreeing to the terms and conditions outlined by the Park District's Winter Use Permit. It
should be further understood that no winter activity will be allowed on segments of the Regional Trail
Corridor where municipalities do not request and receive permits.
The Park District reserves the right to terminate a permit at any time, if the conditions set forth herein are
not followed.
Signed: Date:.
(Authorized Representative of the City)
MEMORANDUM
CT YOF
PO Booc147
~, Minnesota 55317
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
95Z93Z9152
INilding Ihtummeut Fax
952934.2524
Web Sitt
u~vutcLd~udumo~.mn, us
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engin~
October 3, 2001
En~n~g/Publie Works Budget Discussion
Discussion of the En~neering/Public Works Budget by the City Council is
scheduled for the October 8m, 2001 City Council Meeting. This budget is
comprised of five sections.
1310
Engineering ~ Oversight and administration of public improvement projects
)~ Review of private development proposals and permits.
)~ Administration of the City's pavement management and sump pump
programs
~ Coordination with State and County agencies in regards to
transportation, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water utility
~ Review of traffic and drainage concerns
1320
Street Maintenance ..
~ ' Maintenance and repair of street and storm sewer within the City of
Chanhassen
1350
Street Ug ting & Signats
~ Operation and maintenauce of lighting and signalization of streets and
intersections for motorists and pedestrians to enhance the safety of the
community
1370
City Garage
P Repair and Maintenance of all City Vehicles including Fire
Department vehicles
700 Sewer and Water l%terprise Fund
)~ Operation and main~ of sanitary sewer and water utilities
}e Cirt ~C3anhaue~ A ~owin~ communit~ with clean lakes, aual~ schook a ~ doumtount thrivin~ ~. and beauti~ t~. a ~rat ~br~ t~ /i,~.. ,,~J. and,l,,
Public Works - Engineering
Mission and Current Services
The Engineering Department provides engineering services including:
· Project administration including supervision of consultant engineering services for public
sewer, water, and street projects.
· Plan review and construction monitoring for all developer installed public improvements.
· Administration of the Pavement Management System
· Coordination with County and State Agencies regarding transportation, water, and sanitary
sewer issues.
· Administration of Chanhassen's Sump Pump program.
· Reviews building permits to ensure compliance with the City Council approved grading plan
and conditions of development approval
· Issues permits for:
o Street closure for block parties
o Temporary liffing of no - parking zone regulations
o Daily watering of new Sod or Seed
· Review of drainage problems
* Performs speed and traffic count studies
In addition, this department responds to customer complaints, requests, and concerns relating to the
City's streets, water, sanitary sewer, and drainage.
E_~penditures
430..__..Q0 Consulting
Consultant services related to design and construction of Public Improvement Projects are
budgeted under the project and is not included in this line item. The Consultant Services under
this item are for Engineering Services not directly related to a Public Improvement Project.
Examples include traffic studies, land survey, bridge inspection, and drafting.
433.__fi Postage
The Engineering Department puts out several notices and informational mailing per year.
437__..Q0 Travel and Training
Training in the form of seminars and conferences keep staff informed of current trends and
innovations in the Engineering field. Continuing education is a requirement for all Licensed
Engineers. The amount of training for 2002 has been reduced in an effort to limit budget
growth.
.4540 Repair & Maintenance-Streets
This budget item has traditionally been used for seal coating of City Streets. AS the City moves
into a more aggressive street repair and rehabilitation mode this line item will be used to offset
the assessment burden of property owners. It is anticipated that this item will increase in future
years as increased improvements are done.
Total proposed Budget is $703,250. This is down from 2001 by $5,710 (0.8 %).
G:.~NG~BUDGET~2~presentafion~publi¢ works - engineerin&doc
l:]ute~ 10/04/01
T~UI: 4 ~ O~l;m
f~y ot ~ Page~ ~
L........................................... ~ ....... :":ii-"iZi':':i'~-;~.'ii.'-ii-i.'-ii-:-iii'iii ................................................
LO Nm:er/itl IJ3d 8up91:1~1
LI.00t£ici 8uppllef
L40 Veh:Lc].e 8upplJ.e8
t70 Motor fUl].l ,'~ Lubz'tc,snl:.l
tlo Roctlm end i~ctodtc~lJ
190 lille Nit.thai & 8uppllel
0 C~tFl~tu~l BO~C~I
100 ~---ultin9
I10 Te./epJm ~ C:~Dmu~LcatJ~ml
30 9oatage
60 H~bacc~pC~ and Nmbe~lb~pe
70 T~lVOZ ~nd TziLnlng
100 It~Leigu
l0 Vehicle Ltconoe & Regt~rutlon
S3D aopa~r & ~ - ~qu~pmmC
lqmtr & ~ Btr~et-
~01 T.uT.I & /~lpL'OVlmln~l
05 c)~ ~qu:t.pmm~:
capel:il Outlay
)0 JCLacel.lm~xm Expense
281,316 359,000 359,000 233,540 349,000 349,000
0 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 1,000
5,922 6,400 6,400 6,055 6,400 6,400
34,983 46,000 46,000 29,385 46,000 46,000
17,297 28,000 28,000 23,157 31,200 31,200
1,138 o 0 o
...............................................................................................................
1,908 2,800 2,800 3,270 4,000 4,000
-13,323 0 0 0
329 241 443,200 443,100 295,407 437,600 437,500
2,250 0 0 830
260 350 350 1,183 1,500 1,50Q
217 500 500 -75 250 250
867 950 950 700 1,300 1,300
527 350 350 0 350 350
0 o 0 81
4,121 2,150 2,150 2,719 3,400 3,400
4,267 16,000 16,000 10,069 15,000 15,000
999 1,710 1,710 1,553 1,500 1,500
0 0 0 1,096 1,300 1,300
094 1,000 1,000 957 1,100 1,100
783 1,650 1,550 1,489 1,450 1,450
1,784 4,100 4,100 3,917 2,500 2,500
57 200 200 45 150 150
41 100 100 O 100 100
100 SOO SOO 250 SO0 500
0 2,700 2,700 2,106 3,000 3,000
................................................................................................................
147 150 150 140 150 150
.
252,123 235,000 235,000 3,472 235,000 235,000
261,195 263,110 263,110 25,093 261,750 261,750
13,000 0 0 -13,000
0 500 500 670 500 500
13,000 SO0 500 -~2,322 SO0 500
0 0 0 591
0 0 0 591
607, 557 708,960 708,960 311,488 703,250 703,250
Public Works - Street Maintenance
Mission and Current Services
This budget maintains the local streets and storm drainage.
Over 120 miles of City streets (the City does not maintain State, County, or Private
roadways.)
· Street signage including over 490 stop signs on the City streets
· Public stonn water ponds ;
Prima~ maintenance activities include: · Snow removal and ice control
· Sm~ sweeping
· Crack sealing
· Pothole patching and small overlays
· Tree trimming and mowing activities
· Storm sewer cleaning
· Storm pond cleaning
· Traffic sign installation and maintenance
· Pavement marking.
In addition, this department responds to customer complaints and emergency situations related to
the streets.
Expenditures
4150 Maintenance Materials
The City has not had an aggressive rehabilitation program. As streets age the cost to
maintain them increases dramatically. In addition, the increase in the nmber of street
miles with development also drives the cost of maintenance materials up. The materials
purchased under this line item include crack sealant, bituminous asphalt for paving and
patching, and sand for winter streets.
4170 Motor Fuels and Lubricants
This department is heavily impacted by the increased cost of vehicle fuel. In addition, the
increased mileage of streets for maintenance and snow plowing increases the fuel
demand.
4370
4560
Travel and Traininl~
Training in the form of seminars and conferences keep staff informed of current trends
and innovations. Safety training is mandatory for compliance with OSHA requirements.
Repair & Maintenance- Signs
The City has seen an increase in the number of street signs with development and with
increased demand from citizens.
Total proposed Budget is $818,470. This is up from 2001 by $72,140 (9.7 %).
G:kENG~UDGE'l~2¥r~entationyublic works - Street Maintenance. doc
Month~ 1.2/31101
l:Jq;)'c~ 1330 gtreet
400 9erson~l Bervtm
4010 S~lar~el and
40//
4030 ~.~
4030 ~~
4040 ~~ ~r~i~
4050 ~
4081 ~a~
4110 ~ce
4MO ~e ~liea
4150 ~~
4160
4170 ~ ~lm
4240 ~o~ &
~60 ~11 ~8 &
4300
&Il0 ~1~ ~ ~cat~
4350 ~ ~
4360 ~Fl~i~
4370 ~ ~
4380
44~0 ~i~ ~
~40 ~ ~ · ~imt~ti~
45]0 ~F · ~ - V~clea
4530 ~i~ · ~ -
4540 ~ G ~nt - Stoats
4560 ~l~ & ~ -
~n~l Se~ces
4~0 ~ital
~it~ ~tlay
49~ 8,1ee ~
Year Oriolnal A~ende~ Actual Thru F~t ~mated
Actual Su~t Bu~t December Total Requeeted R~co~ended Adopt~
363,375 375,000 375,000 295,369 394,000 394,000
685 7,500 7,500 782 7,500 7,500
0 6,~00 6,200 0 6,200 6,200
47,666 48,200 48,200 37,249 51,900 51,900
32,415 43,000 43,000 33,557 48,600 48,600
581 0 0 0
8,410 9,200 9,200 10,745 14,200 14,300
12,845 0 0 0
468,877 489,100 489,100 377,602 532,400 522,400
1,563 0 0 0
47,005 53,000 53,000 52,319 55,000 55,000
16,339 25,000 35,000 22,908 25,000 35,000
154,639 97,300 97,200 40,813 125,000 135,000
100 100 0 100 100
37,056 33,120 33,120 28,309 42,000 42,000
0 410 410 0 400 400
3,829 3,700 3,700 712 3,700 3,700
-33 1,500 1,500 889 2,500 2,500
260,297 214,030 214,030 145,950 253,700 253,700
3,932 1,000 1,000 1,850 1,000 1,000
1,289 1,550 1,550 988 1,500 1,500
65 300 300 0
259 210 210 0 350 250
10 520 520 0 300 300
1,692 2,500 2,500 2,218 2,500 3,500
0 0 0 0
419 1,500 1,500 58 1,500 1,500
405 520 520 0 520 530
0 1,000 1,000 0 500 500
1,207 6,300 6,200 2,364 6,500 6,500
8,733 7,200 7,200 1,860 7,500 7,500
1,366 1,700 1,700 1,243 1,700 1,700
................................................................................................................
203 500 500 0 500 500
13,460 16,500 16,500 8,566 15,500 15,500
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
32,930 41,200 41,200 19,147 39,770 39,770
0 500 500 0 500 500
1,874 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 1,500
1,874 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 2,000
0 0 0 418
1,006 0 o 623 6oo 6oo
~mte, 10~04,~01
'~/.~i ~ & ~ 01~lm
~ ................. ~ Y~ ......................
............................................................................................................................................................
~ ~320 ~
................................................................................................................
600
~~ ~ ~, 006 0 0 ~.~ ~00
................................................................................................................
8~8,470 8~8, ~70
8~ ~ ~ 761,984 746,330 746,330 ~3,
Public Works - Street Lighting and Signals
Mission and Current Services
This budget provides for lighting and signalization of streets and intersections for
motorists and pedestrians to enhance the safety of the community.
In addition, this area responds to damaged or downed street lights caused by vehicle
accidents.
Expenditures
4320 Utilities
This line item pays for the electricity to run the City operated traffic signals and
street lights. Savings have been realized by use of more efficient bulbs. It has
been estimated that an additional $10,000 savings could be realized by leaving the
decorative median lights on W. 78th Street off. These lights are currently off in
keeping with Council direction to decrease expenditures for 2001.
Total proposed Budget is $269,100. This is down from 2001 by $12,860 (4.6 %).
G:kENG~UDGET~02~presentation~public work - Street Lighting & Signals.doc
.............................................................................................................................................................
]~d.o]: ................. ~ Tf~e~.r ......................
~t tuxl~
~. 1350 Bt~ ~.~gh~/x~j & 6t9~alB
30 ~ml~t gu~;)11~ 4,555 2,480 2,480 1,993 1,500 1,500
4,SSS 2,400 2,480 1,093 1,500 1,500
1,381 2,SgO 2,590 0 300 300
595 830 830 370 500 SO0
242,502 263,930 263,930 152,959 255,000 :245,000
382 300 300 0 300 300
2,262 3,830 3,030 0 3,500 3,500
866 0 0 617 ..............
2,
47,725 8,000 .8,000 2,7~'1. 8,000 8,000
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
295,713 279,480 279,&80 158,740 267,600 257,600
itt'tit Z,:Lg~t:L.ag & 81g/i].l 300,268 281,960 281,960 160, '733 269,100 259,100
Public Works- City Garage
Mission and Current Services
This budget provides for the maintenance and repair of all City vehicles including the Fire
Department. This department maintains most of the rolling stock and emergency response
equipment in the City including:
· 50 Pickups And 4-Wheel Drive Vehicles
· 22 Specialty Tracks
· 13 Fire Department Vehicles
· 5 Cars
· 3 Front-End Loaders
· 4 Bobcats
· Backhoe
· 4 Tractors
· Bulldozer
· 13 Lawnmowers
· 5 Snow Blowers
· Blacktop Equipment
· Grader
· Miscellaneous Snow Plowing Equipment
40O
4320
Expenditures
Personal Services
$231,100 of the total proposed budget is directly related to employee wages and benefits.
This department has three (3) full time employees. These employees in addition to their
normal vehicle maintenance duties also assist with snow removal.
Utilities
This item covers the utilities for the Public Works Facility. The increased cost of fuel oil
is reflected in the increase in this line item
Total proposed Budget is $302,460. This is up from 2001 by $28,140 (10.3 %).
G:.kENG~ UDGET~)2~pr~smtafion~publi¢ works
~: 1370 C::LCT ~
DO ~zwc~B1 8e~vtcl~
DiO fJal, B.Ct44 ~ IM.gea
D30 ii~t.J.rmmm3~, r'~,~PrUxU::Lozm
D43. C~:llt..c IPI.x
DSO ~ C~llG~t. lcm
181 Crmpenllt:ed
LO ~e~-l- Mhd 8uz~llel
L10 Otftco
L40 ~eb/cle SupplteJ
LS0 Ml:Ln~enlncm Ml~iL~Jll
LT0 NO~C~ roell m2d Lub~lcBn~l
~0 ~21Zo~-mm & Clo~b/J2g
160 ~ Tools G
I(ateFMIB and Bu~pllil
I0 C:mst=uiS. ~m
10 ~ ~d
50 ~ End N~lte
i60 Oubmcctp4:/(zm end 14mbe~Jblpe
and
14.0 Veblc.14 L/cede & Regll~z~ttoG
Rq;4J.r & Hm:ls:Jt - Veh:Lcle.l
166,528 159,000 159,000 127,981 165,000 165,000
0 7,000 7,000 0 7°000 7,000
3,840 5,000 5,000 0 S,000 5,000
20,858 21,000 21,000 15,876 21,800 21,800
14,730 19,000 19,000 15,256 21,$00 21,600
781 0 0 0
6,399 7,000 7,000 8,176 10,700 10,700
-300 0 0 0
212,852 218,000 218,000 167,296 231,100 231,100
765 0 0 0
1,923 3,300 3,300 1,163 3,300 3,300
433 200 200 434 400 400
1,131 1,000 1,000 29~ 1,000 1,000
233 450 450 188 450 450
1,049 1,130 1,130 820 1,150 1,150
................................................................................................................
2,677 3,700 3,700 3,985 4,000 4,000 .
8,211 9,780 9,780 6,882 10,300 10,300
1,174 800 800 413 700 700
................................................................................................................
138 5,280 5,280 650 1,000 1,000
................................................................................................................
18,448 16,100 16,100 21,137 35,000 35,000
585 100 100 55 100 100
4,078 5,500 5,500 3,093 5,600 5,600
163 160 160 25 160 160
................................................................................................................
77 2,800 2,800 2,745 3,000 3,000
28 1,000 1,000 0 500 500
129 200 200 0 200 200
452 3,000 3,000 2,545 3,200 3,200
................................................................................................................
13 300 300 0 300 300
2,772 4,500 4,500 1,908 4,500 4,500
147 300 300 140 300 300
0 0 0 0
29,004 40,040 40,040 32,721 54,560 54,560
0 S00 500 0 SO0 500
6,059 6,000 6,000 O 6,000 6,000
6,059 6,500 6,500 0 6,500 6,500
256,1.26 274,320 274,320 206,889 302,460 302,460
1,925,935 2,011,570 2,011,570 1,222,850 2,093,280 2,083,280
...............................................................
1,925,935 2,01.1,570 2,011,570 1,232,850 0 2,093,280 2,083 280
Enterprise Fund- Sewer and Water Utility Fund- 700
Mission and Current Services
This budget provides safe potable drinking water and reliable sewage disposal for businesses and
residents. This budget is funded through user fees in the form of utility billings.
This department operates and maintains:
Eight (8) Municipal Water Wells which supply the City's drinking water. The
City does not currently have water treatment beyond chlorine and fluoride,
however, two (2) treatment plants are proposed in the City's Capital
Improvement Plan. The City wells are capable of delivering 8,050 gallons of
water per minute.
· Twenty-nine (29) Sanitary Lift Stations which pump the City's sanitary sewer
waste. The City contracts with MWCC for treatment of the waste and does not
have a wastewater treatment plant.
· Four (4) water storage facilities totaling 5.3 million gallons of storage.
· Approximately 100 miles each of water main and sanitary sewer.
In addition, this department responds to customer complaints regarding both water and sanitary
sewer, watermain breaks, utility locates, and emergency situations related to the municipal water
and sanitary sewer systems.
Expenditures
360 Charges for Services
These are the dollars paid by customers for sanitary sewer and water utilities. A/so
included are fines, fees, and water meter purchases related to these services.
410 Materials and Supplies
These line items have been adjusted to reflect actual expenditures.
4300 Consulting
This item is used for miscellaneous Consultant Services related to water and sanitary
system. Consultant services have been used in the Engineering study and review of
pressure reducing stations, future planning, and system adjustments
Utilities
Electrical and gas service for wells, lift stations, and the scada system are paid out of this
line item.
4320
4330
434O
Postage
Staff does numerous mailings to property owners regarding the semi-annual flushing,
system interruptions, and the annual Consumer Confidence Report.
Printing and Publishing
The City is required to produce and distribute a Consumer Confidence Report. In
addition, staff puts out various mailings to property owners regarding semi-annual
flushing and utility interruptions.
4509
4550
Remitance to Other Agencies
The City makes payments to MCES and DNR for sanitary sower flows and water
pumped.
Repair & Maint. - Water System
This item is used to pay for costs associated with watermain breaks. This item is hard to
forecast since it can vary greatly depending on weather, development, water pressure,
and other factors. The budget has boon incrcased to address the aging system and thc
increased mileage of pipes.
Total proposed Budget is $2,565,150. This is down from 2001 by $15,050 (0.6 %). he budget
has been simplified to allow for better tracing of actual expenditures both by City Staff and by
outside observers.
off Chinbaeeen .~
Hoot~, 12/31/01
400 ~tlo~al 8ervicel
4010 8alarlel and ~lgel
4011
4012 8t=-'~T ~¥
4020 T~mpog~t~ & 8eaEozml
4021 T~I~/8~gOEOL[, OVE~TZH~
4030 ~ttz~m~t Co~tributio~a
4040 ~mLrm:~ce Contributic~s
4041 (:~:ml~' FiX
4050 HorkLT~ (:~x.i;)e~lat.'lo~
· ez~m~ml Service..
410 Hateriale and
4110 O~ce Sup~liee
ts~0 ~u~t
41)0 ~rogt~m ~u~li~m
4140 Veb/cle 8u~liee
4141 ~~ ~~t 8~lies
4160 ~1~
4170 ~tor ~ela ~
4210 ~ ~
4240 ~fo~ A ~ot~
~50 ~i.e for
426~ ~11 ~s & ~i~t
430 ~~1
4~00 ~1~
4~0~
4~02 ~ ~ul=~
4310 ~1~ ~
4320 ~l~tiu
4~0 ~
4340 ~ ~ ~l~lh~
435D Cl~ ~ WIICe
4360 S~i~ml ~ ~r~ipI
4370 ~1 ~ ~at~
4380 ~1~
4410 ~~ ~M1
4440 V~e ~e &
4483 ~ L~I~
4509 ~t~ ~ ~ ~Cl~
4510 ~ir · ~- ~1~
~520 ~r · ~t - Vehicles
4530 ~ir & ~ - ~t
4531 ~r & ~in~ -
4550 ~ & ~ -
9riot ................. Current Year ......................
Year Original Amended Actual Thru ~etimate~
Actual Su~t ~u~et December ~tal ~mte~
Detem 10/04/01
Time, 4, OOpm
· s~mu~e~ A~opte~
O 426,000 426,000 237,371 404,000
0 18,500 18,500 17,829 18,500
0 12,000 13,000 6,736 12,000
0 19,200 19,300 10,656 19,200
0 0 0 29
1,130 50,000 58,000 33,230 53,200
0 44,000 44,000 19,406 48,800
0 0 0
0 11,000 11,000 12,847 1S,300
1,130 588,700 588,700 338,104 571,000
0 0 0 479
0 13,500 13,500 5,254 13,500
0 1,000 1,000 44 1,000
0 12,000 12,000 3,288 12,000
0 0 0 0
0 50,000 SO,O00 8,652 20,000
0 16,000 16,000 15,819 16,000
0 10,350 10,350 8,525 13,000
0 500 500 63 500
0 2,800 2,800 1,904 2,800
................................................................................................................
0 105,000 105,000 9,723 105,000
0 1,500 1,500 1,023 1,500
0 212,650 212,650 54,774 185,300
10,511 48,000 48,000 10,346 48,000
0 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
0 20,000 20,000 5,785 20,000
0 170,000 170,000 113,393 170,000
0 7,000 7,000 7,066 7,000
0 13,000 13,000 8,069 13,000
0 100 100 20 100
0 600 600 374 500
0 6,000 6,000 1,060 6,000
0 0 0 0
0 1,000 1,000 0 1,000
0 300 300 23 300
2,080 16,500 16,500 80 16,500
0 1,350,000 1,350,000 500,309 1,350,000
0 3,000 3,000 369 3,000
0 2,500 2,500 1,250 2,500
-562 55,000 SS,O00 15,209 SS,O00
0 800 800 392 800
0 45,000 45,000 88,651 55,000
I~t~, :1.0/04/01
T'amo z ·mO01~
~-1o~ ................. ~ ~ ......................
............................................................................................................................................................
700 ~ & ~ ~L~ ~
~ · ~t - ~ ~ 0 5,000 5,000 22,G30 ~,000
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
03 C~£ic~ ~
S3. AIGBI~) O[NBT C~MT'RACT8
0 8,000 8,000 0 8,000
................................................................................................................
0 8,000 8,000 83,391 8,000
13,896 0 0 ...........
161,032
13,896 16,000 16,000 24,4,323 16,000
~r,~'_ ~ ~tc't:uml 8ez'vtCft,
0 0 0 24,490
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 24,490
2,04,8 4,000 4,000 0 ·, 000
2,048 4,,000 4,000 0 ·,000
01
31 LOss ,'-',
50 ~'l~ltezl OLd:
R/mcml/~m~oum
0 0 O 2,204
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
876,555 0 0 0
146,962 0 0 0
1,023,517 0 0 2,204
ZMpC, 7001 Like Luc~ Tover lieccx~Ltion~ug
o c:nplta].
'59 O].umr C~I~IB'I'RI]CTI~ BERV/i~:fI
0 0 0 10,000
0 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 10,000
21,935 o o 731
0 0 0 ' ~-
32,796
21,925 0 0 33,527
o o o 601
o o o 6Ol
JoDq~'~~ervicef~ility AdtLuLs~rttLc~
o illt~l.z*amlm: C~nt.cJ. butlcm~
lxw:lcm~X ~cel
.0 lq~t~m ~ Supplies
21,92 S O 0 44,128
· 4,908 O 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
5,746 O 0 0
72 0 0 0
425 o o o
300 0 0 0
-10,909 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
40,542 0 0 0
Date, 10/04/01
~tL~ ................. ~ Ye~ ......................
14~th: 12/31/01
Fund; '700 hEliX & I~L'I'ER UTILITY
4X30 P~
4~50 ~t~ ~te~mlm
4~60 ~~
42&0 ~o~ G
4250 ~~ee ~0~ bBIle
Actual Budget Bu~t December Total R~quem t ed Rmcoe~nand~d Adopt ed
38 0 0 60
'724 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7,540 0 0 0
941 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
588 0 0 0
655 0 0 0
90 0 0 0
4]0 ~tractual Se~vicem
4300
4302 ~al
4310 ~l~e ~ ~~tl=
4~30
4]40 ~r~t~
· ];0 ~cti~i~
4370 ~1
4410 ~i~t ~ntal
45~0 ~lr & ~t - ~i~t
4550 Re. ir
4~0 ~it~l ~lay
4705 ~ ~i~t
4759 ~
~it~l ~1;~
490~ ~/~~ts
49~ Sales
10,594
0 0 60
1,760 0 '0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
8,179 0 0 600
7,697 0 0 0
105 0 0 0
909 0 0 0
14 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
13,748 0 O 0
32,412 0 0 600
o 0 0 76
4,400 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4,400 0 0 76
355 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
355 0 0 0
~tlltt¥
400 Pe~l
4010 Sfl~tlB
4011
40~ Sta-~ ~y
4040 Iuur~
4042 ~tr ~lx
4050 ~1
88,303 0 0 736
386,336 0 0 102,032
24,809 0 0 4,634
11,561 0 0 1,773
8,183 0 0 0
45 0 0 0
52,579 0 0 11,662
34,864 0 0 13,462
1,664 0 0 0
9,999 0 0 0
I:~1~ t 10/0,1,/01
~y o~ Chanhu~e~ l~j~, 4
............................................................................................................................................................
tmd] '700 8KMER & I~'T'RR ~L'ZZ,/T~ FUND
Del~z 7702 8~
L0 ~
70 ~ ~
KO ~ &
~0 ~t~
zo
to ~ ~ ~1~
~o~~
D9 ~~ ~
5o ~ s ~ -
9,265 0 0 0
541,305 0 0 133,563
231 O 0 384
8,062 o o 9~
......................................................................... ~ ......................................
9,764 0 0 403
17,178 0 0 837
12,1o4 0 o 19o
................................................................................................................
10,019 0 0 83
0 0 0 0
X,9XX 0 0 0
'774,669 0 0 91,206
523 o o 61
134,541 0 0 94,160
1,243 0 0 1.20
13,593 0 0 2,277
155,9,7,7 0 0 18,944
368 0 0 0
140 o o o
lOO o o 2oo
534 0 0 2,395
................................................................................................................
30'7 0 0 0
266 0 0 72
16,000 0 0 0
1,0~,222 0 0 245,463
0 0 0 0
2,152 o 0 o
38,654 0 0 34
58'7 0 O 168
40,440 0 0 4,655
1,295 0 0 0
1,275,878 0 O 274,328
3,314 0 0 0
180,044 0 0 4,199
O 0 0 0
183,358 0 0 4,199
O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
MBt:Or O~:~g~t t~ 2,135,082 0 0 506,250
14Qnth, 22/31/0TM-
Fun~ ?00 8EI~E & HATER IFI~LITY FOND
Prior ................. Current. Year ......................
Date: 10/04/0:1
?i~m
Pa~e ~
Adopted
~., ,997,930 2,565,1.50 2,565,150 ~., 908,935 :2,550,100
'4, ~997, 9'102,565,150 2,565, "150 2,980,9'~5 2,550,'100
Oz~nd ToCa/ 3,297,930 2,565,:150 2,565,150 1,988,935 0 2,550,100 0 0
CITYOF
CHANHgEN
690 Ci{y Center Ddve
PO Booc I47
Cha~, Minnesota 55317
952.93Z1900
C~mzd Fax
952.93Z5739
Fatgineen'ng ltepamnent Fax
952.93Z9152
Building Depam, ent Fax
952.934.2524
uru,utd, dsadnust,.mn, us
TO:
Mayor and City COuncil
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
DATE:
October I, 2001'
SUB J: 2002 Budget
I look forward to discussing the Park and Recreation DepOt's proposal
2002 budget with you on Monday, October 8th. Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent and I am in Denver attending the National Park & Recreation
Congress. Jerry will be attending a one-day school on beach and waterfront
operations and I will be atten .ding a pool and community c, en~ inatitute.
See you on Monday!
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks and Recreation - Parks and Recreation Commission
Function
The Parks and Recreation Commission provides recommendations and advice to the
City Council regarding parks, recreation and leisure services, The commission is
comprised of seven members appointed by the City Council for staggered three-year
terms.
Expenditures:
43OO
434O
Consulting for Special Projects
Publishing of Announcements
4360 Membership to MRPA and NRPA
4370 Limited Conference Attendance
G:~oark~th~.002budgetcommentary
Lty c~ d"'h~n~man
· .'.-h ~ 12/3X/OX
'DE~H::~ 1S10 Pa_--tg
10 14~l:~x~mlm itx~d
/.10 0~£1g~
1.3'0 X:~,.,,.j,.,,~
210 ~ ~ ~Od/r'mll
300
~0 ~q ~ ~i~i~
360 ~~i~
~70 ~ ~ ~i~
10/04/01
204 0 0 0
0 50 50 0 50 SO
0 75 75 0 75 75
204 125 125 O 125 125
3 2,000 2,000 0 2,00'0 2,000 .
-.
1,498 400 400 227 400 . 400'
500 700 700 590 700 700
971 400 400 147 400 400
3,052 3,500 3,500 964 3,SO0 3,500
·
3,256 3,6~5 3,6~$ 964 3,625 3,625
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks and Recreation - Parks and Recreation Administration
Function
The Parks and Recreation Administration budget exists to plan, develop, and administer
leisure time activities in the community. This function physically plans and develops
parks, open space, trails and indoor recreation facilities. The staff also coordinates
programs with the school districts, Chanhassen Athletic Association, and other
organizations.
Expenditures.'
4010 Park and Recreation Director
100%
430: Contractual Services:
430O
Consulting
Ice Arena Payment to City of Chaska
Goose Removal Program Contract
6000
3000
4370 Travel and Training
Attendance at state and national conferences and workshops
Der. e: 10/04/01
· Z~.~,
o~ C~d]~m~l ~ ~
~ ................. ~ Y~ ......................
107,209 72,000 72,000 93,167 75,000 75,000
672 0 0 0
13,357 9,200 9,200 11,408 9,800 9,800
5,168 6,800 6,800 10,385 7,800 ?,800
430 0 0 0
131 150 150 175 200 200
4,047 0 0 0
131,022 88,150 88,150 3./5,135 92,800 92,800
2,009 0 0 238
........................................................ ~-~ ............................ ~ ............ ~ .........
? 200 200 50 200 200
................................................................................................................
137 200 200 39 200 200
................................................................................................................
28 100 100 0 100 100
................................................................................................................
156 200 200 0 200 200
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
2,337 700 700 327 700 700
4,586 3,000 3,000 6,181 9,000 9,000
.......................................... . ............................
1,292 1,000 1,000 940 1,000 1,000
177 SO0 500 0 SO0 500
831 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 1,500
................................................................................................................
477 550 550 443. 600 600
........................................................
2,981 3,400 3,400 ~,939. 3,600 3,600
........................................................ - .........................................
72 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
0 200 200 0
................................................................................................................
........................................................
10,416 10,150 10,150 10,503 ' 16,200 16,300
................................................................................................................
143,775 99,000 99,000 125,965 109,700 109,700
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks & Recreation-Recreation Center (1530)
Function: The Recreation Center offers a variety of services to the community:
gymnasium, aerobic/dance studio, fitness room, meeting rooms, and program sites for
numerous park and recreation programs. The Recreation Center is a key Information
and registration site for all city park and recreation programs.
Revenues at the Recreation Center are generated from room rentals and fitness
programming. Some self-supporting programs (dance, personal training) are also
included in Recreation Center finances.
Expenditures:
4010 Rec Center Manager
4020 Facility Supervisors, Dance/Fitness Instructors, Personal Trainers
4120
Equipment Supplies:
Fitness: Dumbbells/steps/bands
Tape Player/microphone
$1,500
$1,500
4130
Program Supplies:
Dance: Set up for Recital
Props
Communications
EPHS Rental
$3,000
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
4300 Annual CPR Trainer Fee
$1,000
4410 CoDv machine rental
$3,200
4530 Fitness Room Eauip. Maint. $2,000
14,719 36,000 36,000 27,455 39,000 39,000
94,837 124,300 124,300 ~1,364 1.30,000 12S,000
13,833 14,100 14,100 9,878 14,800 14,800
205 3,800 3,800 155 4,300 4,300
250 0 0 0
3,041 4,000 4,000 4,672 4,800 4,800
1,302 0 0 0
127,987 182,200 182,200 93,524 192,900 187,900
1,889 0 0 382
................................................................................................................
1,568 9,000 '9,000 85 4,000 4,000
1,305 4,000 4,000 0 9,000 9,000
906 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 1,000
SO 250 250 0 250 250
318 600 600 651 600 600
6,036 14,850 14,850 1,118 14,850 14,850
924 2,000 2,000 1,225 1,500 1,500
942 2,000 2,000 617 1,000 1,000
75,481 26,000 26,000 39,530 28,000 28,000
210 500 SO0 0 SO0 500
0 7,000 7,000 214
0 500 500 0 500 500
309 500 500 100 300 300
................................................................................................................
70 500 500 0 500 500
569 1,500 1,500 0 2,000 2,000
3,111 2,500 2,500 2,209 3,200 3,200
10 1,000 1,000 133 SO0 500
38 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 2,000
................................................................................................................
750 SO0 500 0 500 500
82,392 46,500 46,500 44,028 40,500 40,500
216,415 243,550 243,550 138,670 248,250 243,250
City or' Ch~Been
PrXo~ ................. 6"tkr~ent Yeer ......................
Year
~th~ 12/31/01 ~t~l ~t
...................................................................................................
~tu~es
400 ~rm~l
4020 ~ra~ & a~l
410 ~ateriale and Supplies
4120 Equipment Supplies
Naterials an~ Supplies
~oo~Rantal
4,240 0 0 2,946
544 0 0 ~78
4,784 0 0 3,324
0 0 0 2,415
0 0 0 2,415
4,784 0 0 5,739
~tem 10/04/01
Time~ 9:
Page:
lo mZ~d. Dmm~c Sub:rea
I0 ~'-u,..j.,.mm 8t]~5)liel
su~j~t au~mt ~ ~
10/04/01
.
13,570 0 0 9,092
1,266 0 0 762
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
14,e36 0 0 9,854,
315 0 0 55&
1,310 0 0 1,140
1,625 0 0 1,694
0 0 0 169
0 0 0 54.
................................... ~ ......... : ..... ~ .............................................. ~ .............
734 0 0 0
.
171 0 0 0
),192 0 0 436
4,097 0 0 659
0 0 0 7,198
.......................................................................................... ? .....................
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 7,198
20,558 0 0 19,405
C~ty Of ~"hnn~DDel2
.............................................................................................................................
Pc'tot ................. CuzTenr Y~ .......... ~ ...........
~th~ 12131/01 ~t~l ~et ~t ~ ~tnl ~mte0
...............................................................................................................................
~t~m
~t: 1533 ~1 ~aint~
400 ~1 B$~C$$
4020 ~r~ & 8~m~l waged
4030 ~tl~t
KmterlalD and S~liel
430 O~tractt~l Ses~lceD
4375 P~tional ~lel
C~ntrmctual Serviced
~te, 10/04/03
~l~:
~Dm
14,036 0 0 11,816
1,801 0 0 1,516
15,837 0 0 13 332
0 0 0 469
.
0 0 0 469
70 0 0 70
70 0 0 70
Permonal Training 15,907 0 0 13,871
20,39'7 0 0 17,376
2,200 0 0 2,075
22,687 o o 19,451
4,11~ 0 0 137
4,313 0 0 7,894
9,425 0 0 8,031
0 0 0 1,100
1,875 0 0 ~45
1,911 0 0 0
3,786 0 0 1,345
Dal2ce 34,898 0 0 28,827
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks & Recreation-Lake Ann Park Operations (1540)
Function: To provide accurate accounting of the overall operation of Lake Ann
Park. This function is responsible for tracking all revenues and expenditures
including the rental of facilities, watercraft and equipment, and fees collected
from parking and concession sales. Revenue collected offsets expenditures.
Revenue:
3633 Rental of Volleyball Sets, Volleyballs, Fishing Equipment
3634 Rental of Picnic Sites: Lakeside, Parkview, Recreation Shelter, and
Ballfield Rental
3635 Rental: Canoes, Paddle Boats, Fishing Boats, etc.
3638 Revenue collected from food concession sales
Expenditures:
General Comment: Expenditures for this function include: salaries & wages,
beach/lifeguard contract, utilities, telephone, employee uniforms and all supplies
needed for the operation of Lake Ann Park.
4020 Concession/Rental Employees 100%
Manager (1), Concessionaires (3)
4120 Trolling motor, Aggregate Refuse Containers, Lifejackets
4130 Concession supplies (food, paper goods, etc.)
4240 Employee uniforms
4300 Lifeguard Contract, Department of Agriculture Food License, Security
System Contract, Boat Licenses
4310 Beach and little concession pay phones, concession/recreation shelter,
Beach/Lifeguard phone
Little concession, recreation shelter/concession, ballfield lights
Rental forms, employment ads, picnic brochures
4320
434O
~o U~tl.z'a~snC ~tz~butlon~
;0 HOZ~L~e O~l~eatio~
~t~a~m ~ 8u~limm
6,2~0 9,300 9,300 5,941 9,300 9,300
257 300 300 03 300 300
498 600 600 461 600 600
................................................................................................................
235 300 300 350 300 300
7,240 10,500 10,500 6,835 10,500 10,500
i
O O 0 0
3,241 4,400 4,400 2,178 5,160
6,707 9,950 9,950 6,968 11,050 10,550
120 490 490 0 490 490
.
10,068 14,840 14,840 9,146 16,700 11,040
Coott~ctu~l 8ez'v:l. cee
22,288 24,580 24,580 23,021 24,800 24,800
2,241 2,950 2,950 1,42s 2,950 2,950
................................................................................................................
7,367 9,350 9,350 4,645 8,150 8,150
0 550 550 213 625 250
30,796 37,430 37,430 29,30~ 36,525 36,150
Lak~ Arm 9a~k 48,112 62,770 62,770 45,285 63,725 57,690
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks & Recreation-Park Maintenance (1550)
Function: To maintain the city's 30 park sites containing over 528 acres of property including 18 sets
of play equipment, 10 outdoor basketball courts, 31 athletic fields, 5 hockey rinks, 8 family skating
rinks, 3 warming houses, 3 park shelters, 17 tennis courts, 12 sand volleyball courts, 3 boat
accesses, 4 swimming beaches, 9 public docks, 2 fishing piers and approximately 15 miles of
bituminous trail.
Expenditures:
Personal Services: Budgeted positions include:
4010
Park Superintendent
Park Foreman
Heavy Equipment Operator
Light Equipment Operator
Light Equipment Operator
Light Equipment Operator
Light Equipment Operator (New)
Secretary
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
25%
4020 Park Maintenance (FT Temp - 15)
Seasonal Personnel
4021
Covers Saturday & Sunday park maintenance, shelter cleaning, and
garbage pick up at park shelters
4120 Equipment required for maintaining new and existing parks, repairs and
updates to older play structures.
4140 Reflects cost to maintain repairs on park vehicles
4150
Maintenance materials:
Fertilizer $25,000
Weed spray 3,500
Crushed Rock 5,500-
Sand and Pea Rock 5,000
Lumber 4,000
Asphalt 6,000
Other 8,000
57,0oo
4170 Fuel for truck and lawn mower
4240 Uniforms, safety shoes, and safety equipment
4260 New and replacement of tools needed, tools for park shed, and trucks.
4300
4310
4320
4340
4350
4360
4370
4400
4410
4440
4510
4520
4530
4531
4560
Contracted Projects
Contract Snow Plowing Downtown
Concrete Work
Asphalt Work
Tree Moving
7,500
5,000
4,000
3,500
20,000
Cell phone service and phone service at Lake Ann Shed
Utilities for Old City Hall, Old Bank Building, and Lake Ann Shed
Printing of park identification stickers for equipment
Refuse collection - pick up 4 times a week for all parks
Memberships
Minnesota Park and Supervisor Association
MRPA
Sports Turf Managers.Association
Training
Pesticide License
Safety Training
Irrigation Class
Portable restrooms for parks
Rental of miscellaneous equipment
Truck and trailer license
Building repair and maintenance, park shelters
Repair work to vehicles done outside of City shop
Repair work to equipment done outside of City shop
Radio contract for repairs
Overlay (3) miles pedestrian trails 30,000
Signs- Increase demand for more signage in parks and on trails
Prior ................. Currant Year ......................
Yea::
~th~ 12/31/01 ~t~l
.................................................... 2 .........................
De~t: 1550 Park 14a/ntm~m~e
400 ~3o~1 Be~-'vteem
4010 Bm~i~ ~
4011
4021 ~P/~ ~
4~0 In~ce ~tr~tl~s
4041 ~tr Flx
4050 ~
~1 S~lces
410 ~terlala ~ 8u~lies
4110 ~/tce S~llem
4120 ~t 8~1te.
4141 ~~ ~~t Sullies
4150 ~inte~ ~terials
4151 Ig~i~ti~ ~t.r~ls
4~40 ~t~o~ & ~ot~
4260 ~11 ~ls & ~nt
4~90 Ntsc ~t~t~le
4~00
4~0 ~ilities
4160 S~cripti~ ~
43~0 ~1 ~ ~ln~
1400 ~ - ~ a~ Buildi~s
4410 ~i~t ~tal
~440 ~e~cl~ ~ic~ae ~ ~tst~ti~
45~0 R~ i Mint -
4530 ~r i ~t - ~i~nt
4531 ~t~ · ~t -
4540 ~i= · ~t -
1~60 ~ir i ~t - Si~
~t=~ct~l
4~0 ~it~l ~tlay
10/04/01
9:3
324,742 342,000 342,000 253,829 360,000 360,000
715 5,000 S,000 3 385 5,000 5,000
61,017 ?1,000 71,000 51 422 72,000 ?2,000
2,218 3,000 3,000 I S99 3,000 3,000
45,646 44,000 44,000 35,968 47,400 4?,400
31,341 42,000 42,000 32,973 47,500 47,500
1,500 0 0 0
?,393 0,400 8,400 9,811 12,900 12,900
16,239 0 0 0
...................................................................................................
490,911 515,400 515,400 388,987 547,800 547,800
634 0 0 0
28,114 35,000 35,000 14,072 35,000 35,000
5,590 8,000 8,000 4,262 8,000 8,000
0 0 0 0
47,410 57,000 57,000 44,063 57,000 57,000
3,603 5,500 5,500 3,423 5,500 4,000
..................................................................................................
7,9?3 11,500 11,500 6,659 11,500 11,500
3,626 3,800 3,800 1,982 3,800 3,800
2,533 -3,500 3,500 1,862 3,500
0 S00 500 0 500
99,483 124,800 124,800 ?6,323 124,800
3,500
S00
123,300
37,141 20,000 20,000 20,807 20,000 20,000
2,694 2,600 2,600 3,416 5,700 5,700
845 10,500 10,500 359 10,500 10,500
_
55 100 100 397 400 400
9,241 7,500 7,500 5,253 9,000 9,000
160 350 350 110 350 350
1,182 2,900 2,900 205 2,900 2,900
25,487 25,000 25,000 17,310 25,000
..........................................
669 4,000 4,000 82 4,000
602 700 ?00 22 700
0 11,000 11,000 11,560 11,000
162 4,500 4,500 1,396 4,500
10 919 7 500 7 500 5 728 7 500
770 1,000 1,000 809 1,000
32,075 30,000 30,000 0 30,000
1,729 2,000 2,000 940 2,000 2,000
123,731 129,650 129,650 68,174 134,550 133,550
25,000
3,000
?00
11,000
4,500
7,500
1,000
30,000
11,701 14,000 14,000 9,322 16,500 16,500
11,701 14,000 14,000 9,322 16,500 16,500
~ ~inte~$nce 725, ?26 ?83,850 ?83,8 SO 542,806 823,650 821,150
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 o o o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
8'74 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
842 0 0 40
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
24 0 0 94
0 0 0 0
1,740 0 0 134
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
6,452 0 0 5,940
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
650 0 0 292
................................................................................................................
862 0 0 79
197 0 0 21
8,161 0 0 6,332
·
9,901 0 0 6,466
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks & Recreation - Senior Center Operation (1560)
Mission: To provide a wide variety of recreation programs and
opportunities to older adults in the community. As well as creating an
environment within the Senior Center that is welcoming and improves the
quality of life with the use of leisure time.
Revenues: Revenue is generated from multiple self-supporting trips and
classes mn for older adults. This revenue helps offset the costs under
(4300) Fees & Services and (4130) Program Supplies. Donations are also
received throughout the year and can be located in account (3807).
Expenditures: Any expenditures incurred in this budget will be used to
carry out the function and operation of the Senior Center as well as its
promotion.
4010 Senior Center Coordinator (P/T)
4120 Supplies and Equipment
4130 Kitchen supplies, admissions, tickets and crafts.
4300 Speakers, entertainment, transportation and catering.
Budget Highlights:
of. r'~..~.m
Y~
O~lgJ.nl/ Amended A~cnal Tb2'u ~mt~ated
a~et ~ ~ ~ ~t~
20,958 23,000 23,000 20,846 25,000 25,000
2,477 2,900 2,900 2,41.1. 3,300 3,300
................................................................................................................
0 250 250 0 300 300
........... ~;; ............. ; ............. ; ............. ; ........................................................
20~ 2~0 230 2~9 400 400
23,888 26,380 26,380 23,526 29,000 29,000
71 0 0 104
................................................................................................................
666 650 650 147 SO0 500
22,541 5,000 5,000 3,~90 5,000 4,000
................................................................................................................
0 SO 50 0 100 50
23,278 5,700 5,700 3,441 5,600 4,550
8,732 8,800 8,600 6,949 9,000 9,000
................................................................................................................
26 100 100 2 50 50
................................................................................................................
0 300 300 0
15 75 75 0 75 75
230 250 250 0 250 250
................................................................................................................
00 60 60 40 60 60
.................................. L .............................................................................
0 100 100 0 200 700
0 300 300 0 300 300
57 50 50 10 50 50
.................. * ..............................................................................................
0 0 0 168
875 0 0 o
................................................................................................................
9,815 9,835 9,835 7,169 9,985 10,&85
................................................................................................................
56,979 41,915 41,915 ~4,.136 44,585 44,035
I
I
Dept: iS61 Br. Hen'B Club
410 ~tmriall ~ ~liel
4110 ~Ei~ Bu~liem
4120 ~l~t
4140 V~lcle
4150 ~t~m ~te~i~lm
4160
4170 ~
4240 ~i~o~ G Clot~
4250 ~ndlme tot ~maXe
4260 ~11 ~ls
4290 ~K
430 ~tract~l Se~icem
4~00
4~01 A~i~i~
4~02 ~al ~multi~
4)03 ~i~erin~ ~nmulti~
4]X0 ~I~ a~ ~i~clonm
4~20
4330
4340 Vr~l~ ~ ~lishl~
4350 C~ ~ Ha~ ~al
4360 8~ipti~ ~ H~mhipm
~]?~ Travel a~ ~aim~
4390 Mileage
Br. Men's Club
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
......... .- ......................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
............. ; ............. ; ............. ; ............. ; ........................................................
418 0 0 69
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
.............................. ~ .......L___. ........................................ .- ............ .- ................
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
418 0 0 69
0 0 0 0
........................................................................................................... . .....
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
................................................................... .- ........ _- ...............................~___
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 '0
................................. . ...............................................................................
0 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
0 0 0 0
418 0 0 69
B~X~T NORKmm~T
Date: 10/04/01
T/em, 9,30m~
C.tty o£ ~ee~ ~e: 14
~to~ ................. ~ Y~ ......................
~th: 12131/01 ~t~l ~et B~t ~r ~tml ~mt~ ~~d ~t~
..................................................................................................... ~ ........................................................
~t: 1563 Chan-O-I~lrem
410 ~t~r~ls
4110 O~f/ce
4120 ~L~t ~ltee
4130 ~
41t0 V~cle
4141 ~~
4151 Z~igatf~ ~teriale
4160 ~calm
4170 ~or
4210 ~ ~ ~ri~i~ls
4240 ~fom &
4250 ~rc~ee ~or
4260 ~11 ~ls
430 ~nt~ct~l
4300 ~lult t~
~301
4302 ~gal ~ulti~
4303 ~i~r~ ~lultl~
4310 ~l~a
4]20
43]0
4350 CI~ ~ Waltl ~/al
4360 g~crt~i~e
4375 ~~Z
4300 Ntl~ge
~C~C~ Ge~ces
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
100 0 0 224
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
100 0 0 224
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
100 0 0 224
9,3G~
~5
i~toz' ................. Cux'z'm~ Ye&~ ......................
m~h~ ~/:3~/0~ ~CtUL~ Budget Budget ])ec~mbe~ TotLt
Io H/l~lge
(::mt tictul! fJizyicel
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
219 0 0 0
............. ; ............. ; ............. ; ............. ; ........................................................
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
·
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
219 0 0 0
0 0 O- 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0
219 0 0 0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks & Recreation-Recreation Programs - (1600)
Function: To provide a year round recreational program that reflects a variety of
interests in the community and that develops a social, physical, cultural and
aesthetic quality for our citizens. Programs funded from this function are
supported both by fees charged to those utilizing programs and by general tax
dollars.
Expenditures:
General Comment: Expenditures for this function include part-time staff for
such, payments for entertainment for special events, equipment and utilities.
4010 Recreation Superintendent 80%
Recreation Supervisor 80%
4020
4011
4120
4130
424O
4300
4310
Playground Director (1)
Playground Leaders (10)
Recreation Intern
Warming House Attendants
100%
100%
100%
100%
Payments to full time employees wor. king overtime tO prepare
rinks/other program activities.
Home Plates
Safety Base
Soccer Goals & Nets
Signs
Sports Equipment
Tennis Backboards
Tennis Nets
Playground craft, game and first aid supplies: July 4th, February
Festival, Easter Egg Candy Hunt, Tree Lighting Ceremony,
Halloween Party
Employee Uniforms
July 4"', February Festival, Wing Dings, Easter Candy Hunt, Tree
Lighting Ceremony, Halloween Party, West Hennepin Adaptive
Recreation.
City Center, North Lotus, Chanhassen Hills, Roundhouse
Warming Houses, Cellular Phone (1), Lake Susan Payphone
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks & Recreation-Recreation Programs (cont.)
4320
4340
4380
4400
4410
City Center Warming House & Tennis Cou .r~s; Roundhouse,
Chanhassen Hills Warming. House; Lotus Warming House/Hockey
Lights, South Lotus Tennis Court, Bandimere, City Center Ballfields
February Festival, July 4th, Halloween, Easter Candy.Hunt,
Employment Ads
Mileage; Seasonal Employees
Portable Restrooms - February Festival, July 4~
Portable warming houses - North Lotus, Chanhassen Hills, City
Center, and Roundhouse, Tents/Table & Chairs, Generators,
Staging
D~t:e: 10/04/01
~ t 16
Prior ................. Current Year ......................
Month, 12/31/01
gxpend/turem
De~d::] 1600 ~creatlon
400
4010 Balartes ~ ~g~
4020 ~~ a 8~1 ~gem
4021 ~/~
4041 ~r
4050 ~rk~
~1 ~tce~
410 ~erlals
4110 Ogftce B~11~s
4120 ~~ ~llea
4130 P~
4240 ~t~om & Clo~hl~
410 ~tragt~l
4300 ~ult~
4110 ~1~e
4310
4330
4340 Prtntln9 a~ ~lfsht~
4360 8~crlptl~
4370 ~a~l
1400 ~n~l - ~ ~ Bulldt~s
4410 ~t~nt ~tal
~tract~l Semites
~e~tt~ P~r~
Y~ar Original Amm~lad Actual Thru Rstlmat~d
Actual Budget Bu~t Dacembar Total R~quemtmd Ra~ndad Adopted
63,170 70,000 70,000 51,466 74,000 74,000
11,043 53,220 53,220 27,037 58,270 58,270
333 200 200 24 200 200
8,936 13,100 13,100 8,650 9,800 9,800
4,170 6,200 6,200 4,692 7,000 7,000
400 0 .0 0
................................................................................................................
1,618 3,000 3,000 3,504 200 200
89,670 145,720 145,720 95,373 149,470 149,470
590 0 0 40
590 8,035 8,035 2,378 8,130 4,000
4,482 10,650 10,650 2,795 10,920 9,500
932 1,100 1,100 1,199 1,100 900
.............................................. T .................................................................
6,594 19,785 19,795 6,410 20,150 14,400
7,819 51,000 51,000 6,370 50,375 41,000
302 3,580 3,560 486 3,640 3,640
................................................................................................................
3,402 1,600 1,600 3,234 5,100 5,100
226 150 150 0 200 150
832 9,300 9,300 0 9,300 4,800
96 160 160 20 160 160
248 850 050 0 850 850
161 500 500 464 500 500
0 2 200 2 200 i 120 2 200 2 200
0 14,000 14,000 0 14,000 14,000
13,166 83,340 03,340 11,694 86,325 72,400
109,450 248,645 248,845 113,477 255,945 236,270
note, 20/04/0~
Tirol, 9~3/
~jje, 3.'7
PL"~.OZ' ................. ~t, YeKr ......................
m~h~ ]2/31/Ol Actuml Budget B~dgut
!:~: 1610 SK Jlzm
.0 Iqa~erta~a and
.~0 Of~P~ce Supp~e. 178 0 0 0
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
0
~teZ'~LlS and 8upp~ea 178 0 0
5K Bun
178 0 0 0
D~pt, 1611 Pl~ry,
410 ~te~lale aM ~ltel
4110 OgEt~
4120 ~~
4140 Ve~ g~lilB
4141 ~y ~nt
41~0 ~int~e
41~ ~1~
4170 ~tOr ~ell
4210 ~ ~ ~ri~calo
4240 ~lfo~ G
4250 ~rc~lm Eot ~le
4260 ~11 ~ll
4290 ~lc ~terials
4]0 ~r~c~u[ ~lm~Cel
4~00 ~aulti~
4301 ~=i~
4302 ~al
4~03 ~lneerlng
4310 ~1~
4330
4340 ~tntl~ ~
4350 O~i~ a~ Waote ~al
4360 8~crtptl~ ~d
4370 ~a~l ~
4375 ~=1~1
4180
4400 ~Cal - ~
4410 ~t~ ~1
~trac~l
D6tel 10/04/01
T/reel 9t30a~
C/tM of C/~nh~glen ~, 18
Prior ................. Cuz-z~nt Year ......................
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1,054 0 0 1,465
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
.
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1,054 0 0 1,465
1,381 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1,678 0 0 1,931
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
465 0 0 0
662 0 0 2,007
4,186 0 0 3,938
February Festival 5,240 0 0 5,403
ttLLl~
,0 ~~l 8e~i~a
.00
1,628 0 0 1,084
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
1,628 0 0 I 084
425 0 O 4,75
425 0 0 475
2,053 0 0 1,559
Oat-e, 3.0/04/01
Time: 9s30m
~o~ ................. ~ Y~ ......................
..............................................................................................................................................................
D~pt: 1&13 Fourth of ~ly
410 ~erial~ ~ 8~liem
4130 ~l~ ~liea
4~0 ~cac~l Be~icel
(~00 ~l~i~
4340 Pr~C~ a~ ~lim~
4400 ~tal
4410 ~l~n~ ~tal
~2rac~l Se~ices
Fourth of July
22 0 0 0
2,105 0 0 2,358
2,127 0 0 2,358
29,300 0 0 29,679
3,803 0 0 1,460
979 0 0 1,313
4,934 0 0 3,370
39,016 0 0 35,822
41,143 0 0 38,180
1,548 0 0 327
1,548 0 0 3~7
1,455 0 0 255
................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
1,455 0 0 255
................................................................................................................
3,003 0 0 582
n'tm, 10/04/01
~o~ ................. ~ Y~ ......................
~4outh,
400 ~1 8e~lce.
4030 ~~
P~LIO~al
430 Cont:&ctual 8ez'vice8
4340 2j:~n~'~n~ and PubZ'tEh'iz~
O:mtractual Sez~icel
¥~: ~igi~l Amended ~t~lThzu Zsti~t~
~t~l Budget Budget D~mber ~t~lR~quemt~ ~co~E~ndad ~dogted
26,444 0 0 0
126 0 0 0
2,033 0 0 0
28,603 0 0 0
55 0 0 0
55 0 0 0
Su~xer PLlycjround 28,658 0 0 0
n'te~ ].0/04/01
Pr/or ................. ~ ¥su.r ......................
(~t.b ~ 121'41101
De~i~: ~ 1617
O0 ~21(mLl. 8ez'vtcel
020 T~l;x:,rary
030 ~~
38o ~
~o ~
TC~ Lt.nkl
Ye~' Oz"J.9':Lual ~ X~-,t. ua2 "Z'h:ru ~t~mmte~
8,313 0 0 20,570
636 0 0 1,574
................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
0,949 0 0 22,1(4
47 0 0 0
2,708 0 0 2,460
.
2,755 0 0 2,460
·
11,704 0 .........................
0 24,604
BUI)Q~'F ~
D~te: 10/04/01
T'l..mir r 9:30am
(~i.t¥ o~ ~m~ Pagm ~ 24
~Zor ................. ~t Y~ ......................
...................................................... ~ .......................................................................................................
Del)t; 1620 8un~r Play~
410 Hatmrtala and Suppllmm
4120 ~utpe~nt 8u~pltea
· 4130 ;hcogram 8u~ltem
Materiall and 8u~pltem
430 Contractual 8e~-vZcal
43?0 ~a~l ~ ~atnt~
O~trlCtt~l 8ez~ice!
8~er pl aycyz~und
397 0 0 0
1,295 0 0 1,110
1,692 0 0 1,110
52 0 0 0
52 0 0 0
1,744 0 0 1,110
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2002 BUDGET
Commentary
Parks & Recreation-Self-Supporting Programs (1700)
Function: To supplement overall recreation programs by providing a budgetary
vehicle by which new programs, which are primarily self-supporting (revenues
generated by user charges equals costs), can be accomplished.
Expenditures:
4010 Recreation Superintendent 20%
Recreation Supervisor I 20%
4020
Adventure Camp
Misc. Program Instructors
4120 New program equipment
4130
43O0
Supplies for all programs
Umpire/Officials Fees, Sanctioning Fees, State Tournament Berths,
Tennis Lesson Contract, Lake Ann Adventure Camp - Lifeguards
1700
0 Perl(xm].
(~mtz~t"m I Sez~icee
17,621 18,000 ~,000 1~2,696 19,000 19,000
173 16,350 16,350 0 16,&00 16,400
2,249 3,600 3,600 1,623 2,500 2,500
1,248 1,600 1,600 1,173 1,800 1,800
100 0 0 0
405 900 900 1,051 * 50 50
21,796 40,450 40,450 16,543 39,750 39,750
0 550 550 0 500 500
390 16,585 16,S85 78 12,000 3.2,000
0 100 100 0
398 17,235 17,235 78 12,500 12,500
1,134 46,014 46,014 674 3S,000 35,000
1,134 46,014 46,014 674 35,000 35,000
23,320 103,699 103,699 17,295 87,250 87,250
C:l.t:y o£ r'~'mntmuen
Mc~th: 12/31/01
Ex~endttures
Del:~: 1710 Presc]~ool 8porte
410 Hatertale and 8up911ee
4120 Equ;J. pm~nt 8tq~ltea
4130 Program 8ug~11es
Materials and 8u~pltee
430 Contractual Services
4300 __~on_~ultlng
(~ntracttml 8ervlce~
Premc~oZ Sports
Pr/or ................. Cut~-en~ Year ......................
Year Orlgi-~1 Amendad Act,ml Tht~ ~lthaated
Actual Budget Bu~ge t December Total R~qu~lt e~
Dete, 10[04/01
9r30~m
26
83 0 0 0
357 0 0 26
440 0 0 26
18,439 0 0 13,423
18,439 0 0 13,422
18,879 0 0 13,448
(~t~lctu~:~ ~vlcee
307 0 0 115
14 0 0 9
3:31 0 0
810 0 0 588
810 0 0 588
868 0 0 1,23.2
................................................................................................................
868 0 0 X,232
Z,999 0 0 ~,924
Pz~.J~ool ~cttvitle~
r~ty o!
Ho~h, 12/31/01
400 ~erloGi1 8.~vLgel
4030 /~EX~I~ G
4030 ~tt~4~m~t
41~0 ~ 8u~)2~el
D~te. 10/04/01
9J30~m
28
5,235 0 0 4,918
................................................................................................................
462 0 0 376
................................................................................................................
5,69? 0 0 5,394
0 0 0 117
0 0 0 117
5,697 0 0 5,411
0 ~sii~ent ~q;~llem
0 ~ Ss~pSiem
Nattrlalm mn~ Sui;~lJ. el
0 Cmm~t:Lt~j
Ccm~L"ac~.tml 8ez',,r'lcom
709 0 0 0
68 0 0 0 - '-'
857 0 0 0
164 0 0 68
713 0 o 91
877 0 0 159
20,662 0 0 22,959
·
20,662 0 0 22,959
22,396 0 0 23,118
14o~th: 12/31/01
Expend~tuFo8
~tm 1731 ¥~th ~tivitiem
400 Pe~l Se~vicoE
4030 ~ra~
4030 ~tir~t
~r~X Be~cem
~ter~a~e ~ Su~em
430 ~t~t~l
4300
~t~ct~l 8e~tceo
Y~th ~tivit~ee
ActuAl
................. ~r~nt Y~L~ ......................
O~igin~l Amm~de~ Actt~l ~hz~ Bgti~qted
Budget nt~Sgmt December Total ~mted
Detez 10/04/01
T~mo: 9t 30am
paget 30
~*~ A~ted
2,696 0 0 769
206 0 0 59
2,902 0 0 828
SO 0 0 105
2,756 0 0 2,241
2,806 0 0 2,347
3,035 0 0 4,004
3,035 0 0 4,004
8,743 0 0 7,179
,7' of~
~ )mtL--/al~ m~d 8u;[xXJ. em
~mct~l Se~vtc~
~I~I~K#NEr~
10/04,/01
9 m30~l,
1,261 0 0 0
96 0 0 0
1,357 0 0 0
· 1 0 0 0
·
::28 0 0 0
220 0 0 0
220 0 0 0 '
1,605 0 0 0
BU~T
City of Ch~J3h~ll~n
Prior ................. Curt Imt Year ......................
Year Original Amended A=tual Thru
~th: 12/31[01 ~t~l ~et ~t ~c~r ~l
~nd:l. tur~l
D~ptz 1741 A£Cer 8chool ~c~lvXcXel
41~0 ~x~Ocj~m 8U.o~lteB
Contractual Services
After School A~ttvtttel
Date, 10/04/01
Tim~ 9~]0mm
6 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
403 0 0 0
403 0 0 0
409 0 0 0
D~cz 1751 ~ ActiYitXel
30 $:,~,.~,.~,~ 8u~;ltu
oo (::o[~u~t: ~.ng
~ Xctt~rlt lei
50 0 0 0
SO 0 0 0
1,477 0 0 5"40
1,477 0 0 530
................................................................. ,...- ,.c ............................................
1,527 0 0 530
l~"io~ ................. ~z~nt Y~a~' ......................
~t~m 12/31/01 ~t~l
.........................................................
~t~S
400 ~1
4030 ~ttr--~-~ O~trtbutio~m
~tegialB mn~ 8t~lieB
430 (~nt=lctual Slt~ic~l
4300 Co~ultin~
[~.te m 10/04/0~
~m 9
3,179 0 0 2,616
296 0 0 257
1,475 0 0 ~,873
4,5~8 0 0 ~,839
4,528 0 0 2,839
16,632 0 0 19,343
16,63:2 0 0 19,343
Aog~lt ~l~tt. 24,635 0 0 :25,055
~ll~-t I?6Z ~lt ~ctivitiel
Cootgactuml
Prior
10104101
0 0 0 85
0 0 0 85
]~t L--~l~tiel 0 0 0 85
Clty of~ C~n.haeeen
~:Lor ................. Cur~nt: Year ......................
Ye&r Original ~ ~ct~l ~ ~mt ~-~qted
#o~th: 12131101 ~u:tual Buret ~mt ~c~r ~4~tal ~mte~
410 ~tertalm ~ Su~ltem
430 Contractual Sez~lcem
4300 Consult ln~
O~ntz-act~ Bez~ztcem
Grand Total
0 0 0 2,997
0 0 0 2,997
0 0 0 220
0 0 0 220
0 0 0 3,21~
1,593,439 1,587,254 1,587,254 1,244,604
1,636,730 1,602,970
1,593,439 1,587,254 1,587,254 1,244,604 0 1,636,730 1,602,970
t~tem 10/04/0~
TJ~ t
Pacje, 31
Proposed Cuts for 2002 Budget
Planning
· Postpone the Municipal Code Update ??? (not a recommended cut)
Park and Recreation
Close Rec Center on Sundays (10 a.m.-6 p.m.)
.Sundays are the slowest days at the Rec Center: '13 of 35 Sundays
(year to date) had revenues less than $50. Sundays generate 3.7%
of total fitness revenue. We can expect some complaints if we choose
to close on Sundays.
Eliminate the purchase of t~olling motor, aggregate refuse container
and life jackets, office supplies, equipment supplies, programs
and printing/publishing (1540)
Postpone the purchase of minor capital items for the ~ Ann
Park concession stancL
Park Maintenance (1550)
· Irrigation mterials $1,500
Reduce the purchase of irrigation supplies. If we have a bad
year, we will go over budget.
· Equipment rental $1,000
Cut corners on equipment rental. Spend more money in labor
to get the job done.
Capital Outlay $6,000
Subtotal (Capital Outlay and Park Maintenance)
Senior Center (1560)
Program supplies $500
Eliminate the purchase of a storage rack.
Subtotal
Rec Programs (1600)
· Equipment supplies $4,130
Postpone purchase of baseball, softball, soccer, tennis and
4tn of July equipment
· Program supplies $1,420
Reduce purchase of supplies for Feb Fest, Egg Hunt, 44 of
July, and tree lighting
· Uniforms $200
· Fees for service $9,375
Eliminate "back-up" budget for the 4tn of July parade in the
event that the parade committee fund drive falls through
$20,000
$5,000
$5,275
'$8,5O0
$500
Printing & publishing $4,800
Move to more in-house production of special event
brochures and program flyers
Subtotal (1600)
$19,925
Administration
Legislation (1110)
· Cut postage
· Travel and training
(Eliminate the City Council
going to the National League
of Cities Conference)
Subtotal
$1,000
$5,000
$6,000
Admin (1112)
· Cut postage
· Cut mileage
· Equipment rental (copier)
Subtotal
$2,000
$1,ooo
$2,000
$5,000
City Hall (1117)
· Cleaning waste
· Office supplies
(Consolidating the office
supplies last year has
generated a savings)
· Maintenance Materials
Subtotal
$1,000
$7,000
$1,000
$9,000
Animal Control
· Uniform
· Travel and training
Subtotal
$1,000
$500
$1,500
Street Lighting and Signals (1350)
Utilities (shut off lights in median on W. 78t~ Street) $10,000
W. 7oah Street has decorative lighting in the median from Market Boulevard to
Powers Boulevard. These lights serve mainly an aesthetic purpose. The light
fixtures are too low and too far spaced to provide useful street lighting. In
addition, this type of fixture is highly inefficient.
These lights are typically turned off during the Christmas season when
"twinkle" lights are installed in the trees also in the median. The lights are
currently shut off as a cost savings measure. It is estimated that $3,000 will
be saved this year. The City still intends to install "twinkle" lights as part of
the Christmas decorations.
While these lights do provide an aesthetic benefit, it should be considered to
shut off the lights as a cost savings measure in 2002. It is estimated that
$10, O00/year would be saved if the lights are left off.
Code Enforcement (1250)
Equipment supplies
Program supplies
Uniforms
Fees for service
Subscription & membership
Repair maintenance radios
Overtime
Temporary seasonal wages
Subtotal
$20O
$500
$300
$5OO
$500
$:5,000
$3,00O
Total
*Does not include $20,000 Municipal Code update
$8,600
$69,300*
g:~_dmin~tg~2001 I:mdg~t eut~.doe
CITYOF
CHANHASS
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Managa'
FROM:
DATE:
Tm'~m Burgess, Public Works Director/City
October 3, 2001
Approve Supplement No. 2 to Cooperative Construction
Agreome~t No. 80068 for West 78°i~ Street/TH 5 Improvement
Project No. 97-6B
REOUESTED ACTION
Council is requested to at, rove Supplement No. 2 to thc Cooperative
Construction Agreement for West 78t~ Street~runk Highway 5 Improvement
Project in the amount of $178,294.07.
DISCUSSION
MnDOT opened bids for improvements to Trunk Highway 5 on June 30,' 2000.
Those iml?mvements incl~ upgrades to and completion of thc fi'ontagc road
(W~t 78'" Street), city storm sewer, city watermain, and conslxuction of a bike
trail. The bike trail project includes underpin under Trunk Highway 5 and
West 78t~ Street.
The project undex the original Cooperative Construction Agreexnent ended at
Century Boulevard. To accommodate the PuRe Homes development, thc
construction of West 78m Street was added by Supplemental Agreement.
Supplement No. 2 revises the cost share to include the section of West 78m Street
from Century Boulevard to TH 41.
The project is funded through a combination of assessments, tho Sewer and Wate~
Utility Fund, and municipal stato-aid funds.
Attachment: Resolution
S:%~nS~qx]bHcW'/-lc~lffrcport - 10-8-01.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESOLUTION
IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 80068-2 with
the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following ptuposes:
To provide for payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the West 78*~
Street constimction and other associated construction to be performed along and adjacent to
Trunk Highway No. 5 from Trunk Highway No. 41 to Century Boulevard within the corporate
City limits under State Project No. 1002-61 (T.H. 5= 121).
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the
authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
CERTI~CATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council
of the City of Chanhassen at an authorized meeting held on the day of
_, 2001, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of _, 2001
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
(Stsn~u~)
('rifle)
CITYOF
CHANHg EN
P01~147
~ ?,~umota 55317
952.93Z1900
952.937.5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Matt Saam, Project Engin~ ~ O~
September 28, 2001
Approve Street Li~ Contract for Century Boulevard'
Project No. 97-1C
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a contract with Xcei Energy
in the amount of $37,300 for the ingtallation of street lights along Century
Boulevard. The conUaet will be financed through assessmeats to the benefiting
properties.
On March 12, 2001, the City Council approved the feasibility report for Century
Boulevard and ordered the project. Street lighting was included in the feasibility
report as part of the project scope. The previous co~on contract, which was
awarded to Kusske Construction, did not include street lighting as part of the bid.
Xcel Energy is proposing to do the project in two phaseg; the majority of the pipe
conduit will be installed this fall and the remainder will be put in next spring
along with the light poles. By splitting up .the project, Xeel is hoping. to avoid any'
potential conflict with the Highway 5 project '
Failure to approve the contract will delay constmcfiom
jm8
Attachments: 1.
2.
Contract recommendation letter'~m WSB & Associates.
Camlract proposal from Xcel Rnergy.
c: Fred Richter, Steiner Development
Shibani Khera, WSB & Associates
Bob Rapacz, Xcel Energy
S:~public~'/-I c'~stn~ li~ahfin~a ce~d~ct, doc
September 12, 2001
4150 Olson
MemodaJ Highway
Suite 3O0
Minneapolis
Minner, ota
55422
763.541HS00
763.541.1700 FAX
Mr. Matt Saam, P.E.
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147
Century Boulevard - Street Lighting
City Project No. 97-1C
WSB Project No. 1339-00
CiTY OF CHANHASSEbl
SEP 1 4 ZOO1'
ENGINEERIhG DEPTo
Dear Matt,
Xcel Energy has submitted the attached revised proposal and layout plan to install street
lighting for the Century Boulevard Street and Utility Improvement Project.
Since the location of street lighting is dependent on the future driveways' entrances along
Century Boulevard and the proposed signal at Highway 5, Xcel Energy has submitted their
proposal in two parts:
Phase 1:$9,800.00 - includes installing approximately 1,400 feet of 1W.' conduit along
both sides of Century Boulevard terminating at the project limits (Station 16+70).
Phase 2: $27,500.00- includes installing the remainder of the conduit along the future
segment of Century Boulevard to Highway 5 and placing street lights when future
driveway locations are known.
Phase 2 will require Xcel to obtain a MnDOT right of way permit and coordinate lighting
placement with them. It seems feasible to' install the street lights next year when the
connection of Century Boulevard to Highway 5 is complete. At that time, a contract with
Xcel should be executed to install the street lights.
At this time, we are recommending Phase 1 of the project be approved and completed as
soon as possible. Please call me to discuss this proposal at (763) 287-7162.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani Khera
Project Engineer
/sb
Attachment
Minnea.oolis · St. Cloud · Eclual O0oortunity Em01oyer
F A W P WI'N~ 3 3 9-OO~Og I 2 01-m~. doc
OUTDOOR LIGHTING
1971 Gateway Boulevard "
Arden I:.lllls, Minnesota 66112-2760
September 11, 2001
Shill-; Kher~
WSB & Assodates
150 Olson Memorial
Per our conversation rdating tO the most recent ~. ~Xce[ Ener~would plow and/or bore .
ponions up to the agreed upon location of Century Boulevard the follow'n[ ~ in'price would
take pl~e:
Phase 1:
1400 feet of plastic type SDR 17 conduit, plowed and/or bored 24' deep and Y behind the Curb
The preliminary cost to complete this project as k is specified will be $9,/~.00i
Phase 2:
9 - 250 wa~t HPS Hubbell T_~mps
? - 25 foot h~llerbemd Cor~n ~ ~
9 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~or ~
1 - T~~ Pho~
1 - F~~t ~~
The preliminary cost to complete this project, induding changes as Sl~ w~l be $27~00.,
Note, this is subject tn chan~ with 2002 pries.
Phase one, if accepted, could be scheduled within the next two wee~ The total cost per 1;~t which
indudes all phases of the project would be appro~m~rely $4145.00. Thank you for the oppommky
to provide this service to the Gky of Chanha.~.n. I look forward to world-g with you so we can
make changes as needed, ff you have any questions, please'do not hesitate to call me.
(651) 634-7808
crrYoF
PO B~ I~?
952.937.5739
952.93Z9152
952.9342524
w~wu ci chanhauen, mn. ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Teresa Burgess, City Enginee~Director of Public Works
September 28, 2001
SUB J:
Approve Certificate of Compliance ' Highlands on Lake St. Joe
Project No. 93-31
Lundgren Bros. Consmmtion, the developer of the above-referenced project, has
requested that the City-grant a certific,~ of compliance for Highlands on Lake St.
Joe. The development contract allows for the issuance of such certificat~ when
the project is completed. Staffhas reviewed the files and finds the project
complete and in compliance with the developmemt contract It is therefore
recommended that the City Council approve the attached certifi~ of
compliance.
Attachment: Ce~dfi~ of Compliance
c: Angela Douglas, Lundgea Bros. Consmmtion, Inc.
Approved by Ctty Engineer
~ ~ ~lzv, io,
Approved by City Counoii
D~e -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE granted October 8, 2001 bythe CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City").
WHEREAS, the City entered into that certain Development Contract dated May 8, 1995,
between the City and Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. filed May 30, 1995, as Abstract
Document No. 180656 and filed on May 30, 1995 as Torrens Document No. T87888 in the office
of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota (the "Development Contract").
WHEREAS, the City entered into Addendum "A" dated August 20, 1996 to the original
Development Contract filed September 5, 1996, as Torrens Document No. T93514 in the office
of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota (the "Addendum").
WHEREAS, the City has been requested to issue a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to
that certain Development Contract and Addendum concerning HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST.
JOE, Carver County, Minnesota (hereina_~er "subject property"); and
WHEREAS, the development work has been completed and the City has determined that
it is appropriate to issue such a certificate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHANHASSEN CITY
COUNCIL:
The subject property is hereby released from the financial obligations created by the
aforementioned Development Contract and Addendum with the exception of unpaid park
charges and special assessments that have been levied or are pending against the subject
property, if any.
CITY OF CHANHASSBN
BY:
Todd G~~t, City Maria§er
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( $$.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
2001, by Linda Jansen and by Todd Gerhardt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the
City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chauhassen, MN 55317
Telephone: (952) 937-1900
NOTARY PUBLIC
g:hmg~n-ojects~ighlandkcrtificate of compli~ce.doc
MEMORANDUM
CTrYOF
PO Bar147
Minnao~ 55317
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
urural ci &anhauen. mn. ~s
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBS:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engin~
October 2, 2001
Call for Assessment Hearings for Crestview Circle, Century
Boulevard, BC 7 & BC 8 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Improvements, TH
5 Improvements and Quinn Road
REQUESTED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council call the Assessment Hearings for:
October 22nd, 2001 P Crestview Circle
~ Century Boulevard
P Quinn Road
November 13m, 2001 )~ BC 7 & BC 8 Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Improvements
)~ TH 5 Improvements
DISCUSSION
State statute requires au Assessment Hearing be held for all assessed projects.
The intention of the Assessment Hearing is to allow property owners au
opportunity to contest the assessment amount
Crestview Cimle, Century Boulevard, Quinn Road, and BC 7 & BC 8 Tnmk
Sanitary Sewer Improvement projects were all initiated by petitions from the
property owners. Mn/DOT initiated the TH 5 Improvements.
¢:
Matt Sam~, Project Engineer
Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer
Dave Hutton, WSB & Associaes, Inc.
Shibaui Khera, WSB & Associates, Inc.
CITYOF
CHANI]ASSH
, Mim~ta 55317
1~
952.93Z1900
952.937.5739
952937.9152
9529342524
MEMO~~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Bob G~emus, Senior Planner
Amendment to Section 20-41
The City Attorney has advised staff that the legislature has approved a law
requiring only a simple majority for the approval of amendments to zoning
ordinances and rezoning of properS. Only in the case of a rezoning of ~
from residential to commercial will a supermaj~ of city council be required.
The existing ordinance is aa follows:
Section 20-41. Generally.
The council may, from time to time, by a four-fifths vote of the entire
council adopt amembnents to this chapter, including the zoning map.
Amendments shall not be adopted that are inconsistent with the city's
comprehensive plan unless the ~ouncil expresses its intent to amend the
comprehensive plata
The following, in a striketluough for deletions and bold for new !an~a~ is the
proposed ordinance amen~t:
from time to time, by a majority vote of all members of city council adopt
change all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from
residential to tither commercial or Industrial require a two-thirds (2/3)
majority vote of all members of the city council Amcnchncnts shall not be
adopted that are inconsistent with the city's com.m~hensive plan unless the
council expresses its intent to amend the compx~ensive plan.
PLANNING COMMI~qSION UPDATE
Thc Planning Commission held a public hearing on S~Y~mber 18, 2001 to review
the proposed ordinance amen~C The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the amendmenL
Todd Gerhardt
October 8, 2001
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the ordinance amendment shown in Attachment #1.
ATTACHMENT
1. Ordinance Amending Section 20-41
2. Letter from Roger n. Knutson to Robert Generous dated 9/7/01
3. Minnesota Sessions Laws - 2001, Chapter 207
4. Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2001
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIF_,S, MINNF. S~A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 20-41 OF THE CHANI-IASSEN CITY CODE
CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ZONING
ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: -
SECTION 1. Section 20-41 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 2041. Generally.
...................... ,.~-, ....... ~ ......... ~ ~. ~e ~uncil ~y, ~m time
to time, by a majofiW vote of all mem~ of ~e d~ council adopt men~enm to
this chapter, inclu~ng ~e tuning ~p. ~en~en~ which ch~ge ~ ~ p~ of ~e
existing cl~sifimfion of a tuning ~sffict ~m ~idenfi~ m eider co~~ or
indusffial require a ~o-th~s (~3) ~jofi~ vo~ of ~l me~ of'~e dW ~dl.
~en~enm s~ not ~ ~p~ ~t ~ ~m~mnt ~ ~e ~'s ~m~mive
pl~ ~s ~e ~~ e~s i~ ~nt m ~nd ~e ~m~e~ive p~
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage-and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
Council of the City of Chanhassen.
·
day of
,2001, by the City
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Liada C. Jansen, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
,2001).
94747 I
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
Joel J. Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Matthew K. Brokl*
*AIm ~ in
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
(651) 452-5000
Fax (651) 452-5550
Direct Dial: (650 254-6215
E.mail Address: rknutsolU~ck-law, com
September 7, 2001
John F. Kelly
Matthew J. Foil
Soren M. Mattick
Marguerite M. McCarron
Gina M. Bran&
Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RECEIVED
SEP 1 0 2001
RE: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
CiTY OF CHANHASSEN
Dear Bob:
Chapter 207 of Minnesota Session Laws 2001 changed the requirement for
amending a zoning ordinance. The new law amends Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 2(b)
to provide'
(b) &tbject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5,. the governing
body 1nay adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a/n,.(,'i/~' v,,te of'd/it.~ ine,lbel:~'.
'/'lit' ~likll~tiOll or Cl/lle/!dlllelli O['~tll]' l?orlio/1 o,t t, :on/tie ,#Y/ill(ti/ce w/itch c'/Iuilt~es ttll or
p,l~'l of ihe e. visling ch1.~'silJctilion eg' ~1 :oaillgr ~iisl~'icl fi'om re.,'ieienliol lo eilher
~'omnwrciui or indltslrial reqttires u tiro-thirds n.dm'it~' vote of all its members of Ibc
gm'eriling ho(h,.
The effective date of the change was May 30, 2001.
In my opinion the change in voting requirements is mandatory. The legislature
has pre-empted or Occupied the field and the City does not have the discretion to be
more or less restrictive. The Attorney General issued two opinions on the prior law
requiring a two-thirds vote for approval. One opinion concluded that Bloomington
could not require a unanimous vote. The opinion states:
"The general lmm, under which this ordinance was enacted requires only a two-thirds
vote o fall the members of the cottncil to alter the regulations or plan. The cottncil has no
attthority to raise a greater restriction than that imposed by the general lmv under which
the ordinance was enacted."
An October 13, 1955 opinion to the City of South St. Paul reaches a similar
conclusion. In this opinion the Attorney General concluded that a "simple majority"
requirement in the city charter could not take precedence over the two-thirds statutory
requirement. The opinion states:
Suite 317 * Eaeandale Office ~enror
Mr. Robed Generous
September 7, 2001
Page 2
"M.$. 462.01 provides a uniform procedure governing adoption of zoning ordinances
and amendments, and is applicable to ail cities..."
The opinion goes on to conclude that the charter provision for a simple majority is
"illegal," relying on the following rationale:
"To paraphrase the language or the Court in Mttch'ell v. C~ of ~t. Paul, 228 Mlnn.
64, 71, 36 IV. ~.2d 132, the statute evinces a legislative intention to regard the matter of
the adoption of zoning ordinances and amendments thereof, as one of statewide
importance and to occupy the entire fieM by a state regulation to the exclusion of those
locate in character."
The proposed amendment to the City's zoning ordinance is a housekeeping
matter to keep the City's zoning ordinance consistent with state law.
RNK:srn
Regards,
C~MP BL=L~"JCN~T~O N
Roger N. K.~tutsen-
Minnesota Session Laws 2001, Chapter 207
Page 1 of 6
Minnesota Session Laws
I I I I
Minnesota Session Laws - 2001
Key:~-.,t~,,,,o,~' .......... ,,, ~.A,,,~ ,~,~,,~,,...,,,,,,-'-'-'--~ ---, language Change language enhancement disola¥._ _
Legislative history and Authors
CHAPTER 207-H.F.No. 1310
An act relating to construction; giving the state
building official final authority for interpreting the
State Building Code and prescribing its enforcement;
regulating construction-related fees; requiring
municipalities to submit annual reports on
construction-related fees; providing for adoption of
certain amendments to the mechanical code; limiting
certain municipal building code ordinances; clarifying
certain terms; modifying provisions relating to
construction warranties; limiting certain waivers of
rights; modifying provisions relating, to zoning
ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, sections
16B.61, subdivisions 1, 2; 16B.62, subdivision 1;
16B.63, by adding a subdivision; 326.90, subdivision
1; 327A.01, subdivision 2; 327A.02, subdivisions 1, 3;
462.353, subdivision 4; 462.357, subdivisions 2, 5;
proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes,
chapters 16B; 462.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B.61,
subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. [ADOPTION OF CODE.] Subject to sections
16B.59 to 16B.75, the commissioner shall by rule establish a
code of standards for the construction, reconstruction,
alteration, and repair of buildings, governing matters of
structural materials, design and construction, fire protection,
health, sanitation, and safety, including design and
construction standards regarding heat loss control,
illumination, and climate control. The code must conform
insofar as practicable to model building codes generally
accepted and in use throughout the United States, including a
code for building conservation. In the preparation of the code,
consideration must be given to the existing statewide specialty
codes presently in use in the state. Model codes with necessary
modifications and statewide specialty codes may be adopted by
reference. The code must be based on the application of
scientific principles, approved tests, and professional
judgment. To the extent possible, the code must be adopted in
terms of desired results instead of the means of achieving those
results, avoiding wherever possible the incorporation of
specifications of particular methods or materials. To that end
the code must encourage the use of new methods a~d new
materials. Except as otherwise provided in sections 16B.59 to
16B.75, the commissioner shall administer and enforce the
provisions of those sections.
The commissioner shall develop rule9 ~ddressin~ the plan
review fee assessed to similar buildinqs without siqnifican~
modifications includin~ provisions for use of buildin~ systems
1Vl'inrlesota Session Laws 2001, Chapter 207
Page 2 of 6
~s ~pecified in the industrial/modular proaram sDecif~ed
section 16B.75. Additional plan review fees associated with
s~milar p~ans ~ust be based on costs commensurate wl~h ~ho
direct ~n~ indirect costs of the service.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B.61,
subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. [ENFORCEMENT BY CERTAIN BODIES.] Under the
direction and supervision of the commissioner, the provisions of
the code relating to electrical installations shall be enforced
by the state board of electricity, pursuant to the Minnesota
Electrical Act, the provisions relating to plumbing shall be
enforcedby the commissioner of health, the provisions relating
to high pressure steam piping and appurtenances shall be
enforced by the deDar~t of labor and industry. Fees for
inspections conducted by the s~ate board of electricity shall be
paid in accordance with the rules of the state board of
electricity. Under direction of the commissioner of p~lic
safety, the state fire marshal shall enforce the Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code as provided in chapter 299F. The
commissioner, in consultation with the commissioner of labor and
industry, shall adopt amendments to the mechanical code Dor~ion
of the State Buildina Code to implement standards for Process
PiPing.
[EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective the day
followinq final enactment.
Sec. 3. Minnesota statutes 2000, section 16B.62,
subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. [MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT.] The State Building
Code applies statewide and supersedes the building code of any
municipality. A municiDalitymust not bY ordinance 0r through
develoument aqreement require building ~0~e provisions
requlating components or syst~m~ of any residential S~ructure
that are different from any DrQvision of the ~ta~e Buil~in~
Code. A municipality may, with the approval of the
buildin~ official, adopt an ordin~ce that i9 more restrictive
than the State Buildin~ Code where aeolo~ical conditions warrant
a more restrictive ordinance. A municipality may appeal the
disapproval of a'more restrictive ordinance tO ~he
commissioner. An appeal un,er ~h~s subdivision is s~bject
the schedule, fee. procedures, cost provisions, and aPPeal
rights set out in sectio~ ~6B.67. The State Building Code does
not apply to agricultural buildings except with respect to state
inspections required or rulemaking authorized by sections
103F.141, 216C.19, subdivision 8, and 326.244. All
municipalities shall adopt and enforce the State Building Code
with respect to new construction within their respective
jurisdictions.
If a city has adopted or is enforcing the State Building
Code on June 3, 1977, or determines by ordinance after that date
to undertake enforcement, it shall enforce the code within the
city. A city m ay by ordinance extend the enforcement of the
code to contiguous unincorporated, territory not mere than two
miles distant from its corporate limits in any direction. Where
two or more noncontiguous cities which have elected to enforce
the code have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is
authorized to enforce the code on its side of a line equidistant
between them. Once enforcement authority is extended
extraterritoriallyby ordinance, the authority may continue to
be exercised in the designated territory even though another
city less than four miles distant later elects to enforce the
code. After the extension, the city may enforce the code in the
designated area to the same extent as if the property were
situated within its corporate limits.
A city which, on June 3, 1977, had not adopted the code may
Minnesota Session Laws 2001, Chapter 207 Page 3 of 6
not commence enforcement of the code within or outside of its
Jurisdiction until it has provided written notice to the
commissioner, the county auditor, and the town clerk of each
town in which it intends to enforce the code. A public hearing
on the proposed enforcement must be held not less than 30 days
after the notice has been provided. Enforcement of the code by
the city outside of its jurisdiction commences on the first day
of January in the year following the notice and hearing.
Municipalities may provide for the issuance of permits,
inspection, and enforcement within their Jurisdictions by means
which are convenient, and lawful, including by means of
contracts with other municipalities pursuant to section 471.59,
and with qualified individuals. The other municipalities or
qualified individuals may be reimbursed by retention or
remission of some or all of the building permit fee collected or
by other means. In areas of the state where inspection and
enforcement is unavailable from qualified employees of
municipalities, the commissioner shall train and designate
individuals available to carry out inspection and enforcement on
a fee basis. Nothing in this section pr0h~bits a ~unic~Dality
from adopting ordinances relating to zoninG, subdivision, or
planning unless the ordinapce COgf~icts wi~h a provision of th~
State Building Code that re.q~.la~es components or syste4n9 of any
residential structure,
Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B.63, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 5. [INTERPRETATIVE AUTHORITY.] TO achieve unifor~
and consistent application of the ~t~te Building Code, th~ s~ate
building official has final interpretative authority applicable
to all codes adopted as part of the State Building Co~e except
for the plumbing ~ode and the ~lectrical code when enforced bY
the state board of electricity, A final interpretative
committee composed of seven members, consistin~ of three
building, official~, tWO inspectors fro~ th~ aff~cte~ field; ~nd
two construction industry repre~en~ative~, shall r~view requests
for final interpretations relatin~ tO that field. A re~e~ for
final i~terDretation mu~t Gom~ from a loGal or sta~e level
buildin~ code board of appeals. The state buildin~ official
must establish procedures for membership of the interDreta~ive
committees. The appropriate cqmmitDee shall review ~he request
and make a recommendation to .the sta~e buildiDg_offic~al for the
final interpretation within 30 days of the r~ue~t. The ~ate
building official must issue an interDreta~£on w$~hin ten
business days from the recommendation from the review
committee. A final interpretation may be appealed with~ ~0
days of i~s issuance tO the G0mmissioner under section 16B.67.
The final interpretation must be Dubli~hed withi~ ten business
days of its issuanc~ and made available ~o the public.
Municipal building official~ shall administer all final
interpretations issued bY th~ s~ate building official until the
final interDretation~ ~re ~on~$dere~ for adoption as part o~. the
State Buildin~ Code.
Sec. 5. [16B.665] [PERMIT FEE LIMITATION ON MINOR
RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS.]
A municipality as.d~fined in section 16B.60, subdivision
or a town may not charge a pezTnit fee that exceeds $15 or 5
percent of ~he cost of the imDrov.~ment, installation, or
replacement, whichever is grea~er,_ for the improvement,
installation,.or replacement of a residential fix~ur~ or
appliance that:
(1) does not require modification to electric or
service;
(2) has a tots1 cost of $500 or legs, excluding the cost of
the fixture or appliance; and
Minnesota Session Laws 2001, Chapter 207
Page 4 of 6
(3) is improved, installed, or replaced by the home owner
or a li¢onse~ contractor.
Sec. 6. [16B.685] [ANNUAL REPORT.]
Beqinnino with the first report filed bv ADril 1, 2003,
each municipality shall annually report bv ADril i to the_
department, in a format Drescribedbv the department, all
construction and development-related fees collected by th~
municipality from developers, builders, and subcontractors. Th~
report must include:
(1) the ~vmber an~ valuation Q~ units for which fees wer~
paid;
(2) the amount of buildin~ permit fees, plan W~view fees.
administrative fees, enoineerin~ fees,'infrastructure fe~s, and
other construction and development-related fees= and '.
(3) the expenses associated with the municipal activities
for which fees were collected.
Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 326.90,
subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. [LOCAL LICENSE PROHIBITED.] Except as
provided in sections 22~.991 -__-.~ 326.90, subdivision 2, ~nd
326.991, a political subdivisionmay not require a person
licensed under sections 326.83 to 326.991 to also be licensed or
DaV a registration or other fee related to lice~r~ under any
ordinance, law, rule, or regulation of the'political
subdivision. This section does not prohibit charges for
building permits or other charges not directly related to
licensure.
Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 327A.01,
subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. [BUILDING STANDARDS.] 'Building standards' means
the .......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~"~ ~-~ --'-!Ity -~-~- ~
~_!!_..=-'- ~-- _: ~ ........ -~ ..... -~ State Building'Code, adopted b~ the
~ommissiQner of administration pursuant to sections 16B.59 to
16B.75, that is in effect at' the time of the construction or .
rem~d~lip~.
Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 2000, sectioD 327A.02,-
subdivision 1, is'amended to read:
Subdivision 1. [WARRANTIES BY VENDORS.] In every sale of a
completed dwelling, and in every contract for the sale of a
dwelling to be completed, the vendor shall warrant to the vendee
that:
(a) during the one-year period from and after the warranty
date the dwelling shall be free from defects caused by faulty
workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance with
building standards;
(b) during the two-year period from and after the warranty
date, the dwelling shall be free from defects caused by faulty
installation of plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
systems du~ to noncomplianc~ with building standard~; and
(c) during the ten-year period from and after the warranty
date, the dwelling shall be free from major construction defects
due to noncompliance with buildin~ stan_da_rds.
Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2000, Section 327A.02,
subdivision 3, is amended to read:
Subd. 3. [HOME IMPROVEMENT WARRANTIES.] (a) In a sale or
in a contract for the sale of home improvement work involving
major structural changes or additions to a residential building,
the home improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that:
(1) during the one-year period from and after the warranty
date the home improvement shall be free from defects caused by
faulty workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance
with building standards; and
(2) during the ten-year period from and after the warranty
Minnesota Session Laws 2001, Chapter 207
Page 5 of 6
date the home improvement shall be free from major construction
defects 4ue to noncompliance with building standards.
(b) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of home
improvement work involving the installation of plumbing,
electrical, heating or cooling systems, the home improvement
contractor shall warrant to the owner that, during the two-year
period from and after the warranty date, the home improvement
shall be free from defects caused by the faulty installation of
the system or systems due to nonGompli~nce with buildiDq
stan~lar~s.
(c) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of any home
improvement work not covered by paragraph (a) or (b), the home
improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that, during
the one-year period from and after'the warranty date, the home
improvement shall be free from defects caused by faulty
workmanship or defective materials due to noncompliance with
building standards.
Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.353,
subdivision 4, is amended to read:
Subd. 4. [FEES.] A municipality may prescribe fees
sufficient to defray the costs incurred by it in reviewing,
investigating, and administering an application for an amendment
to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351
to 462.364 or an application for a permit or other approval
required under an official control established pursuant to those
sections. Fees as prescribed uka!! must be by ordinance and
must be fair, reasonable,.and proportionate to the actual cost
of the service for which the fee is imposed. A municipolity
shall adopt management and accounting procedures to ensure tha~
fees are maintained and used only for the purpose for which they
are ~olleGted.
If a dispute'arises over 0 specific fee imposed by ~
municipality rela~e~ tQ a speGific application, the amoun~ O~
the fee must be deposited and hel~ in escrow, and the person
aggrieved by the fee may appeal under section 462.3~1, An
approved application ~ay proceed as if the fee had beeh paid,
pending ~ ~e~ision on the appea~.
Sec. 12. [462.3531] [WAIVER OF RIGHTS.]
Any waiver of ~ights of appeal under section 429,081 is
effective only for the amount of assessment estimate~ or for the
assessment amOUnt agreed to in the development agreement. An
effective waiver of rights of appeal under ~ecti0n 429.081 may
contain a~ditional conditions providing for increases in
assessments that will not be subject to appeal i~
(1) the inGreases are ~ result of requests made by the
developer or property owner; or
(2) the increases are otherwise approved bY the developer
or property owner in a subsequent separate written document.
Sec. 13. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357,
subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. [GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.] (a) At any time after the
adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the planning
agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals
of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance
and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for
adoption.
(b} Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and
5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by
a majority voDe of all its members. The adoption or amendment
of any portion of a zoning ordinancg which changes all or part
of the existing classification of a zonigG distrigt from
residential to either commercial or in4ustrial requires a
two-thirds majority vote of all its members of the Governing
body.
Minnesota Session Laws 2001, Chapter 207 . Page ii of ii
(c) The l~n4 ~se plan must provide guidelines for the
timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to
ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and
redevelopment consistent with the land use plan.
Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357,
subdivision 5, is amended to read=
Subd. 5. [AMHND~4]~T~ CERTAIN CITIES OF THE FIRST CLASS.]
The provision~ of this subdivision apply to e4~m~e~ the adoption
or amendment ~f an~ portion of a zoninq ordinance which
all or Dart of the existin~ classification of a zonin~ ~stric~
from residential to either commercial or industrial of a .
DroDertv located in a city of the first class, except a city of
the first class in which a different process ~S provided through
the operation of the city's home rule charter. In a city to
which this subdivision applies, amendments to a zoning ordinance
shall be made in conformance with this section but only after
'there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a
written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several
descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total
contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or
any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one
year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in
favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body
of any such city. The governing body of such city may, by a
two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new
zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the
planning commission or planning board of such city shall have
made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not
less'than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the
amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take
effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the
number of descriptions of real estate affected-by such changes
and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent
impractical, and such planning commission or planning board
shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the
proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably
related to the overall needs of the community, to existing land
use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted
a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or
alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been
given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once
each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing,
which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such
hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the
city its findings and recommendations in writing.
Sec. 15. [EFFECTIVE DATE.]
(a) Sections ~ and 11 are effective January 1, 2Q02.
(b) Sections 8 to 10, 13, and 14 _are effective the
following final enactment,
(c) Section 1~ is effective August 1, 2001, and applies
contracts entered iDto on or ~f~r th~
Presented to the governor May 25, 2001
Signed by the governor May 29, 2001, 11:35 a.m.
Planning Commission Meeting- September 18, 2001
For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed
24 feet at the fight-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that
portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum
driveway width shall not exce~ 36 feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less
than 10 feet.
For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width
measured at the roadway right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved
except that portion used for the driveway.
g.
On lots not meeting the minimum width requirements at the right-of-way line, the
driveway setback may be reduced subject to the following criteria:
h. 1. The driveway will not interfere with any existing easement; and -
h.2. The location of the driveway must be approved by the City Engineer to ensure that it
will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties.
h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or
collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where
this is deemed necessary by the City Engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances,
street grades, or other relevant factors. If a turnaround is required by the engineer, this
requirement will be stated on the building permit.
j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THAT AMlZ~NDM'I~.NT$
REZQNING PAR~:ELS REQIOIRE A T~Y0-T~S (2/3) MAJORITY yQTE QF AI.L
MEMBEI~ QF THE ~ITY
Blackowiak: This is something we saw before and we did ask for the opinion of the city attorney as to
whether or not we were required to do this. Bob's not here tonight so Kate, are you going to be taking
this one or is Sharmin7
Aanenson: I'll be covering this one.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: Thank you. The way our current city ordinance reads is that for a zoning ordinance
amendment requires a 4/5 vote. As you know we have changed the zoning ordinance. The way our
zoning map is set up is that areas that are outside the current MUSA are left in agricultural. We do have
a comprehensive plan so the way it's set up is that if we were to amend the zoning ordinance we have to
make it consistent with the comprehensive plan or also amend the comprehensive plan, which we've
done in some circumstances. For example, PuRe Homes we had to change the low density in order to get
the twin home attached on that northern side. So we have used that process in the past. What this new
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
amendr~nt, which was passed by the state legislature as part of the very end of the session, part of the
discussion as the city attorney pointed out, there's some people Nroponen~ of affordable housing, wanted
to for those communities that do have a 415 majority, gives some oppommity for some input. So as the
city attorney has stated in his letter that it is, the voting require~ramt is msna~tory. The city does not have
the discretion and we do not have the fight to pre-e~t that requirement. So the lang-sge as stated in the
proposed amendment is consistent with the state law so I hope with the letter that we, and the cases that
he cited, it clarifies that issue. So with that, staff is reco~g again being consistent with the state
law. Amending this language to make sure that we are consistent with the law and I'd be happy to
:
answer any questions.
Blackowiak: Okay, given that does anyone have questions?
Sacchet: Is there any difference between what we saw last time and this time?
Aanenson: No. Same language, just clarification.
Blackowiak: Just that the attorney...well it was a little ambiguous before. But he says we have to do it
SO.
Kind: I have just, it's probably a stupid question but how is Z/3 any different than 4/5 for our city
council? It still takes 4 out of 5 votes.
Aanenson: That would be required. The 20 is only the 3 votes.
Kind: But it says of all members of the city council, so it still needs to be 4. '
Aanenson: But if you have 4 people there, you'd have to have all 4 ~
Kind: You'd have to have ali 4 vote in favor of it.
Aanenson: Right. And this way you would not have to have all 4 vote in favor if you didn't have a super
majority.
Kind: The language is not quite that way here. It should say all present members of the city council, but
I'll leave that to Roger.
Aanenson: That's the way the statute reads, correct. And that's how it's been interpreted.
Kind: Okay. Interesting.
Blackowiak: I know. That's why we wanted the clarification.
Aanenson: That was the issue that came up last time.
Kind: Okay.
Blackowiak: So with that, could I have a motion please.
Sidney: Public hearing?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Blackowiak: Oh walt. Is this a public hearing?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Yes, thank you. As our revised agenda says, this imm is open for a public hearing so if
anybody would like to speak to this issue, please com~ to the microphone and state your nam~ and
address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Any comments? Okay, I'd like a
motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance
amendment that shown in the report of September 18, 2001 to an ordinance amending Section 20-41 of
the Chanhassen City Code.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Saeehet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~sion recommends approval of the
ordinance amendment to Section 20-41 as shown in Attachment #1. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
AMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item,
Sacchet: I just want to be clear that basically the discussion type of stuff I guess towards the end of the
meeting would be under ongoing' items?
Aanenson: Correct. If you want to direct the staff or there's any issue you want to make public.
Saechet: Okay.
Blackowiak: Any comments from commissioners before we vote on this?
Kind: I just have one nit under the secret ballot section, 4.1. I wonder if the language would be better to
say each member shall cast it' s vote for the member he wishes to be chosen for the chairperson. If no
one receives a majority voting shall continue until one member receives the majority support. Ballot to
me feels like there's a piece of paper involved.
Blackowiak: Physical, yeah. Okay.
Kind: As long as you're cleaning it up.
Blackowiak: Let's clean it up. Okay. Any other comments? Changes? Proposals? Alright with that,
I'd like a motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt these changes to our by-laws as proposed by staff with the
addition of using the word vote instead of ballot and voting instead of balloting in 4.1.
15
CITYOF
CHANflA EN
PO lhr, 147
~ ~nna~ 55317
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.937.9152
952.9M.2524
TO: Mayor
City Council
FROM:
DATE:
Bruce M. DeJo.ng, Finance
October 2, 2001
SU]MRCT: Approval of Bills
The following claims are ~tted for approval on Octobex 8, 2001'
Amount
106586-106730
$1,277,861.46
Total Claims $1,277,861.46
. .
.
I recommend approval of all claims as submitted.
ZIlVOTr~ APPROq'AL LLST BY ~
10/08/01 ~u~e, 10/02/01
102-0000-2006 r~ex Pl~u SZCURr~ ~1 nmunm~ ~ 10674~ ~ ~ ~ 09~201 09/12/200 62.49
~-0000-2006 ~ ~ ~ ~ 10S8~ m-~ 10o201 10/02/200 27.s0
2~-0000-2019 ~ ~ ~h 8M~~ 106743 ~ ~ 092601 09/26/200 368,~77.24
~-0000-2022 U2, ~ ~~ ~ 106809 ~ ~~ 0100083 09/28/200 5.29
10~-0000-2022 h~e, ~ ~~ ~ 206809 ~ ~~'SK 0200082 ~0/02/200 S.~9
10~-0000-2022 ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~06843 8~-~ 003~0~ 08/~/200 6,~37.22
10~-0000-2022 ~ ~y ~ M~ 106819 ~ ~ 01009~3 10/01/200 2.50
201-0000-2026 ~ PB~ MZ~Y ~ ~Z~ ~. ~ 206794 ~m ~Z~C m~ 092701 09/27/200 200.00
~0~-0000-330~ ~ ~ ~Y~ 1068~9 ~ ~ 01009~3 ~0/0~/200 99.76
104-0000-3606 ~T ~ ~ ~ ~06860 ~ ~-G~ W W/I?ll ~0/0~/200 S0.00
~04-0000~3826 ~~ ~Z~~ZL, ~ ~06836 ~-~ 08310~ 08/3~/200 -2Zi.S0
10~-00~-38~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 106643 8~-~ 08310~ 08/3~/200 -~22.74
102-0000-490~ K~ ~ ~ DZ~~ ~0~8~ ~ ~ 77~4667 09/$9/200 23.33
XO~-0000490& h~ ~ B G C X06750 ~ ~A~ 7578X 09/X9/200 22.S0
Del;m: Lee/o/atl~
101-1110-4340 Pr~.n~tng
101-1110 -4370 T~v/TL~].u
DEG--., Ylum~ce
101-1130-4040 Tnsuranco #~ LTFB
101-1130-4040 Insurm ~78 BEHEFITS
101-//30-4370 Trav/Tr&ln RRD~ DEd'0~3
Deq~ Legal
101-1140-4302 L~al Fees
101-1150-4300 C~multl~9
101-3-150-4300 C~onaulttn9
101-1160-4040 1Mm ~ ~,II~
101-1160-4040 Thom I~S~FZB BI)IIFZT8
101-~0~220 8~v ~c ~ ~ ~
101-1160-4220 8ftw ~c ~ ~ ~
101-1160-4300 ~~ ~ ~TZ~ ~.
101-1~0~300 ~~ ~ ~, ~
101-~60-4310 ~1~ ~
101-1160-~10 ~1~% ~
101-~60-4310 ~1~ ~I~ ~8
101-116D-4530 ~p ~ ~
374,471.47
106786 Z~Z,Z, CI~iZI~XOM
106779 RID~UR~B ~ C~8H
~ Logtmlatl~
106737 ~T.TFI /MRURANC~
106798 LClIG T~RM DISABILITY Y~SURANC~
106742 ~~ ~
106736 ~ ~ .
106887 ~~ ~
106877 ~l~g ~
CH01-0S 09/24/200 4?4.SE
100101 10/01/200 171.92
646.47
12620199 09/26/200 40.65
092101 09/21/200 74.30
091701 09/17/200 120.95
9419966 09/22/200 4.08
091801 09/18/200 36.57
093001 09/30/200 1,061.93
.................
~ Adm~n/mtratton
106737 OCT(~BR
106798 LCI~/~BMDZ'SABILITY
106767 RBD4BQRH~ ~9
106816 PItOFF. SOXCI(M, S~[VZCB8
106770 COI)ZB80~ NM4B CHAI~3~J
'106773
106737 0CTOB~RLXI~
106795
106774 ~DX8~
106774
106781
106792
106739
106736
106887
106867 FX~
Dai~t CttTHillMaln~e~
101-1170-4040 L-~m2ce HDOIRSOTALZI~ 106737
101-1170-4~0 I~m ~8 ~ 106798
101-1170-4110 ~t~ 8~ ~~ ~8 106783
101-1170-4110 ~21~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~-z~ 106885
101-1170-4110 ~fl~ ~ ~ 106875
101-~?0-4110 ~2t~ ~ ~~ 106805
101-1170-~110 ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1067~4
101-1170-4110 0~t~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 106780
101-11~0~110 ~t~ ~ ~~ ~ 106783
101-11~0-4110 ~ft~ ~ ~~ ~ 106783
101-1170-4110 ~fx~ 8~ ~~ ~8 106783
1~-1170-4110 ~fico g~ ~~ ~g 106783
101-1170-4110 0~t~ ~ ~~ ~ 106783
101-1170-4~0 ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 330 106766
101-1170-4310 ~1~ ~ ~ ~ B~ 106735
101-1170~310 ~1~ ~ 106736
101-11q0-4310 ~1~ ~~ 106887
101-1170-4320 ~111~1e~ X~ ~ ~ 106747
1~-~70-4320 ~111~t08 ~ ~ ~ 106778
101-11~0-4330 ~1tt1~ ~ ~ ~8~ 106778
101-~0-4320 ~111ttes M~-~ ~ 106839
101-11~0-4350 ~ ~8~ ~ 106856
101-~70-4510 B~ ~t 81~ N'~ 106866
101-11q0-4630 ~tp ~tn ~~ ~ 106866
101-11~0-4530 ~P~ ~~ ~C B~Y 106764
101-~70-4631 ~o~ ~ ~~ ~ 106756
PBGC, ;~zl:L~/CL-'V~Z' Co ckmr. ract
101=1210-4040 Znom H:[HR~'I~ ~.ZFE
101-:L210-4040 X~ FORTZB RgNBF/Tg
1,338.48
22620199 09/2S/200 23.17
092101 09/21/200 43.31
092401 09/24/200 491.23
557.71
39414 09/24~200 X,530.S8
lf530,58
091801 09/18/200 20.25
47059 09/20/200 54,61~.00
54,635,25
12620199 09/26/200 9.90
092101 09/31/200 18.43
8492969 09/26/200 469.67
B(80914 09/26/200 1,676.00
31723 09/21/200 346.50
337974- 09/1S/200 138.98
091901 09/19/200 S4.24
9419956 09/22/200 7.54
092801 09/18/200 8,19
12027635 06/20/200 3,904.46
Total J4azmS~m~n~ Znfc~tl~
0CTOBgR LIFg INBUBANCB 12620199
L~IfGT~IMDIBABXLZTY :DIBORAM(~ 092101
~Z~ ~ 26113509
~l~ ~l~ 0~563
~/~ 783345
2002 ~ZTZ~ 8063
~~/~~p ~7858
~~ ~4067
~ ~X~ 259S6102
~ ~X~ 26006242
~FX~ S~X~ 26970732
~X~ ~X~ 260566~
~X~ ~X~ 26067449
~ 091901
~~ ~ 091101
~~ 9419956
~ ~ ~ 091801
~~~8 091801
~8~~ 9~00901
~~~ 99600901
~ ~ 092501
~Y ~ 6414
~~ ~~ ~ 092601
~ 446~6
~~~ 91967659
~ZO~ 11065
To~al c/~¥ H~11 I~/num
106737 OCT0m~TI~ ]~Smh~NCI
106798 L~MGTr~MDZSABZLITY ~
8yllr.,I.~ 6,632.9~
09/25/200 7.20
09/21/200 13.27
09/19/200 51.90
09/13/200 66.91
09/28/200 25.17
09/26/2O0 43.03
10/01/200 48.09
08/06/200 139.80
09/13/200 67.93
09/17/200 438.76
09/11/200 -67.93
08/24/300 -3.16
09/19/200 37.16
09/19/200 86.00
09/21/200 0.22
09/22/200 7.54
09/18/200 31.93
09/18/200 2,035.05
09/30/200 85.69
09/30/200 161.98
09/25/300 61.88
09/30/200 2,170.07
09/2S/200 10.00
09/25/200 2.08
09/24/200 20.24
09/28/200 31.53
12620199 09/25/200
092101 09/21/200
5,570.12
8.10
14.98
ZilVOZCZ AIr~,m3VAL Z,/HT BY lq~O
10/05/01 ntt. m, 10/02/01
· ~-/B~, 3tS2im
d
~.l YLZl /"L'gvm~14x~ & Adm:Ln
.01-/220-4040 TIWGLIGCe 14:X]glIROTA Z,/.IPB 106737
L01-1~20-4040 ~ JFC~:TT_.8 ~ 2.067~8
L01-1320-4120 Xqulp SUni) LMJ 8AJ'rL'r B~X~,Z,Y 106821
L01-1220-4140 Vih Bupp HMK2 CEMIFA]r119 106802
101-1220-4,1&0 Veh 8utpp 8TRBZC31B~, 8 106873
L01-:L230-4140 ~ ~ ~ ~ 106537
L01-/2204340 Vah 8upp dmmLY'8 ~ZCI BBB. 106812
L01-1320-4140 Vgh 8Upp ABrA A~TCIKI)Y & (~,AfJ8 106751
L01-1320-4340 Un:L~'o~-m mOl,~m8 m~mn'ED 106003.
L01-:13~0 4240 TM~ tO,BI i~ZL P~ .... 106592
z01-1320-4260 MI.]. Tool MB I~ILRLBY & CD. 106890
101-1220-4290 mac supp )l~BX LX'fl'VX! 106830
X0/-1320-4310 To3.epbcmo 1/BI.TICI WIRBLBSB 10~745
101-1320-4310 Te .].e~,h~- ~ ~ CCI44 81XI~C:B 106735
102-13204310 Te/~ ]I~rT'BL 3.06739
101-1320-4310 'r~.ephca4 M~'TIlOC3LLL 106736
101-1220--4,310 TollS)hr:mo VBR.TSCI! ~ 106987
.~ 01-1220-4310 ~ VlILTZCm WXRE,mm 1O6807
'101-1320-4320 O'c:LI:LC:Lol XC~ BIB31OY :X~ 106747
3.0X-3~204320 O'c:LXXtlal MXllBI~RIX~ ~ 106639
201-1220-4320 ~Ci].iCi~ ~ ~ ~ 106778
"t03.-1220-4330 Pos~J,gqJ crrY 0~ oiMIll:]~fJ~-~ ~ 106779
~01-1220-4350 ~ ~ ~ 106799
101-1320-4370 TL'~V~ ilM ~ 106861
101-3,220-4370 TL-av/'X'ra:Lti AIKM~-H~OI~ZH' ~ ~ 10~760
'101-1320-4375 i~L'C2mOCtGEi I~ TOY CO 106886
101-1320-4375 l~:l~o~ton RD ~ ABHO4~.AT'B~ Z]IC 106057
101-1320-4375 PZ~BO~S. QU AIEXBI, ZIC: 106757
101-1220-4375 i~'Om2t:lot3 ffOC~B flu sAJ~ l'BCTrO 10679~
101-1220-4375 l~"q~ot: S. cm FCRBMC)OT PlKMCTI'ZCB~ 106797
101-1320-4375 I~L'~BO~ I(X~ AM~(Br, Z]IC: 10~757
181-1320-4S10 Bldg ~ ~ B'J3LTBS 17.,BC'L"R~C G~31~LY 105764
101-1820-4530 Bqulp 14~Lu B~S (~MP~lrXZ8 ~ 106869
101-1320-4531 W 14~Lu AIK:XI4 'L'BC:um*C~LL ~ 106756
101-:L220-4531 RBdlo MBJ. u A3K:GM 'L'BC~IBI~C~/, ~ 106756
:)gi~-I (~KSI Rn.~cJrc~m~.
101-1250-4040 XnlGL'OnCe ~ T.TIPB 186737
10X-1350-4040 ~ !q3527.8 ~ 106798
101-1350-4130 PL"Og ~ IIR.'L'ZCIEI]~ Rif3. 106845
101-1250-4140 Veh ~ ~ IFOBD 106837
101-1250-4140 Voh 8Upp ~ /OSlZ) 106837
3.01-1350-4260 BIm:I.X Toc)I ~ BKIW 106851
101-1350-4300 Ccm~.O.t:::Lng ~ fr/3LlqP 106855
3.01-1350-4310 To.~.~idJollo VIR~:BI' MIRII~B~S 10~746
101-1350-4310 T~1 eFb~bO I,~TJlOCALL 106736
101-3.250-4370 Trwv'~Fra:b:i 8TI'VB TORILL 106872
101-1250-4370 TL-wv'/TL-t:Li~ ~ BI~0LM 10~851
101-3.250-4370 't'T'av/T'~l :izl IX3~G ~ 10~785
103.-1250-4531 Rad.:Lo ML'Ln AIK3~4 'rBOIB3:(3LL C~rT~R 106756
~., ~ C'~_~,'~
101-1260-4040 Xnmm ~ T.TI~
101-1360-4040 Xnm~Fm2~e ~ B~IBISTT8
'101-1260-4310 ToX .e~_~9 VBR.T ZC~ W~RIZ,BG8
101-1260-4310 T~Xaj;W M~CALL
101-1260-4310 'T~XqMio I/~X IC~ MXBIX~
101-1260-4531 Rod.Lo 1481n AIK:Ci4 7BC311~C~LL C~rl"BR
C~/850
2472.94/
083:101
2854
9200S
20058957
550829
0~601
09600~
09~0~
~9956
09~06
0~006
0~806
~2601
~9600~1
100101
093001
2069
489~
~6513
132~
38~0
38~9
28365
13620199
092101
4999307
4~297
4~349
0~502
0238328~
091001
~19956
09300~
09250~
100~01
~065
106737
106798
106746
106736
106887
106756
101-1310-4040 XnlUL"WIC~ 1433~580~ T. LTJ~ 106737
101-1310-4040 ~ ~ ~ 106798
101-1310-4300 O~t~lull:t~g ~ TRM~iq:II:Z2LTZ(II ~ 106859
101-1310-4300 C~Ggu.ll:lzlg ~ ~ ~ W 106803
101-1310-4310 T1:1~ VBR/Z(]J' M'r_RILBGB 106746
101-1310-4,310 Tolq;Jbone ATI'L' W~RZL~8 ur~vzC~8 106732
101-1310-4310 ToXephcEm VELZZCg ~ 106087
101-1310-4310 'g~:1q~ V'fiLT scBr ~ 3.06897
lO1-131o-437o 'Z%,m,/Tn:Lu mrx'v'ns~ oF ~ 106082
lO1-131o-437o TL'IV/TERtn ~FLYmmrL~ OF I(Z~BOOT~ 1O6682
101-1310-4370 Truv/TL'u:Ln mu'w~rtY OF J4~mmm2~ 106982
lO2.-131o-437o 'Alv/'2'z~4n ~r/'v~xTY OF ~ 106882
lo1-131o-437o ?L'lV/TZiJ.U ~ C:~TBAL C:SPA 106846
101-1310-4370 TL"IV/TEEI.u ~ 8B4/I]LB~ 106868
3.01-1310-4370 'IYIV~ AMELTC~L~ ]PI:~L/C MID, KB AG~X~ 106754
101-1310-4370 TL'iv/TZI:I.n J4~TF BAMI 106832
101-13104531 RIdto MB:Lu AICCI4 '/"~C~BI~C3LT, ~ 106756
23.08
09/25/200 20.88
09/21/200 42.36
10/01/200 106.97
09/24/200 74.SS
09/26/200 18.90
09/25/200 32.08
08/3X/200 50.00
00/29/200 36.63
o9/2o/2oo 121.45
09/19/200 107.93
09/19/200 149.45
09/26/2O0 180.21
09/10/200 1.68
o9/11/2oo 7.68
09/19/200 110.40
09/22/200 .100.06
09/3.8/200 4~.25
09/20/200 18.80
09/10/200 550.01
09/26/2O0 137.14
09/30/200
10/01/200 16.80
09/30/200 1,000.00
o9/lo/2oo 200.00
09/19/200 400.00
09/20/200 99.85
09/36/200 39.90
09/35/200 69.64
09/34/200 S4,.37
09/07/200 868.37
09/01/200
09/30/200 98.73
O9/27/2OO 38.13
09/20/200 108.60
09/17/200 574.26
6,333.10.
09/35/200 '79.92
09/21/200 : 150.29
·
09/21/200 149.57 '
09/34/200 30.44
09/25/200 47.93
09/25/200 . 104.37
09/27/200 299.20
09/10/200 27.83
09/22/200 93.79
09/30/200 311.50
09/35/200 34.00
10/02/200 340.10
09/20/200 56.06
1,325.00
12620199 09/25/200 4.50
092101 09/21/200 7.53
091001 09/10/300 104.1S
9419956 09/32/200 25.20
092001 09/30/200 31.84
3.1065 09/28/200 42.05
12620/.g~
092101
68358~
6943
091001
091701
091801
092001
09'~f,01
09242003.
92401
92,12001
092601
091001
6370~3
093001
11065
09/25/200
09/21/200
09/20/200
09/19/300
09/10/200
09/17/200
O9/lO/2oo
o9/2o/2oo
09/24/200
09/24/200
09/34/200
09/24/200
09/26/200
09/10/200
o9/04/20o
09/30/200
09/28/200
23..5.27
48.15
70.~2
31.20
1,130.50
0.19
11.07
S~0.17
11.33
130.00
130.00
130.00
lOO.OO
80.00
756.00
95. O0
16. S3
14. Ol
106737 GCTCB~Rr~13~ ~mufddC~
1067~ LCBIQ'I~41:)ZHAR1/,/TY 33~URAIC~
106891 ~
106864, B~'BAYI'i.TIIT
10~620 IT, AmmR
13620199 09/35/200
092101 09/21/200
81720 09/06/300
45569 09/18/200
2016541 00/20/200
63.36
118.73
39.19
1,558.40
40.19
~ LTGT BY ~
10/00/01 Dete: 10/02/01
101-1320-4120 Bqu/p 8U~ 388 BROT~ &SCSi8 1NC $06793 B~~/~/~ ~3591 09/12/200 798.75
~-~320-4120 ~p ~ ~ ~ 8~Y ~ 106858 ~~ 80388~ 09/18/200 93.73
20~-~320-4~20 ~p ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ 106858 ~ ~Z~ 803533 09/~4/200 60.95
· 0~-1320-4~0 ~ip ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ ~0S858 ~ 803728 09/06/200 4~.2~
· 0~-~2204~20 ~lp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~06834 MISC 8~ ~ ~R ~9489~ 00/26/200 S23.83
~0~-~320~40 Yoh 8~ ~ ~]n ~06802 LI~ 7890 00/24/200 ~SS.0S
~0~-~320-4~40 V~ 8~ ~9 ~ S~ ~ ~06853 ~]~9 69~672 09/34/200 230.~
20~-13204140 Veh ~ ~~ ~Z~ ~ 106753 ~ ~~ 3272~ 00/3S/200 ~.83
10~-~320-4350 ~in~ ~1 L~ ~ ~06827 ~ 338476 09/~9/200 78.01
~0~-~320-4350 ~c ~c~ ~ ~ ~06827 ~ 338401 09/L9/200 81.63
~0~-~320-4~50 ~n~ ~cl ~~ z~~ ~06762 ~ 4685L 09/35/2O0
~0~-~320-4~70 ~ & L~ ~~ G ~ 106833 ~ZC OZL 268023 09/28/200 S02.V8
~0~-~320-4170 ~1 G~ ~~R G~ 106833 ~C 0~/S~-30 267888 09/26/200 791.33
~0~-~320-4360 ~1 ~ D.t.'S G~CZP~ S~Y, ~ ~05784 HZOC ~ 4~29 09/17/200 277.85
~0~-1320-4300 ~m~ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 106796 YZ~ ~~ 11439 08/30/200 66.52
10~-~320-4310 ~1~ ~~g 106746 ~~ ~ 09~00~ 00/~0/200 9.32
~0~-~32043~0 ~~ AT~ ~ 8~Z~ ~06732 ~ ~ ~ 09~70L 09/~7/200 55.52
20~-1320-4310 ~1~ ~ 106736 P~ ~ ~19956 09/22/200 4.00
2o1-132o-43~o ~1~ ~Mz~88 106887 ~ ~ ~ 00180~ 00/~8/200 27.83
~0~-~320-4520 ~eh~Ln~ ~A~ G ~8 20G76~ ~~ ~ ~~ 2947 00/20/200 2S0.00
· ~-~330463~ ~o ~Ln ~ ~~ ~ L06756 ~0 ~ ~0SS 00/28/200
XCBL ENERGY
MN VALI~ RLBCT~C COOP
De~ Cl~¥ ~a~age
101-1370-4040 ZnoLLrm~ce HINN~OTA LIF~
101-1370-4040 Zn~ ~ZB ~l~
101-1370-4310 ~l~e ~NI~88
101-1370-4310 ~l~e ~
101-1370~320 ~ilittem Nl~~-~l~ ~
101-1370-4510 ~1~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~~
101-1370~531 ~o ~t~ ~ ~~ ~
l~l~c, 8enio~ Yu~Llity Cou~o~m
101-1430-4040 T~murance HXNN~9OTA I~i~
101-1430-4040 lneu~anc~ FOILTX 8 BgHglfZT8
101-1510-4370 T~av/l~ain TODD HOFlq4AN
~m I~,L~K:Ad:SIIXI/:L~L-*'~ttO~
101-1820-4040 rnmU~tnce
101-1520-4040 Insurance
101-1520-4310 Tolophone
101-1520-4310 Telephone
101-1520-4310 Telephone
101-1520-4370 Tray/Train
101-3530-4040 Insurance
101-1530-4040 Inlurmnce
101-1530-4310
101-1530-4310 ~1~
1~-1530-4320 ~llttte~
FORT/8 BR~FI'F9
NKXTBL
8 PR.1'N~ PC8
VBRXZOM#XRRLB~8
MN RECREATXO~ & PARK Afl8OC.
MINNESOTA LXFB
lfOi~TZ B B~NR~TT9
MC/ WOILIX~N C0~g4 8BRV'/C:B
H I/~IBG~~CO- RELZA~T INB~3Y
Dep~, Lak~ Ann ~az~
101-1540-4310 Tele~
# 13~(1~3TA LXI~
M~:C~IA FA~4 8U~PLY
~ FAJU4 SUIq~Y
6,326.08
106747
106738
106737
106798
106746
106~39
106839
106850
106756
106737
106798
106818
106746
106887
10688O
091801 09/18/200 790.62
092101 09/21/200 422.70
1,213.32
12620199 09/25/200 26.91
092101 09/21/200 67.25
091001 09/10/200 8.40
091901 09/19/200 50.98
092601 09/26/200 64.44
3233 09/24/200 530.13
11065 09/28/200 14.01
762.12
12620199 09/25/200 36.93
092101 09/21/200 68.27
34378 08/30/200 319.50
091001 09/10/200 6.21
092001 09/20/200 8.19
100101 10/01/200 25.00
.................
To~al Plazu~%~Ad=Lu/lt~tt~ 464.10
106737 OC/~R LXI~ ZNSURANCB 12620199 09/25/200 2.16
106798 LOliq3T~U4DZ~LXTY XNSORAI~:I 092101 09/21/200 4.01
.................
~1 8~ Y~llty ~11~ 6.17
106878 ~R ~ 092501 09/25/200 84.56
.................
~1 ~ ~..~ 84.56
106737 ~ ~ ~ ~2620Z99 00/26/200 ~2.06
106798 ~~DZ~ZL~ ~~ 092~0~ 00/2~/200 22.62
106739 ~~ ~ 091901 09/~0/200 S0.72
X06742 ~ ~ ~ 091701 09/~7/200 33.79
~06OO? ~ ~ ~ 09~80~ 09/~8/200 19.57
~06842 ~ ~~ 09250~ 09/25/200 775.00
.................
~11 ~~ntlC~bt~ 913.66
106737 ~ Lr~ ~~ ~2620~99 09/26/200 5.40
106746 ~ ~ ~ 09~00~ 09/~0/200 8.40
106735 ~ ~ 09~0~ 09/~/200 0.22
106839 ~ ~ 09260~ 09/26/200 68.84
.................
~al ~t~ ~er 44.09
106874 RBF~(D-K/'NDB~I:)AMC~
106831 Rgl~HD-K/MDgRnM~::B
106825 RBJq]HD-KXNDg3~DA,NC~
106813 ~-~ ~
106777 ~-~Z ~
106759 ~-~~
1O6740 ~ ~
~1 ~ pa~
106798 ~~DI~L~ ~
106888 ~
106888 ~
S6976 09/10/200 65.00
57141 09/18/200 65.00
57208 09/24/200 65.00
57207 09/24/200 25.00
S7147 09/19/200 70.00
57230 00/25/200 65.00
355.00
091301 09/13/200 126.40
.................
126.40
12620199 09/25/200 57.96
092101 09/21/200 108.14
2856 09/25/200 29.48
3041 09/26/200 147.40
10/08/01 i:m:~: 10/02/01
· 1'tu~ ~ 3:923;m
i~t 4
..............................................
L01_1550~4:~0 Bl~,~.p fJupp ~ ~ & ~ ~Y Z06879 ~ ~ ~Z~ 09/17/200 76.39
LOX-~O-~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. X06071 ~ T.~ ~ 2~30 09/X7/200
L01-X~0~0 ~ ~ ~TDTE ~ & ~ 10~ ~ 300~ 09/~/200 6.86
L01-~0~0 ~p ~ ~ 10S~7 ~ ~ ~ ~77~ 09/21/200 2~.01
LOX-~S0~0 ~p ~ L~ ~ ~827 ~ 337036 09/~/200 8.S6
LOX'~0~0 V~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ X06?SX ~2 28~ 08/29/200 2S0.00
LOX-~04~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ i~bY X06880 ~z. ~ 3006 09/17/200 26.40
LOX-~0-4X50 ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ X06069 ~ i~v~ 30~7 09/2S/200 200.08
wxx ~ ~ ~ ~ xos?8? M ~~ 22s380 08/~/200 us.ss
L01-15504260
L01-~504260 ~ ~ mw8 ~ ~y 186758 ~ ~ ~s6 09/2~200 379.~
L~-~S0-4300 ~~ ~'8 ~C ~ X0~2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 17832 08/3~/200 T48.8~
X~-~0-4300 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X0~ ~ ~~ ~69 00/~/200 4.24
X~*~SS043X0 ~X~ ~ X06739 ~ ~ ~ 091901 00/18/200
~M ~ ~ ~~ ~78 ~~ ~ 99900930 09/30/200 S5.80
X~-~04330
101-~5S04320 ~XC~ ~ ~ ~ X06778 ~~ ~ gg700g0X 09/30/200 ~.~
X~-~4~X ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 10~ ~O ~ 1106S 00/28/200 ................. ~.S7
~ ~ ~ 3~7~.86
101_~ trS1_4330
101-1551-4320
101-3.551-4320 01:J. lJ.I;J.M
3.01-1551-4320 U'c J.]. J.l~ J. om
101-1551-4320 01::L't 'riaLto
101-236014130
f01-1560-4130
01-3.560-4300 O:mmllt::/zzg
.101-1600-4040 :T.I~UEEM~ 14331118501~ T/rill
101-1600-4040
101-1600-4130 PL"Og 8Upp
101-1~00-4130 ~ 81.1pp O/'//CB 14R.X
101-1600-4330 U'C..'L 111:1~1
: 14:m:rCh o~ Jt~.l.y
-16/3-4340
101-1~1,l,-4130 ilz'og' 81.1pp
~.-1014--4230 Prog 8upp
101-1700-4040
1.01-1700-4040
9L. ugclmal A~-~J. vJJ: J.m
101-1711-3636 Ol£ffupiPz~g leq,g/ B~BAH]kK
101-1Tll-4~30 Prog Oupp 'I:B3H~'T
101-1'/13.-4300 CcmmLl. t::Lng ~ ~
Yam:h ~
101-1730-3636 81£BupgTog
101-1730-4320 Iqulp ~
MrL~D A'L'HLr~c uu&,l-bY
~dnlt Oporto
101-1760-3631
101-1760-3636
101-1760-3636
101-1760-3636
~-1760-3636
101-1760-3~6
1~-17604~0
1~-1~0~300
101-1760~300
1~-1760-4300
106747 EL~(~.Z~ (:~lZk~gB~ 091801 09/18/200 439.02
106839 GiW C31]kBGEg 092501 09/26/200 20.14
106778 ~l'~(MI.T~R(31~gf~S 093001 09/30/200 30.00
106778 Nik/'~R/~ (~IXRfB9 92000930 09/30/200 90.02
1~839 ~ ~ 0~501 09/25/300
~~~ S~.OS
1~875 ~ ~ 856026 09/25/200
1068U ~.~ ~ 091801 09/~/200 50.71
106815 ~ ~~~ 0~701 09/17/200 60.00
~ ~~Ct~ ~ 209.43
106737 ~~ ~ U620199 09/2S/200 U.10
106798 ~~~ ~~ 0~101 00/2~/200 21.~
106875 u~ ~1170 09/14/200 63.~
106848 ~ 0~601 00/~/200 31.60
106738 ~~~ o921o~ o9/21/2oo sx.~
.................
106~86 4~~Y ~~ ~-~ 09/24/200 333.21
.................
~ ~~ ~y 333.21
'106782 ~~~ 100101 10/01/200 105.20
106~9 ~~ 0053~01 00/~/200 22~.SS
.................
1~737 ~ ~ ~!~ ~620199 09/25/200
10S?~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 092101 09/2~/200 5.49
.................
~ ~.~~ 8.01
x~029 ~~~~ s~x6 09/~/200 ~.00
10~7s ~~ a~ 782670 09/u/200 40.10
x~7. ~m ~ww 092601 09/26/200 ssT.oo
.................
~ ~ ~X~ ~3.x0
106675 m:nr~L.1;IS
106835 ~ ~:~Fr. dk(31R3OTBALL
106755 i~Elq~D-IPALL
106808 ~lq:BIDIPALL
106844
106823
106814 ~~2
106790 ~-~~
106755 ~-9~
106835 3
106~1
106810
106791
8S~991 09/17/200 7.96
S4433 09/18/200 68.05
76.01
57004 09/1.2/200 48.00
5'/249 09/26/200 48.00
56988 09/:Ll/200 45.00
56987 09/~./200 45.00
56973 09/10/200 48.00
56906 o9/~.~/2oo 45.00
s7148 o9/19/2oo lOO.OO
s4272 o9/13/2oo 41.38
100101 10/01/200 3.25.00
100101 10/01/200 320.00
092601 09/26/200 1,960.00
2,825.38
l~u2d'l'Ot.~l 475,702.64
310-0000-4040
210-0000-4040
106737
106798
3.2620:].99 09/25/200 11.37
092101 09/21/200 20.92
32.29
]~nd~ 32.29
10/08/01 D~te, 10/02/01
Time, 3152~1
211-2310-4040 'rn~t.~an~ ~ I~ZI~
211-3310-4040 Xnmu_--mnc& ~3~t'~ Z. 8 B~I~FI'T8
211-2360-4040 Xn~uganc~ HZN]~SOT~ I, XF~
311-2380-4040 /nmuganc~
211-2360-4300
l~md: 1995C GO ~
340-0000-4803
~ay ~eat Fz~m'l'~ ~
400-0000-1X55 Dev Xnmp
400-0000-11~5 Der Xnmp
400-0000-1155 Dev' Z~
400-0000-1155 ~ Z~
400-0000-1155 D~r Xnwp
400-0000-4300 CCX~ulCix~
400-4107-4704 Ve. tcLcles
400-4108-4704 Vehtclew
Yur~I ~ B~:~ ~.V,i~C~'
Dept,
443-0000-4701
L~nd&
/~Gd, C2m~ ]3ovl
Dept,
445-0000-4320
FLmdi ~ ~ I - X20MNTOMg J025
460-0000 -4040
490-0000-4040
Zh. tm~z ~ ~ 2-2 ~ ~ B~ ~027
492-0000-4804 8]~C
106737 OCTOBER LXFB
106798 I~HGTERMDXBABXLZTY
Total ~1t~
106737 ~ LX~
106798 ~ ~ DX~X~Z~
106818 ~X~
12620199 o9/2s/2ob 4.46
o922o2 09/21/200 8.40
12.86
12620199 00/25/200 3.06
092101 09/21/200 s.04
34378 08/30/200 159.7s
168.7s
~AmdTo~al 181.61
106795 GO ~B(I~MJ 1995C
813616 09/19/200 193.38
193.38
· um/To~al 193.38
BT m lf03~
106803
106803 TR/BTAN I~XGltlX'9
106803 VAI~____mdlORE ~X~
106803
106803
106800
~al
106870
6931 09/18/200 98.75
6930 09/18/200 59.25
6928 09/18/200 177.75
6957 09/19/200 513.50
8932 09/18/200 1,747.50
1080190 08/31/200 595.20
.................
3,191.95
090701 09/07/200 16,565.00
To~al ~ Day Light; Duty
16,565.00
106761 B~fOMgZ~ff/~ 1356001 09/21/200 11,801.27
.................
Total Dua~ ~ Replaceme~Cl 11,801.27
~~ 31,558.22
106763 FOX PROI;~RT~ D~90~XTZCM
106789 BAt(D]3(RRB PARK
106749 FOX Z]~lIRBST
106772 25-0850490
106772 25-0240800
106772 25-5670480
106772 25-852o390
81460 09/19/200 1,111.20
43050]:H 09/12/200 19,833.76
100201 10/02/200 305,017.70
48832001 10/02/200 373.00
56892001 10/02/200 212.19
55312001 10/02/200 1,062.81
95282001 10/02/200 145.83
327,756.59
Vul2d ToI~&I 327,756.59
108749 FOX Z)~11RR~T
To~i
100201 10/03/200 152,805.58
182,805.58
~Tot&X 152,805,58
106747 BL~'TRZCZTY OIARGff8
TO~i
091801 09/18/200 S88.29
.................
586.29
I~udTOCsl 586.29
106798 Y.~G,~DZBABXLZTY
Total
092101 09/21/200 0.00
0.00
· und/~:24:~l 0.00
106798 ~ TERM DZSABX~ /31BURANC~
ToCel
092101 09/21/200 0.00
.................
0.00
Yu~To~al 0.00
106772 25-1790030
28062001 10/02/200 5,571.90
10/o8/01 1~:4, 3.0/02/01
?LBo, 3,62~
.... ........... .....
2-2 ~ ~ ~ 1027
~ S,S~.~
.................
~ ~ S,S~.~
1, ~ ~ S - GILTKIGLY 1024
p~.l
96-0000-4300 C~)I:~U3.~ :Lalf:J
4t ~ ~ 7 - ~ 'rltAC~
9~7.0000-4804 f~oc ~
.~7-0000-4804 Opec Alomf:
·
;00-6002-476~ G CC)
10683.6 P~:)FBflGZ~miT'OBRV~r~fl 39414 09/34/200 460.70
Tor..m3. 460.70
~ l~ndTo4:L~ 460.70
106772 25-1900360
106772 25-4030660
66422001 3.0/02/200 9,960.65
99752001 10/02/200 16,263.04
26,223.69
~md'Z'cd:&l. 26,223.69
106820 (~ITCIH~BZ,VD ~ ~Grig~' 083001 08/30/200 3.46,722.22
Tor~ c,ncuzy n~vd nsccmc_-~:J~ 146,722.22
106768 ~~ ~58634 09/X4/200 ~.47
~06768 ~~ ~8636~7 00/20/200
.................
~~ ~46,~7.~6
~06803 ~ S &l~HT 78'2~ 3MI~OV 6~58 09/3.9/200 S,332.S0
106863 ~ ~ 092701 09/27/200 8,03.5.93
TO4:~ 13,348.43
' ' l~md'ZOC~ 3.3,344.43
106836
106809
20~09
~0~37
~0~7~
~06806
~806
1067~
~068~
~068~
Z067~
Z067~
~068~
~0~07
Z06~2
Z~739
Z06736
106747
106738
~06748
Z068~
~06~
~776
~775
003101 08/31/200 21,060.00
0100083 09/28/200 ';0.80
010008~ 10/0L/200 79.80
~0299 09/25/200 68.0~
092202 09/22/200 UO.U
~0 09/20/200
~ 09/2~/200 ~.20
9~H~6 09/20/200
776~39 09/~9/200 20.0~
382~6 09/~/200 1,8~.33
380690 09/07/200 20.25
~S~ 09/~4/200 9.24
U~8 09/2~/200 U.22
0~S0~ 09/26/200 29.98
SS~ 09/U/200 ~7.00
0079~9 09/~7/200 2,667.39
200~3377 09/U/200 ?S0.00
09~70~ 09/~7/200 ~.~&
0~90~ 09/~9/200 S97.58
~9966 09/22/200 6.74
0~80~ 09/~8/200 7,723.69
092~0~ 09/2~/200
09260~ 09/26/200
0~70~ 09/27/200 9.69
09300~ 09/30/200 7~7.09
~065 09/28/200 5S.0S
775~60 09/2S/200 ~8.35
~6970 09/U/200 996.00
223574 09/26/200
~S~ 09/~/200 20.68
39,472.64
39,472.64
md~ ~ & ~ BI~JIBZCBI ~
'J~0-0000-4769 Ot:h Acq
7'3.0-7001-475~ O~,C IlllgJ.~O
106772 25-1460020
SS482001 3.0/02/200 2,793.00
2,793.00
3.06803 ~ & BC8 ~ Tr2'~LL-T'~B8 7073. 09/23./300 14,380.75
~ Lmk~ LGC7' ~ loccGd:LC~ 14,380.75
~2:KS~ 8ENBR G 10.'1~R []~IC~ ~
710-?002-4300 Coalulti~
720-0000-3660 gw Chg
720-0000-3660
720-0000-3660 88ve~ C::hg
720-0000-3680 8over Chg
?20-0000-4040
730-0000-4040
720-0000-4130 PZ*Og 8U~)
720-0000-4300 Cmmult/ng
720-0000-4300 Oongu.l~lng
?~0-0000-4300 Con~uZt/Gg
720-0000-4340 PrJJ~tt~]
720-0000-4340 ~J.nt:J.ng
720-0000-4370
720-0000-4370 T~I3r/Tzi:Lrl
720-0000-4769
Peps,
800-0000-4769
800-0000-4769
800-0000-4769 C~bAc~
800-0000-4769
8oo-oooo-4769 O~hAc:q
800-0000-4769
800-0000-4769 Ot:hAd:~
800-0000-4769 OChAcq
800-0000-4804
YLmd,
Deptt ~ZCl{ C~2B'flK)L
815-8202-2024, ul~rov ~y
815-8203-2024
815-8202-2024 BIOL"ow
D~)t t 81~1
815-8204-2024 l~c~-ov
815-8304-2024 ~,~ e.z'o~
Dept'-m 8'rz3&'lt~T~ RZPAZ~.
815-8211-2024 BaeFOv ~y
l:~p~8 I~II:2~L-C31AW W'I*R TWR
815-8215-2024 /JcL'ow
820-0000-2005 ~1~x 91~.~
820-0000-2005 ~1-*- ;~,u
820-0000-2005
820-0000-2005 FXex Plan
820-0000-2006
820-0000-2005 rl~ phn
82o-oooo-2oo5 riex mian
82o-oooo-2oo5
82o-oooo-2oo5 FXexPhn
82o-oooo-2Oll r,J.£o zns.
820-0000-2011 Lt£e Xn~.
~0-0000-2013 ~ ~AY
106862 ~ 9RCYl'~"I~0MpT-,MI 0079267 09/17/200 2,501.99
ToCU RC-VTm:BIEU~XLX~ 2,501.99
l~lJ3dTOl:8/ 19,675.74
106826 REIq]IDOV~LPAY141~T 1041900 09/30/200 29.68
106826 I~/'0HDOYA'R~AYi4~IT 1044600 09/30/200 29.65
106836 RLu'UMDOVBR~AY14Brl' 1928900 09/20/200 29.36
106826 Z,tM~Z~__m~__ C:CIISTR~"~C~ 1929700 09/30/200 S.g7
106737 ~ LXI~ ~ 12620199 09/2S/200 10.99
106798 L081G'lIIU4DXGABXLZTY Z~ISmtAXC:Z 092101 09/21/200 20.66
106875 801v~LXl:9 791746 00/11/200 19.26
106840 BMflI? C:RIBKM/L'I'/VBV~G~.'L~,'I'/0M 376 09/12/200 1,740.00
106763 M'J31NBM]~LITT~ 81461 09/19/200 355.70
106763 l~'11RQCE~LZTY ~ ~ 81462 09/19/200 1,420.00
106818 I)R.TM'I~:DIG 34378 00/30/200 1Sg.?S
106818 PRZMTZHG 34316 08/24/200 200.17
106846 G~4.T.H~-SAAM G HXAIC 092601 09/26/200 80.00
106883 RB(JXS'I'RATZ01~-HAAK 100101 10/01/200 130.00
106772 25-4190090 96082001 10/02/200 34.00
4,365.18
4,265.18
106773 25-7750050 91903001 10/03/200 8,21S.00
106772 25-0131400 55522001 10/02/200 452.00
106772 25-0131600 55532001 10/02/300 1,086.00
106772 25-0131200 55502001 10/02/200 431.00
106772 25-2490020 56022001 10/02/200 4,456.00
106772 25-2490030 56032001 10/02/200 6,837.00
106792 25-0133600 5S702001 lO/O2/2oo 339.07
106772 25-0133500 55692001 10/02/200 1,084.00
106772 25-7750030 91882001 10/02/200 1,245.06
.................
To1:81 24,145.13
.................
rund Tot:~l 24,145.13
~X'DKR C'~TOH HCB4/,G
'1'RACY G GARY DOLLnU3C3~LL
106734 EnC:SK)W i&EF~ID-BR08XC~ 6679LA]CB 09/26/200 500.00
106745 ~84:~0W RBiq:~D-BXC)SZ081 600LYJ41X 09/26/200 500.00
106838 BSCROff Rmmm)s-BL3m, n~zc~ 425 lo/o2/2oo soo.oo
~ K3U::WXOM CCI~"BOL 1,500.00
106860 UulPOMDBSC~0W-ILECOi~Z~3FEB
106838 uuiP~4D 8ZG~ ~
TO~i BZGW
DW/1711 10/01/200 100.00
DW/1640 09/27/200 100.00
200.00
106733 RZlq~DOF 8XD~IRX~gC~ 6919COR 09/26/300 S00.00
.................
TO&L~. 8~3~'HiiLKRrPAXR S00.00
106838 ES~U)W i~IPUMD6-RL~,rD,ERC~ZC~ 425 10/02/200 2,000.00
TOtal H'BXTBL-C3L~ ~ 2,000.00
~~1 4,200.00
BILL ~
C:ARC~ IXJHm4ORI
IC/14
H l'mlmJO/'A L.Ti~
383200-MCPEI~ (3BJ~ LXi~
8~C03Ll~1~ LZFB I~09JLRC~ CO
106762
106769 /7.,BX-itZALTH
106785 VTJX-llZAZ,'I~
106817 IPT.,RX-Z~YCXRI
106851 FLIX-Z~YCPLRB
106876 ~-~Y~
106877 ~-~ & ~Y~
106878
106767 ~-~
106737
106731
106741
TO~I
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
100201 10/02/200
12620199 09/25/200
38321001 09/25/200
091201 09/13/200
Gr&nd '1'o41
316 00
121 00
1,500 00
52 08
217 39
208 33
91 33
435 64
569 72
358 56
48.00
826.34
4,734.39
4,734.39
1,277,861.46
io~7~
1067~
O6746
O6747
10~7/,8
106749
10~750
L06751
fC)6752
106755
106760
~ o6761
106762
106763
106765
11)~766
106767'
106768
106769
10677'6
106781
106787'
1O680O
106801
1O6802
CHECK REGZSTER REPORT
BAN[: CHANHAGGEN BAN[ Date: 10/02/01
Ttme:
P~:
Check V~,-N~or
l)ete Status Nu,ber Vendor Home Check De, crtptlon Amomt
09/26/2001 Printed NCPERS 383200-NCPERS GRCXJP LiFE ZBS E~LOYEE ELECT LZFE iNSURANCE
09/26/2001 Printed ATTIL AT&T I~IRELES$ SERVICES CELLULAR PHONE CHARGES 130.73
09/?.6/2001 Printed BOYAAR BOYD AANESTAD REFUND OF SIDBJALI( ESC~OI~ 500.00
09/26/2001 Prtnted LOSCUS LOSCHEZDER CUSTC)H HC~r.S ESCRQ~i REFUND-EROSioN 500.00
09/26/2001 Prtnted HCIt~I~ HCX iaoRLI)CC~ CC]l~ SERVICE TELEPlioNE CHARGES 8.12
09/26/2001 Printed #ETROC #ETRC)CALL PAGER CHARGES 249.93
09/26/2001 Printed #NLZFE #ZNNF. SOTA LiFE OCT08ER LiFE iNSURANCE 919.62
09/26/2001 Printed NVEC HN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP ELECTRiCiTY CHARQE8 5~8.20
09/26/2001 Prtnted NEXTEL NEXTEL CELLULAR PHONE CHARGES 1,220.88
09/26/2001 Prtnted 2JEST 2JF. ST TELEPHONE CHARGES 126.40
09/26/2001 Prtnted SECLZF SECURITY LiFE INSLJRANCE CO C)CT08ER DENTAL iNSURANCE 888.83
09/26/2001 Printed SPRPC$ SPRINT PCS CELLUI.AR PH~iE CHANt. ES 15~.74
09/26/2001 Prtnted ~IdET ~J HETRO TRANSZT SETTLENEST PAYNENTS ~8,177.14
09/26/2001 Prtnted TARCEN TANGET CENTER TZCICETS FOR DRAGON TALES
09/26/2001 Printed TRAGAR TRACY & GARY OOLLENSCHELL ESCR~ REFUND-EROSION 500.00
09/26/2001 Printed VERIZO VERiZON ~IZRELESS 'CELLULAR PHONE CHARGES 174~08
..
09/26/2001 Printed XCEL XCEL ENERGY iNC ELECTRiCiTY CHARGES 12,172.68
10/01/2001 Prtnted POST POSTHASTEN UTiLiTY BiLL PC)STAGE 717.09
10/0Z/2001 Printed FOXPRO FOX PROPERTIES LTD PANTNERSH[P FOX iNTEREST 457,8Z3.28
10/08/2001 Prtnted ABELBC ABEL B & C REFUND OVERPAY)lENT 22.50
10/08/2001 Printed ABRAUT ABRA AUTOBOOY & GLASS DEDUCTIBLE 536.63
10/08/2001 Printed AGGRiN AGGREGATE iNDUSTRiES HANDCURB 216.8~
10/08/2001 Printed ALTREB ALTERRATOR REBUZLD CO REBUILD ALTERNATOR 111.83
10/08/2001 Prtnted AFtrA ANER[CAN PUBLIC UONES A$S0C REGISTRATZON 95.OO
10/08/2001 Printed AHYPET Ally PETI~SON REFUND-PILATES
10/08/2001 Prtnted ANCTEC ANC;OR TECHNICAL CENTER PAGER 1,089.26
10/08/2001 Printed ANIX~I ANDO#, I#C HEL]LN TA#IC RENTAL 82.42
10/08/2001 Printed ANNTOO ANN"S TOOL SUPPLY DRILL SETS 379.84
10/0~/2001 Printed ANNLAR ANNE HANZE LANSON REFUND-KiNDER DANCE 65.00
10/08/2001 Printed ANOHEN AN(XA-HENNEPIN TECH COLLEGE ADVANCED PU~ CLASS 480.00
10/08/2001 Prtnted ABPEQU ASPEN EQUTPRENT CO SNCM)I.~/GANDER
1D/08/2001 Printed BZLBEH BiLL BEHEIIT FLEX-DAYCARE 316.00
10/08/2001 Prtnted BONROS BORESTROO ROSENE ANDENL]I( FOX PROPERTY DEPOSiTiON 2,886.90
10/08/2001. Printed BORSTA BORDEN ~TATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY FLOURESC:ENT LANPS 171.10
10/08/2001 Printed BOYSCO .B~Y SCOUT TRC)OP 330 I&EATHS - -
10/08/2001 Prtnted BRZSCH BRIAN SCHNEE~IND IKNUC JEANS 19.98
10/08/2001 Printed BRUCEJ BRUCE 'DF. JONG FLEX-HEALTH ' ' 1,060'.95
10/08/200'1 Printed CAHNEN CAHNERS LEGAL ADS 224.94
10/08/2001 Printed CARDUN CAROL DUNS#ONE FLEX-HEALTH 121.00
10/08/2001 Prtnted CARAUD CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR COPIES OF NAHE CHANGES 20.25
10/08/2001 Void Void Check 0.00
10/08/2001 Printed CARTRE CARVER COUNTY TREAiuNER 25-1460020 60,561.65
10/08/2001 Printed CARTRE CARVER COUNTY TREAiuREN REAL & PERSOHAL PROPERTY 54,615.00
10/08/2001 Printed ~ C~ GOVERN#ENT iNC WiNDO~ UPGRADE 2,092.76
10/08/2001 Printed CHCAR CH CARPENTER LU#BER GREEN TREATED POST 20.68
10/08/2001 Printed CHAHOR CHASICA HC~IE LIGHT BULBS 18.70
10/08/2001 Prtnted CHEiaIT CHERTE ~IITYNSI(I REFUND-JAZZ DANCE 71).00
10/08/2001 Printed CHANHA CiTY OF CHANHASSEN ~ATER/SEUER CHARGES 1,188..85
10/08/2001 Printed CHAPET CTTY OF CHANHASSEN-PETTY CASH REI#SURiE PETTY CASH 188.72
10/08/2001 Printed CLECOH CLENENT COI4~JNICATZONS iNC PC~TER iERVZCE 139.80
10/08/200t Printed CON%NT CDHPUTER iNTEGRATION TECHN. SOFT~ARE SUPPORT 346.50
10/08/2001 Prtnted CORHOE COREY HOEN REI#~JRSE RALLOI,1;EN SUPPLIES 1C)5.20
10/08/2001 Printed C~EXP CORPOPATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 524.64
10/08/2001 Printed DJl~JliZ D.J. 'S #LliZCZPAL SlJPPLY, iNC #ISC SUPPLIES 277.85
10/08/2001 Printed DALGRE DALE GREGORY FLEX-HEALTH 1
10/08/2001 Prtnted DEBI(ZN DENRA I(iND 4TH OF JULY PRZNT RATERIALS 806.76
10/08/2001 Printed DELTO0 DELEGARD TOOL C(~IPANY HO~E REELS/HOGE 416.65
10/08/2001 Printed ~ DOUG HOESE RET#BURSE EXPENSES 140.10
10/08/2001 Printed EANAND EARL F ANDERSEN iNC BANDZ#ERE PAJU( 19,833.76
10/08/2001 Printed ELLCER ELLEN CERCHZA REFUND-STRETCH CLASS 45.00
I0/08/20C)1 Printed ERZLIll ERIIC LZIIDENEIER ADULT SOFTBALL LIdPiRE 1,960.00
10/08/2001 Printed ESCTEL ESCHELON TELECCII, INC LOG REPORT PRC)GRAIlIZNG 138.98
10/08/2001 Printed ESSBRO ESS BROTHERS & SONS ZNC SUPER GLUE/GRATE/RiNG 798.75
10/08./2001 Printed FAHCHR FAH]LY OF CHRIST LUTH. CHURCH RETURN PiCNiC DEPOSIT 200.00
10/08/2001 Printed FZRTRU FTRSTAN TRUST GO Z#PROVEHENT B43#DS 1995C 193.38
10/08/2001 Printed FOCO#E FOCUS ORE HOUR PHOTO FZLIN DEVELOPZliG 153.49
10/08/2001 Printed FORPRO FORENOST PRO#OTZONS FiRE SCIt(X)L ICZTS
10/08/2001 Printed FORBEli FORTIS BENEFITS LONG TER# DiSABiLiTY iNSURANCE 1,0~7.01
10/08/2001 Printed GANSEE GANTH I~EEXAN CLEAH FiRE STATioN 1,000.00
10/08/2001 Printed SOPSTA GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL THC UTILITY LOCATES 595.20
10/08/2001 Printed GREHO0 GRETEL'S HOOPS & THREADS UNZFC)IIJ~ 117.00
10/08/2001 Printed HANCI)H HANCE CC)HPANZES FZLTERS/DEX COOL 239.t54)
CHECK REGISTER REPORT
BANK: CHANHASSEN BANK Date: 10/02/01
Time: 3:511~
:tty of Chanhaasen Page: 1
:hack Check Vendor
tmioer Date Status Nmber Vendor Name Check Description Amount
............................................................................................ .... ....................... ........ ....
106803 10/08/2001 Printed HANTHO HANSEN THORP PELL]NEN OLSON BC7 & BC8 TRUNK UTILITIES 2~,430.50
10(~)4 10/08/2001 Printed HAgCHE HAkq(INS CHEHICAL SUPPLIES FOR WATER TESTING 1,814.48
106805 10/08/2001 Printed HUDHAP HUDSON HAP 2002 EDITION 43.03
106806 10/08/2001Prtnted INFRAT INFRATECH LOCATOR 887.47
106807 10/08/2001 Printed INVMET INVENSYS METERING SYSTEMS SOFTNARE SUPPORT 750.00
106808 10/08/2001 Printed JANBOE JANE BOECHER REFUND FALL YOGA 48.00
106809 10/08/2001 Printed JASDEV JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORP REFUND IdATER METER 169.98
106810 10/08/2001Prtnted JEFLOR JEFF LORENSON ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE 320.00
106811 10/08/2001Prtnted JERMOH JERRY MOHN FLEX-HEALTH 27.50
106812 10/08/2001Prtnted JERTRA JERRY]S TRANSHISSION SER. LIGHT LENSES 50.00
106813 10/08/2001Prtnted J]LOLS JILL OLSON REFUND-DANCE COI4BO 25.00
106814 10/08/2001 Printed JOAGEN JOAN GEMHILL REFUND-YOGA 2 48.00
106815 10/08/2001Prtnted KARWIC KARA WICKENHAUSER SUPPL]ES-SR CENTER 110.71
106816 10/08/2001 Printed KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,991.28
106817 10/08/2001 Printed KIMHEU KIN MELRalSSEN FLEX-DAYCARE 52.08
106818 10/08/2001Prtnted KINKOS KINKOS PRINTING 839.17
106819 10/08/2001 Printed KRERO0 KRELISER ROOFING REFUND PERMIT 102.25
106820 10/08/2001 Printed KUSCON KUSSKE CONSTRUCT%ON COHPANY CENTURY BLVD STR/UTIL IMPROV 146,722.22
106821 10/08/2001Prtnted LABSAF LAB SAFETY SUPPLY TAPE I06.97
106822 10/08/2001Prtnted LARELE LANRY~S ELECTRIC INC WIRING FOR AIR COMPRESSOR 748.81
106823 10/08/2001 Printed LAUBRA LAURA BRAY REFUND-STRETCH CLASS 45.00
106824 10/08/2001Prtnted LEESCH LEE SCHELLER TAPPING VALVE/TAPPING-LYMAN BLVD 995.00
106825 10/08/2001 Printed LORDIN LC)RI D]NNIS REFUND-KINDER DANCE 65.00
1__n68_26 10/08/2001Prtnted LUNBRO LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 94.66
106827 10/08/2001Prtnted LYMLUM LYMAN LUMBER LUMBER 168.20
106828 10/08/2001Prtnted MACEGU MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT FLASHER 40.19
106829 10/08/2001Prtnted MARBER HARI BERANAK REFUND-DRAGON TALES LIVE 18.00
1068~0 10/08/2001 Printed MARLIT MARK LITTFIN PAPER PRODUCTS FOR OPEN HSE 158.21
106831 10/08/2001 Printed MAROLE MARY OLEARY REFUND-KINDER DANCE 65.00
1068~2 10/08/2001 Printed MATSAA MATT S/LAN REIMBURSE EXPENSES 16.53
106813 10/08/2001 Printed MCCOL MCCOLLISTER & CO TRANSDRAULIC OIL/5W-30 1,294.11
106834 10/08/2001 Printed MCNSTE MCNEILUS STEEL INC MISC STEEL FOR REPAIR 523.83
106835 10/08/2001Prfnted METATH METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 3 CASES OF COLD PACKS 109.43
106836 10/08/2001 Printed METCO METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, ENV SVCS SAC-AUGUST 21,631.50
10(~37 10/08/2001 Printed METFOR METROPOLITAN FORD KEYS 110.45
106858 10/08/2001 Printed MISCHL MIKE SCHLANGEN ESCROW REFUNDS-BLVD,EROSION 2,600.00
106839 10/08/2001 Printed MZNNEG MXNNEGASCO-RELIANT ENERGY GAS CHARGES 331.02
106840 10/08/2001 Printed MINI~AT MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES BLUFF CREEK NATIVE VEGATATION 1,740.00
1068~1 10/08/2001 Printed #RPA MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. FALL LEAGUE 125.00
106842 10/08/2001 Printed MRPA MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. ANNUAL CONFERENCE 775.00
106843 10/08/2001 Printed MNTREA MN STATE TREASURER SURCHARGE-AUGUST 6,014.38
106844 10/08/2001 Printed NANWOL NANCY WOLL REFUND-STRETCH CLASS 45.00
106845 10/08/2001 Printed NATBAG NATIONAL BAG PERMIT BAGS 149.57
106846 10/08/2001 Printed NORCEN NORTH CENTRAL CSPA SEMINAR-SAAH & HAAK 160.00
106847 10/08/2001 Printed NORTHE NORTHERN SUPPLIES FOR SHED 212.81
106~8 10/08/2001 Printed OFFMAX OFFICE MAX SUPPLIES 31.60
106849 10/08/2001 Printed ORITRA ORIENTAL TRADING C~PANY INC HALLONEEN PRIZES 221.55
106850 10/08/2001Prtnted PALWES PALMER WEST CONSTRUCTION REPAIR GARAGE ROOF 530.13
106851 10/08/2001Prtnted PAUEKH PAUL EKHOLM FLEX-DAYCARE 355.76
106852 10/08/2001 Printed PHIPAR PHIL PARKER UNIFORMS 107.93
10E~3 10/08/2001 Printed POHT]R POI4P[S TIRE SERVICE INC TIRES 230.04
106854 10/08/2001 Printed PRALAW PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN SPRING 6.86
105855 10/08/2001Prtnted PROSTA PRO STAFF TEHPORARY HELP 299.20
106856 10/08/2001 Printed RBNSER RBM SERVICES [NC NIGHTLY CLEANING 2,170.07
106857 10/08/2001 Printed RDHAN RD HANSON ASSOCIATES INC POPCORN 39.90
106858 10/08/2001 Printed REYWEL REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO OXYGEN 195.89
106859 10/08/2001 Printed ROARUN ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC DELIVERY CHARGES 31.20
106860 10/08/2001 Printed RONBRO RON BROWN REFUND ESCROW-RECORDING FEE 150.00
106861 10/08/2001Prtnted RWHAG RW HAGEN DIVE INSTRUCTION 200.00
106862 10/08/2001 Printed SEH SEH SPRINGFIELD PRESSURE ZONE STDY 5,159.38
10686__3 10/08/2001 Printed SHACON SHAFER CONTRACTING CO, INC ASBESTOS CLEANUP 8,015.93
106864 10/08/2001 Printed SHEWIL SHER~IN WILLIAHS SPRAY PAINT 1,558.40
106865 10/08/2001Prtnted SHOTRU SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE ELBO~IS 2.88
106866 10/08/2001 Printed SIGNSU SIGNS NmSUCH LETTERING FOR COURTYARD CON RM 18.00
106867 10/08/2001Prtnted SIMPLE SIMPLEX FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL 3,904.45
106868 10/08/2001 Printed SKISEH SKILLPATH SEHINARS SEHINAR 756.00
106869 10/08/2001Prtnted SPSCOH SPS CONPAN]ES ZNC OIL FILLED GAUGE 38.13
106870 10/08/2001 Printed STPFOR ST PETER FORD FORD RANGER 16,565,00
106871 10/08/2001 Printed STEFEN STERLING FENCE INC. CHAIN LINK FENCE 519.19
106872 10/08/2001 Printed STETOR STEVE TORELL REIMBURSE EXPENSES 111.50
106873 10/08/2001 Printed STREIC STREICHER'S BULBS 15.90
106874 10/08/2001 Printed SUEROP SUE ROPER REFUND-KINDER DANCE 65.00
Check
Date
Stetu~
:)6875 10/08/2001 Printed
l)~876 10/08/2001 Prtnted
l)6877 10/08/2001 Printed
06878 10/08/2001 Printed
I)6879 10/08/20~1 Printed
0~80 10/08/2001 Printed
0N!81 10/08/2001 Printed
06882 10/08/2001 Printed
06883 10/08/2001 Printed
~ 10/08/2001 Printed
06885 10/08/2001 Printed
0N)86 10/08/2001 Printed
__n6~8__7 10/08/~001 Printed
06888 10/08/2001 Printed
~ 10/08/2001 Printed
0~)~0 10/08/2001 Printed
0611~1 10/08/2001 Printed
Ver~]or
Nusber
TARGET
TERBUN
TOOGER
TOOHOF
TOLGA$
UNNEXT
UNIUNL
UNININ
UNININ
USFDIS
USOFF
USTOY
VERIZO
WACFNt
CHECK REGISTER REPORT
BANK: CHANHA$SEN BANK
V~r Nss~
TARGET
TERESA BURGESS
TOOD GERHARDT
TOOD HOFFNAN
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY
U OF NN EXTENSION SERVICE
UNI FOR#S UNLI#ITED
UNIVERSITY OF #INNESOTA
UNIVERSITY OF #INNESOTA
US FZLTER DZSTRZBUTZUN GROLJP
US OFFICE PROOUCT$
US TOY CO
VERIZON WIRELESS
~IACONZA FAR~ SUPPLY
WESTBUlLqE SUPPLY
IdS BARLEY & C0.
ZAR#OTH BRUSH ~
Check De~crlpt Ion
~UPPLIES
FLEX-DAYCARE
FLEX-HEALTH & DAYCARE
FLEX-HEALTH
H/IJ~ELD GLOVE
REGI STP. AT I ON-AANENSON
BOOTS/PANTS
REG I STRAT l ~- BURGESS
RF.~I STRAT ION- HAA~
CHLORINE
OFF%CE SUPPL I I-~
FIRE HATS
CELULAR PHONE CiLARGES
TRINEC
NI$C SUPPLIES
ImlRENCH$
DEFLEDrORS
TotaL Checks: 161
Total Checlm: 161
Bank TotaL:
Grand TotaL:
Date: 10/02/01
Time: 3:511x,
Page: 2
Amoult
263.05
208.33
1,153.Z6
510.~0
76.39
25.00
121.45
490.00
130.00
672.49
65.91 -
821.67
203.28
1~9.~5
3~?.19
1,2~,861 .~
1,2~,861.~
CHANHAS8~ CITY COUNCIL
WORK SF. SSION
SIbYl'EMBER ~ 2001
Mayor Jansen called the work session to order at 5'~ p.m.
STAFF ~: Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffumn, Teresa Burgess, Bruce DeJong, and Bob Oenemus
COMMUNITY b~.JRVEY ~TS, BILL MORRIS, DECI~ON RESOURCES.
Chanhassen compares to other cities. After taking the tax i .mpact elen~nt out of the survey ~, be
outlined the following trends:
(~)
Co)
(c)
(d)
Development
Euvimnment
Web site presence and on-line access
Park and Recreation-
The two major items that residents wanted to see in the co~muni~ were an indoor swimming po01 and
community center. Families with young children and seniors alike expressed interest in a swimming
pool. A community cenlm' should contain such things as a swimming pool and senior facility. Mr.
Morris stated that now was a good time to begin discussions with the public about what additi~l
facilities they would want completed in such a facility.
Mr. Morris stated that people who felt negative about the city were generally people who were against
the high taxes. A number of people felt the TIF finan~ issue was a "time bomb" d~mding on what
number of people who knew about the TIF situation in Cimnhasse~ Mayor Jans~n stated ~ ~ been
a negative article about the City of Chanhassen's TIF si~Ation that ran in the Star Tn'bune about the
same time the survey was taking place, Mr. Morris stated that people felt it would be okay to use TIF
money for a "nice sit down restatuanf'. Cotmcilman Boyle asked for an example of a nice sit down
restamanL
Mr. Moo'is cited examples such as a steakhouse or high end ethnic restatwant. Not a ~ bar
restauranL
Mr. Morris stated that life cycle housing was also a major con~ in the commnnity. The need for low
end, starter housing and affordable senior housing. There was some suppcat for more apartments but
mostly starter homes that young fsmilies could affc~xl.
City Council Work Session - September 24, 2001
Environment.
The results for construction of a water treatment plant were 44% in favor and 43% opposed. About 10%
stated they would shift out of the opposed category if a water treatment plant could remove mst and
manganese. As far as a tiered water rate structure. 51% were in favor and 39% opposed.
Web Site Presence and On-line Access.
Bill Morris stated that the City of Chanhassen has the largest percentage of people they've ever surveyed
having and using computers in their homes. He suggested that the city use this information to consider
providing services such as recreation program registration on line. Resident wanted more general
information provided, everything from the history of Chanhassen, demographic information and city
events. He also urged doing more of an electronic version of the city newsletter as opposed to paper.
In closing Mr. Morris raised a couple of questions. He mentioned that Precincts 1 and 3 were almost
completely opposite in their view of the city. Staff and commission members stated reasons for the
disparity might stem from the Highway 101 issue and the last campaign, Minnetonka School District
versus Chaska School District, and the difference in one precinct being an older, established urban
neighborhood as opposed to the other being a new, more rural neighborhood.
The'second concern was related to the city's newsletter. He stated that those people who said they read
and rely on the newsletter responded negatively toward it. Mr. Morris suggested looking at revising the
format and content. He stated that this was the first time he's seen a newsletter being viewed as negative
rather than positive. Kate Aanenson asked which cities had positive responses for their newsletters.
Mayor Jansen asked that Mr. Morris forward a list of those cities to the city manager.
EDA STRU~.
The City Council discussed whether to change the make-up of the Economic Development Authority
(El)A) and whether to form a task force to provide recommendations to the FDA. After discussion
Roger Knutson was directed to write a resolution that the FDA consist of the City Council members with
Jim Bohn serving until his term expires. Mayor Jansen asked that the staff poll other communities on the
make-up and duties of an task force to the EDA.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session at 6:55 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCn.MgMB~ ~: Mayor.lansen, Counen-~- Labatt, Coundlman Ayotte,
Counciln~n Boyle, and Councilman ~
STAFF PRF~ENT: Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Todd Hoffman, Kate Am~emsc~, Bob ~,.
and Bruce De.long
PIJ'BLIC PRF~ENT l~R ALL ITEM~:
~anet Paulsea
Debbie Lloyd
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 I. aredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEM1Oq~:
Mayor Jansen: Cnxxl evening and thank you for joining us. I have to commen~ this is the first meeting
that we have had since the tragedy of last Tuesday and I have to tell you that I have thought frequently
about how significant I now feel it is that we do say the Pledge of Allegiance before every meeting. I've
thought about our school kids and just how much this is driving home that sense of patriotism and the .
nation and I'm sure all of us are feeling that sense this evenin~ as we say the Pledge and we realize the
significance of what we're all doing here. It really brings things to light and brings things home and I
certainly hope and want to communicat~ to the community that Chanhassen does have an emergeocy
management plan. We have an ~ command center. We'have a wonderful personnel in our
volunteer fire departmeot. Always on call. Here to serve our needs. In the event of an eme~mlcy,
there's a plan in place coordinated with the county. We are in good h~d~. There have been steps and
measures taken to make sure that our resources are well protrcted and the communi~ is in touch with
FEMA and the St~_te and we are certainly in good hands. So I do want'the conmmni~ to be aware that
there is a plan like that in place and ready to be implemented at the first sign of any sort of an eanexge~cy.
Whether it be a local emergency or national like what we are experiencing curremly and caga'tainly our
hearts go out to all those that were touched by this event. We'H go ahead with the agenda.
CON~ENT AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's m:mmnend~m:
Re~lution #2001-60: Approve Consultant Work Order and Authorize Prepanttion of Feasibility
Study for 2002 Residential Street T .m!n~vement, Project 01-10.
bi
Approve Consultant Work Order and Authorize Preparation of Feasi~ for Lift Station #10
Improve, Project 01-11.
c. Approve Variance Requests for Sump Pump Ordinance, Project 96-21.
al
Resolution #2001-61: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Centm-y Boulevard Street and Utility
Improvements, Project 97-1C.
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
e. Approve Contract for Sewer Televising.
Approve Conditional Use Permit Request for Development with the Bluff Creek Overlay District
and Variances to Allow Construction of a 1,640 sq. ft. Garage/Pole Barn; 9201 Audubon Road,
Eric Theship-Rosales.
gt
Approve Interim Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit to Grade Property in the Bluff Creek
Overlay District within Arboretum Business Park; Located in the Southeast Quadrant of TH 41
and TH 5, Steiner Development.
h. Approve Settlement Agreement, Frank Fox Property.
j. Approval of Bills.
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 10, 2001
- City Council Minutes dated September 10, 2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated August 21, 2001
- Planning Commission Minutes dated September 4, 2001
- Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 24, 2001
Approve Amendment to Development Contract for Powers Ridge Apartment Homes, Project 00-
04.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Robb Vaules: Good evening Mayor Jansen and council members. My name is Robb Vaules at 8796
North Bay Drive in Chanhassen. I'm the Treasurer and spokesman for the North Bay Homeowners
Association. Tonight I'm accompanied by my fellow board members and residents of North Bay. Once
again we come before the council to voice our concerns about safety in regards to our neighbors in the
Lakeview Apartments. While there have been some improvement in the situation, we're still concerned
with the long term situation with this property. We know that there are good tenants in Lakeview and we
believe that a stronger stance on safety will not only benefit the North Bay owners, but those good law
abiding tenants in Lakeview and in the city of Chanhassen as a whole. It is not fair to the residents of
Chanhassen, all residents of Chanhassen, that the city has to crack down on the Lakeview ownership for
violations that those owners know are violations. It is a privilege to do business in Chanhassen, not
necessarily a fight. In fact we believe that most tenants of the Lakeview Apartments are fearful of
repercussions from ownership if they make any complaints in the first place. The amount of low cost
housing is so scarce in the metro area that some residents would rather look the other way than instead of
risk their status of residency. In addressing these issues we realize this is the beginning of the process of
city actions and ordinances. I have read most of the report that Kate Aanenson prepared for the City
Council, Housing Maintenance and Licensing of Rental Property and I will limit my comments to a few
issues. The North Bay Homeowners Association is well aware that the Lakeview Apartments are not
going anywhere anytime soon. We are taking the position that this is a safety issue and we are here not
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
just representing the interests of North Bay Homeowners Association but we feel the safety concerns of
all Chanhassen residents, including those of the residents at the Lakeview A~. To that point we
ask that you focus in the near term on developing codes related to multi unit rental housing market. In
reading Kate Aanenson's executive summary within the memo to council she asks an excellent question.
Should a maintenance ordinance include all ~ or just rental ~? We strongly support a
broad line of codes protecting all types of property owners, including rental, business and homeowners.
Specifically in regards to issues related to rental properties, the North Bay Homeowners Association
supports implementation of a program similar to one that Woodbury, Minnesota haz enacte.~. Finally on
a personal note, I was born and raised in Phoenix, Arizona and at one time managed a 212 unit apartment
complex there. I'm well aware of the difficulties managing a multi unit housing complex poses. If any
ordinances are enacted I ask you give the managers and the tenants of these pmpe~es the teeth to get the
· owners to adhere to the city code alld not have to depelld on the ~ of the ownorship to get. thin~rs .done.
I would also like to mention to the council and Ms. Aaneuson that Phoenix has an excellent set of
ordinances that speak broadly to the issues Chanhassen has started to address. I would recommend you
to check out Chapter 39 of the Phoenix City Code entitled Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance that's
available on multicode.con~ While I fully reali~e the differences between Phoenix and Chanhassen,
having been a resident of both, I do believe it provides an excellent framework for developing ordinances
for Chanlmssen. Mayor Jansen, councilmen, thank you for your time and if we can offer any assistance
please feel free to contact us. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. We are addressing that issue under the unfinished business
section of our agenda. Number 4. The discussion of the issue paper that was put together by Kate
Aanenson so if you don't mind we'll address some of the things that you brought up at that time.
Appreciate your speaking. Anyone else who would like to address the council at this time? Seeing no
one, we'll move on on the agenda.
LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE: JOHN WOLFF~ FIRE CHI~g.
John Wolff.' Good evening Mayor Jansen and council members. It's been a few months since I've
addressed the group and it's my pleasure to be here tonight. I'd like to just make a few remarks about the
business of the fire department and then comment a little bit about the September 11~ tragedy and our
response to that. I just want to report that our staffing is at full capacity, and that's a pretty positive
comment to make in light of the fact that we continue to experience between 10 and 15% turnover on an
annual basis. We've got a recruiting program and a hiring program and a training program in place to
respond to those important issues. We've been very busy this year. On a year to date basis we're at a
historical record high. About 10% higher from a call volume ~ve than any prior year. Been busy
both in our town with a variety of different types of calls ranging from near drowning incidents,
drowning incidents, numerous medical and car accidents and structure fn'es. But also very, very busy
with supporting our neighbors. We've been working with the council and our city.manager over the
years are pleased to announce that we've been working closely with the Ridgeview Paramedics and they
for years have been located out at our west station, which is about a 10 minute response time to 80 to
90% of our population and working closely with City Council put together a program last year and a
proposal and the city agreed to o_da_ on a bay to the new parks department building out at Lake Ann. And
we now have our Ridgeview paramedics as of last week located in the downtown area which I think will
be a real benefit to our citizens in terms of getting advance life support paramedics on scene much, much
quicker than historical. Been also involved with the county doing some planning work around the new
radio system that's rolling out and the police are going to get this system late 2002 and the fire
depamnents are scheduled to get them in 2003. The i ,mpact on us is going to be training i ,mpact and a
financial impact and we've talked to that through our capital planning and so forth but just kind of a
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
reminder for this group and maybe some new information for some of the newer council folks. Looking
at somewhere around 80 to $100,000 in fiscal 2003, at the latest early 2004 and something just to keep
our eye on. September 11t~ was a tragic day for us'all and appreciate your comments Mayor. It certainly
hit the fire service across the country very dramatically and within a couple of days there was a lot of
discussion about sending fire fighters to New York to help and the official response from New York and
FEMA was we don't need fire fighters here. We've got a lot of volunteers and New York has 13,000 fire'
fighters. Granted we lost 300. We don't need anybody to come out and help and although the media and
the press certainly like to make a story out of folks that ran out there to help, kind of within the chiefs
association nationally and within some FEMA information we were receiving directly from the New
York City web site, the information we got was they didn't need our help from a manpower perspective
but the fire department was very much interested in doing something and we came up with the concept or
the idea of raising money so on a volunteer basis the members of the fire department have been collecting
money for the families. For the surviving family members of the New York fire fighters and other rescue
workers and police folks that lost their lives in the tragic incident. It's been an amazing response on the
part of our community. In 8 short days we've been averaging about $5,000 a day. It's really incredible.
We've never seen anything like it. The process of collecting these funds has been I think very
therapeutic for the people involved because people in the community have come up and they've extended
themselves in a very positive way. But I also see that it's been very therapeutic for the community too.
Giving them a hands on opportunity to reach out to New York and to really just talk to some people that
maybe can understand that so I guess I've been very pleased with the fire department response, the
community response. Just so you're on board with where we're coming from. Fire Prevention Week
ends October 14'h with our Open House and we will collect funds through that date and then at that point'
we will, you know collect the money and send a check out to the folks in New York City so that's sort of
our plan for that. If there are any questions on that I'd be happy to take that.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you for your efforts and for your actions, pulling together and putting an effort
forward like that. I was receiving feedback on your efforts as early as the Monday and Tuesday after you
had begun to, I believe you were out at Byerly's and was it Festival?
John Wolff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: I didn't know exactly how many locations but the fact that your group so instantly
wanted to respond and react to the needs of your fellow fire fighters certainly didn't surprise me but it
certainly made me proud of the members of Chanhassen and our volunteers. That they stepped up just so
quickly and jumped in to be of help. And I know how close you are to all of your comrades and of
course on a national basis and how touched you've been so I commend you and I'm sure the rest of
council commends you for taking that action. Also then on a more administrative level, coordinating
with our finance director and the city manager to be sure that we're handling that appropriately.
John Wolff'. Thank you for your comments and I think our emotional kind of energy maybe got a little
ahead of some planning that we needed to do but fommately we did have our ducks lined up relative to
making sure the funds would remain tax deductible and when we connected with the city folks on
Monday, they seemed to be comfortable with how we had set the accounting up for that. You made some
comments early in your opening remarks about preparedness and you know back when '93 when the first
incident occurred at the World Trade Center, it obviously caught some folks attention at FEMA and over
the years there' s been some quiet but really aggressive training in the area of terrorism training around
the fire service and we've done a number of exercises with a local military group called the 55"' Civil
Support Group. Throughout the country at every major metropolitan area the army has a group of folks
there that are available to assist if there' s any kind of terrorism event. And there' s the classic events that
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
they're preparing us for are the ones around chemical and biological hazards' and Chanhassen has the
training to act as first responders in that event with those folks. Our scheduled training for last Monday
was something different than what we ended up doing, but what we ended up doing was just doing a 2
hour refresher of some work that we had done earlier in the year. We just thought it was timely and
appropriate given somewhat relative uncerudnty of the environnm~t we're in. So Chanhassen Fue is
definitely prepared to respond to an incident like that. I'm sure if Sergeant Ports was here-be could
comment about the prevention work that they're doing around managing that because I know there's a
number of new shifts going on in that vein so, if there's any questions I'd be happy to field those relative
to my presentation tonight. Otherwise thanks for the oppommity.
Mayor Jansen: Council, comments? Questions?
Councilman Peterson: John, you may want to 'take this oppommity to walk through the mechanics of
how people here or out in the viewing audience may want to offer support too fman~y. Who do yOU
write the check out to and who do you get it to?
John Wolff: Thank you. Appreciate that. We have set up an account with the Americana Bank. It's the
NYFD Survivors Relief Fund and you can direct that in care of Amefi~ Bank, Box 790, and that's
Chanhassen Zip Code 55317. Fire fighters will be at Byerly's and Festival lunches and dinners, pretty
much through the first week of October and weekends during the day. And we also have collection cans
in about 15 to 20 businesses that are locally owned, locally managed for the most part so appreciate that.
Appreciate really all the sup/x~ we've gotten from the commmfi.'ty.
Mayor Jansen: Well thank you. I just have to tell you that there's a great deal of peace of mind, being a
community leader and I'm sure everyone got a few phone calls from concerned residents as to you know,
what would the city do if and it' s reassuring to be able to say that we have' a'fire fighting force as well as
the Carver County Sheriff's Depamnent ready to respond and that we do have that plan in place. It
probably could receive a little bit more exposure right now as far as maybe letting the community know
and I believe Mark Littfin in fact has been invited to speak at the Rotary Club for one of their ~ to
share that plan and that preparedness. But I think you should be quite proud of how ready and p~'pared'
you are, and especially your personnel and we appreciate them.
John Wolff: Well thank you for your comments.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for being here tonight.
AWARD OF BraS: AWARD CONTRA/~'r FOR QUINN ROAD SEWER'PRO~.
Teresa Burgess: Thank you M_~d~m Mayor. I apologize for the lateness of getting this bid tabulation
out to you that's coming around right now. Unfortunately this project was previously bid and rejected. It
was rejected on August 21" and in order to get thi~ back on as soon as possible, we did choose to open
bids on Thursday knowing that that would mean that the council would not see bid tabs until tonight. If
you look at the bid tab that was just handed around, the low bid was Design Excavation at $22,427.00.
That's 4.5% higher than the adjusted engineers estimate. The engineer's estima~ was adjusted baaed on
the bids we received previously. It is common for bids to be higher the second time around. Bidders do
that for a couple of reasons. There's an added concern about the project being bid. It also makes them
nervous that there must be something wrong with the plans, so it is common for projects to be higher the
second time around. Also there was a missing bid item on the first time around which also accoun~ for
some increase in the bid prices. WSB has reviewing the bids and have tabulated it and checked the
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
accuracy of the mathematics and they are recommending award to Design Excavation. We have checked
their references and concur with WSB's recommendation and are requesting that the council award the
project this evening so we can begin construction as soon as possible. If there's any questions I'll be
happy to answer those.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you Teresa. This project you had noted is 100% assessed, correct?
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: And you also noted it's necessary to address the failing septic system which is why
you're moving it ahead so quickly. ,
Teresa Burgess: Correct. The other option, if the council chooses not to award this project would be to
cancel the project and authorize a variance to the property that has a failing septic system to install a
revised mound system. They currently have space but they are too close to the existing city system to be
allowed by ordinance to build a new septic system. They have to connect to city sewer.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff7 Seeing none, if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Boyle: I'll make a motion we approve as indicated. As.recommended by staff.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.7
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution ~2001-62:. Councilman.Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to award the bid for
Qutnn Road Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 01-02 to Design Excavation in the amount of
$22,427.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUE PAPER - HOUSING MAINTENANCE CODE AND RENTAL
HOUSING LICENSING.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robb Vaules
Judy Severson
Cee Meister
Kent Kersten
8796 North Bay Drive
8736 North Bay Drive
174 Lakeview Road East
8731 North Bay Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Your cover sheet is an executive summary trying to just kind of frame up
issues as presented to the staff. I also tried to fie back into issues that would relate to the city's goals and
policies, and that would be the capital improvements plan, the comprehensive plan and the like so the
issues that this project relates to, certainly the comprehensive plan and the housing element, the city code
and the strategic plan. I'll just take a minute to go through some of those. In the comprehensive plan, the
housing section maintenance of existing housing stock is important and is identified as a goal. And then
also that there be code enforcement reinforcing those codes. As we heard tonight again from Decision
Resources, some of the information that was provided that the city did rank high as far as people perceive
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
that there is, how we are maintaining property. We do get compS. We follow up on those and that
they like the fact that the city does monitor. The ix~cepfion was that they appr~iate th~ fact that th~ city
is monitoring those issues. When tlxa~'s complaints, that we're on top of them. And ~gn tl~ stramgi¢
plan, the 1999 Strategic Plan also talks about in two areas. Preserving the homes and the~ also
maintaining and strengthening neighborhoods and a way to do that again would be through a
maintenance code. So again the place~ in the city that's addmss~, mak~nance would be in the city
code and the Chapter 1~, nuisances. This is fight now it's nm throu~ it corms through d~lm~nts in a
couple different areas. If it' s we~ls or that sort of thing, oitgn it go~ to ctxt~ ~tffom~n~--nt, which may be
through the sheriff's department. If it's storage of an outdoor vehicle or something that's a nuisance
vehicle, sometimes those come back over to planning so they are handed to different departme~s fight
now. Some of those issues. Staff did look at kind of framing up some questions because the complaints
that we get now certainly involve, the way it's approached is that we try to get compliance ttu~ugh
education. It starts off as a letter first informing somebody that there is a problem. For example we had
a situation last year where someone built a structure on a property that had no sewer and water, so it
takes some time in the process. Ultimately those often get turned over to the attorney's office where
ultimately we were successful without going to court to get some resolution on that. But those are easier
because there's no sewer and water and it's clearly a violation of city code. Sometimes where it's in the
gray area would be, just deterioration. Maybe a neighbor calls and complains that their neighbom
shingles, maybe some are missing. Maybe there's some siding off. Now that falls into the gray area of
maintenance. It's not identified in the building code. What they have adopted right now. Nor is it in
about nuisance ordinance or something that the city staff could, so some of those issues is maybe an '
irritant to the neighbor. Those aren't necessarily something that we would definitely follow up on~ And
·
also adding to that, generally most of the complaints that are handled are issues that are resolved. On a
complaint basis. A neighbor complaints that there's a problem and that's how they're picked up on. So
the question that the staff looked at is, in looking at property and maintenance, should it include just
rental property or should it be a broader scope in'looking at property city wide. And certainly there's
some merit to going city wide when we've got again going back to Decision Reso~, investment in the
community and maintaining that investment. Not only in the residential section but certainly in the
business section too. That people, when they come in and we requi~ a landscape escrow and they have
to maintain it for 2 years. What happens after that point? Again, we do send letters when we know
there's significant deterioration. Maybe there's been a problem with additional salt put on in parking lots.
and they've lost a lot of trees. Generally we've had pretty good compliance when we follow up on that
but I think some of these, if it's more strength or teeth in the ordinance would be helpful for the staff to'
follow through on. So the applicant city wide, not just for housing certainly is something I think may be
appropriate. The other issue is licensing of rental properties, so there's really kind of two Irrongs. One is
maintenance, and within that how should that maintenance ordinance be applied city wide or just on
housing? And then that second one would be licensing. Right now there's a voluntary program that Beth
Hoiseth, the city's Crime Prevention Specialist runs and that's for multi-family housing. There are two
projects currently enlisted in that program. And as I pointed out in this issue paper, it's up to the
management to create the environment as Beth stated and it's a voluntary program and as far as the teeth,
that was the first approach. And as we've learned through some of the creative approaches that we've
tried in the planning department, the first approach you try to get at some of the issues. If crime or
conduct on premises and what they've been finding is this. There's some problems with that so now
there's a different approach and that would be more conduct on premise tied to a license. And some
other communities have tried that and I included that in your packet. Plymouth and the Woodbury one.
Again they're very cutting edge. New, but that may be something that you may want to try. The issue
that the staff would have with both of these programs, it's going to take a si~tynificant amount of staffing
time and as I put in here, some of the other communities that are doing this have the staff to do, to
maintain that program because it's not only a significant start up. If we're going to go through and try to
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
get, if we're looking at maintenance and if you're looking at maybe a little bit higher level on rental
property and what's going to be acceptable standards. It's going to require a significant time of
inspection and follow through and ultimately may even need some additional time over to the attorney's
office for their level of involvement. So I guess we're saying somewhere along the lines we're looking at
that level but certainly you have to put licensing in place to cover the cost of administration, and that
would be kind of a separate prong. So it would have to be some dedicated staff and some finance, some
sort of licensing fee again to cover that cost. The other issue would be in developing these ordinances, in
looking at the city currently, if you go to the building code there's a level that we haven't adopted of the
building code that covers specifically maintenance which we can certainly adopt. Depending on where it
goes in the code, it may not require a public hearing but certainly if you're going to do the licensing pan,
which is significant impact to those property owners, I think that level of discussion would take some
time to develop that portion of the ordinance and spend some time with those owners to get input,
feedback because again there's only a few communities that are doing the conduct on premise type
licensing as was included in here and from what I heard from the North Bay, it seems to'be that they're
receptive of kind of going that way and I think in talking to Beth Hoiseth again, the Crime Prevention
person.
Councilman Ayotte: I didn't hear that last pan Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think that's the direct Beth would like to go too. The conduct on premise.- If
that's the approach you want to go, instead of the crime free, you kind of need an additional level and
that would be, but again the point there would be that you'd have to spend some time with the people that
own property-that are renting them and get some feedback. I included in here, I did talk to Julie Frick,
Carver County HRA does own some rental property in the community. That they would support that
level in the fact that they feel it's something that when they're buying a piece of property that it's a
positive thing to say that the city will also be maintaining this. That there' s another level of control.
That they can contact someone at the local level to say there's a problem, and that does benefit her. So
again going back to kind of frame this, there' s two kind of prongs. One is the maintenance and how
you're going to administer that, and then tying back kind of a conduct which would kind of be an
umbrella tying back to the maintenance and then the licensing fee which would go with that .... that
approach, taking it that way'and then spending, we can come back with this fairly quickly. There may be
some elements ih the building code that the building inspectors, there's some things on elevators, some
other little nuances that they may not want to put in there. We'll show you what those would be, but that
could be adopted fairly quickly. The other one I'm anticipating would take a few more months because I
guess I would leave that over to Dave Ports with Carver County and to Beth to work on. Working with
the, there's some good models out there for the conduct on premise and the licensing and work with the
property owners on that. Spending a little more time to get some by, and understanding what that means.
Setting up the program and getting some feedbaeL So with that, if you have questions on some of the
things I had looked at in here, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Jansen: I guess the only one Kate that maybe you can reiterate a little bit here. I had called today,
since there was so much detail in here with some of the other ordinances, and asked if in fact all of the -
detail that the other communities had, do we get all of that if we adopt this uniform building code? And
if you want to maybe go ahead and share your answer.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Sure, I can maybe have the city attorney help too. I believe that's where
Burnsville kind of started with that, as he's indicated, and kind of moved from that. I think instead of re-
creating the wheel, again the exterior maintenance is something that we certainly want. The pan that
goes to the conduct on premise and that licensing, you may want to increase that level a bit. It gets very
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
specific and I'm not sure at what level you want to get to as far as fixun~ on the inside of rental
apartments and some of that sort of thing so I mean the exterior one will be very easy to come forward.
don't know if you have anything you wanted to add to that Roger.
Roger Knutson: Some communities, if I remember right Burnsville's one of them, adopted the UBC
provisions but what they did.
Mayor Jansen: For the rookies if you would, Uniform Building Code.
Roger Knutson: The black book fight there. That black book. But rather than just say we adopt it by
reference subject to the following changes, they've put it all in an ordinance just for the convenience of
here it is rather than trying to find the manual. But there's a pric~ tag to that and that' s a decision you
can make as to physically how you want to do it. But there's an awful lot of detail on there. .- -.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that's why we would, if that was the way to go, we'd come back to you
and say that but I think if we can exempt the parts that may not be their level of detail that we want to
include to expedite that.
Mayor lansen: Okay. Council, questions for staff. Comments?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Would you like to pull your microphone forward please so that we can catch your
comments. Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah I'm sorry. What I have heard the community say specifically North Bay but
others is that there's an issue with conduct and what I haven't seen here, and I've read it just once so I
may have missed some detail on it, the consequences for not adhering to certain conduct. So to me
passing an ordinance can only be positive if there is the ability to enforce an ordinance and deal with the
folks who are not adhering to the ordinance. Right now we have a chronic problem, and have had history
where behavior hasn't ctum~ because the consequences were either nominal, not severe enough, or our
inability to enforce. That's my view so what I'm asking is whether or not there's a way of doing that.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, that's what I said. There's two that they're basically Written, one of them by this
city attorney for the City of Plymouth and that is included in your packet and I'll let Roger.
Mayor Jansen: You might want to pull the microphone just a.little closer.
Kate Aanenson:' And that is the Plymouth one which is conduct on premise. And that specificatly says
the two strike rule. And I'll let Roger comment on it since he dm_fred it.
Roger Knutson: And I pirated it from someone else so. Plymouth and Minneapolis and I'm sure a
number of other conununifies do have a provision in their ordinances that say certain conduct occurs on a
repetitive basis, we can pull your license. We can suspend your license. We can take action against your
license if these bad things happen and continue to happen. And what the ordinance does is list the types,
it lists specifically what kind of bad conduct we're interested in and it puts out a process that says first
you get, I believe it's three strikes. We send you a letter to put you on notice. Here is strike one. The we
put you on notice that strike two and the third time you're in front of the City Council fighting for your
license or not successfully or unsuccess~y. And there's real clout there and when Plymouth went
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
through this, they went through quite a long process taking many, many months and they invited in
landlord groups, tenant groups, and their lobbyists or associations that are affiliated with, and on the
night we adopted it I remember it was remarkable, after going through several drafts and everyone
coming to a consensus, only two people showed up and they were representing the landlords. Landlord
groups and they said please adopt this. This will help us.
Mayor Jansen: That's wonderful feedback. Thank you for sharing that and council so that you're
familiar in your packets with that information, it is the second city ordinance that's included in your
packets. Minnetonka and then the Plymouth ordinance is right behind that and it's on page 2 of that
Plymouth ordinance that Roger was just quoting the three strike provision. So in tonight's motion and
direction to staff, what Kate was sharing with us is that it's really a two issue direction. One being on the
maintenance, and that would, as Kate's terming it, the external issues. And then the conduct on premises
would be the second direction that we would be giving and that would in fact then more encompass
putting teeth in the crime free multi-housing program that council put into place just a year ago. So we
did start trying to address this on a voluntary basis which is what we've now found to be something that
maybe we do need to add these teeth to as Kate was reflecting the feedback has been from Beth Hoiseth,
our Crime Prevention Officer. So this would be taking that to that second level and looking at an
ordinance like Plymouth' s, because it is cutting edge. We would be one of the first communities out
there with an ordinance like this to help maintain our properties and address some of these safety issues.
So getting down into the detail of the issue of what safety issues we're addressing, the recommendation
from staff is that there be the public input as a part of that process. So that all parties involved in that
action would have the opportunity to address and work through all of those issues and make sure that
they're being addressed within the ordinance specifically so there would be a lot of involvement in
getting that drafted. But the exterior or the housing maintenance could come forward more quickly and
be put into place. And from what I was noting of our visitor presentation comments, it is consistent with
the recommendation that staff and our manager have made and that's that our maintenance code address
all properties in Chanhassen as well as then moving forward on these safety issues and making those a
part of this conduct on premises. And you would certainly then have that opportunity to participate in
that process as you have been with us all along and we do appreciate it. And the fact that you are staying
in touch and expressing the needs. We also, just maybe as a side bar, realizing you're addressing the
specific issue, we did receive a memo as a part of our correspondence this evening that shows that the
property owner is working very closely with staff trying to address some of the issues that have been
raised on that particular property and it's a 17 bullet point memo of things that are being addressed. But I
realize that some of your key concerns would be more focused on this conduct on premises, not
necessarily maintenance. So we certainly recognize that. Other comments from council? Gary?
Councilman Boyle: No, I concur with the manager's recommendations. Obviously when it comes down
to adding people in today's environment it would have to look at that pretty close.
Mayor Jansen: Steve?
Councilman Labatt: I have a question for Roger first. On this inspection sheet you gave us, can you help
me, as you look at like Chaska here.
Roger Knutson: I didn't give this to you by the way.
Councilman Labatt: You have Chaska here, they have a fee...per unit and that's on an annual basis.
10
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Roger Knutson: So you know on inspections, one of the things you can decide is that, and this idea has
been tossed around in various places. Whether for example, and I won't answer the questiom I'll just
pose it. Whether buildings constructed prior to a cormin date should be inspected annually and cem~
buildings constructed after a certain date, the new stuff, only needs to be inspectS, every other year,
whatever periodic time you think is appropriate. The thought being that the older buildings are more
likely to have problems, maybe. Intuitively that's true. And so you can reduce costs and inspections and
you could for example you could say any building that's constructed, and I'll just make this up, in 19
blank, only gets a 2 year license. Or a 3 year license or whatever and so you would have less staff time
invested on inspecting the buildings where you would expect to see fewer problems.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. And Kate I would assume that on that sort of de, taft as we give you
direction to move forward on each of these issues, yourself working with Mr. Gerhardt, would be coming
up with a fee schedule and potential costs as well as the proposed ordinances.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. We have to make the fee appropriate for the work that we would expect, and
Gary asked a good question. I know we've got to make the two match so ~y we're brining on this
last year 350 more apartment buildings. Is it prudent to be inspecting those on an annual basis? Probably
not. So certainly we would structure that where we're being efficient and putting our resources where
they need to be.
Mayor Jansen: So that would be part of the recommendation that would come forward, thank you.
Councilman Labatt: No, I concur with Mr. Gerhardt's recommfindation.'
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other comments?
Councilman Peterson: I would agree that we would go as far as we absolutely can, both on in focusing on
the exterior, focusing on the conduct, and making this as tight as you could administrate. And do it
aggressively but just do it within proper staffing limits. And I would also do it with existing homes and
commercial properties too as noted earlier.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Since we do have interested members in the audience, if you would care to make
further conunent. I know you shared your comments with us in visitor presentations, is there anything
else you'd care to share? Okay, thank you again for being here. Appreciate it. Okay, with that can I
have a, do you need a motion in order to?
Kate Aanenson: There's not an action item...
Mayor Jansen: Know how you want to move forward7
Kate Aanenson: ...from where you'd like to go and we'll bring back the exterior maintenance as soon as
we cain.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So I'm hearing everyone with a consensus around your recordations, great.
Alright, thank you.
CONSIDER AMENDMRNT TO CITY CODE CHAFrER 20~ INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN
REVIEW~ PUD~ AND HIGHWAY 50VERI.&Y SECTIONS; REGARDING USE OF
MATERIALg AND DESIGN (DESIGN STANDARDS).
11
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The design standards begin, the discussion began about 2 years ago and
we're talking about existing industrial and commercial. The council considered raising the standard and
the discussion of brick or better came up and that was kind of the beginning of looking at design
standards and how they're applied, because we have PUD's. We have the Highway 5 overlay district and
sometimes there's different standards even within those. So we began that discussion and then we had
Office Max come in and it was all brick and we all gnashed our teeth because it didn't, kind of even
though it was all brick come in exactly how we wanted it to. It still looked like a box. So we spent some
time going back and looking at this process. Again going back to the issue paper which I did include in
your packet. Again the issue paper discussed the history of design review. What it is. How the city
currently regulates it. As I explained already, we do, the PUD that has different standards and the
Highway 5, then also our city code book also discusses architectural standards. So we also I included in
the issue paper comparing ourselves to what other communities do and obvi0~.tsly cities that have
historical significant sometimes have a specific flavor or character they're trying to maintain and they
have an ordinance for that. For example Sfillwater, Wayzata, where they're trying to maintain a certain
character. So with that you gave the staff some direction and we charged off and met with the Planning
Commission over the last few years and worked to develop an ordinance that addressed the following
things. Specifically how to amend the ordinance and what should be included in the ordinance, so based
on the fact that we decided that brick or better may not always solve the problem, we decided that we
wanted to apply the ordinance city wide. The discussion of when 212 comes in, are we going to have
those same level of standards down there and what's happening, so the first goal was that we probably
wanted to apply it city wide and include all industrial, office and institutional and commercial uses:
Therefore kind of made the Highway 5 standards, the entire standards for the entire community. Now
this wouldn't, this ordinance doesn't take away from the existing PUD standards. Those are still in
place. Those are specific roles for those projects. But what we addressed was kind of the standards, as
outlined in the proposed ordinance and that talked about architectural style and building character,
looking at size and placement of buildings. We talked about orientation. How they're sitting on the lot.
Entries. Giving a sense of place. These are some of the same things, discussion we've been talking
about with the library even. You know how it's placed on the lot. A lot of discussion and movement
even with that building. Materials and details of those materials. Color of the buildings. Height and
roof design. Facade transparencies and windows. Site furnishings. Loading areas. Landscaping, lot
frontage and then again orientation from Highway 5 still remains the same because that's again the look
of the community as you go through, so we have specific Highway 5 standards that will remain intact.
So we've been using this as we've been developing this ordinance, some of the projects have come in.
We've actually used this standard now for example when Chapel Hill came in, placement and orientation
of that older part of town. We felt that had a strong character already so we did reco .mrnertd variances
and actually pushing Chapel Hill closer to the street to give that flavor of the old town, kind of matching
what was happening there. So while this hadn't been adopted, we were kind of using this a some of the
basis on where we were going with the ordinance so we did recommend approval of the variance and the
Planning Commission and the Council did agree with that. So again we have been kind of moving in this
direction for some of the applications. So with that, what we see with this ordinance being adopted, we
also intend to put together, there are color pictures. I think at one point you got the color copies of that.
We're going to embellish that with a few more pictures. Give examples so people aren't kind of hitting
them with the words and also with pictures emphasizing that. We are recommending adoption of the
proposed ordinance and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Jansen: Kate, the one thing that I've noticed at least over what's probably been at least the last 9
months, if not longer, as you've been working on these design standards and we've had problems come
forward, staff has commented I think on every proposal that it in fact would meet the new design
12
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
standards were they in place. So it' s hopefully not as if we are in fact making things tougher but you're
more so documenting the level that you've been expecting in development.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. We've even given applicants recently dra~ that you'll be seeing here
that are in place right now that are kind of moving this direction so yes we have been using those.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff council?
Councilman Boyle: I have no questions.
Mayor Jansen: No questions? Okay. Well Vemelle, you haven't visited us in a while and I'm sure that
this is why you're sitting in our audience. Thank you for joining us.
Vernelle Clayton: Thank you for inviting me and I am here for Culver's too so I'm a little bit legitimate.
Yes I do want to talk to you about this. I have been involved here for a long ~ and almost brought
along my board from back in about 1995 or 1996 that I put together the last time this concept was before
the council. At that time, as Kate alluded to, the primary thought was should we try to have everybody
build brick buildings here in town. And so to that end I had put together a little board and I almost threw
it away the first of the year when I cleaned out my desk and office or whatever, but for some reason it
didn't get thrown away, and it really was showing how the charm in our community c~me about by virtue
of the fact that we had a variety of materials. And I'll get back to that point in a little bit when I go
through it chronologically. But wiser heads I think prevailed at that time and there was'no ordinance
adopted. Not wiser than your's but wiser than could have been is what I meant to say. Good grief...
Mayor Jansen: Nice save.
Vernelle Clayton: I won't go through my memo'and partly because I'm so ashamed of all the typo's in
there that I don't want to myself face it but I hope that you might have gotten the gist of it and so I won't
belabor those points. I do want to point out that there were 2 of us that responded, Charlie lames and I
and I think Charlie suggested an interesting alternative, but I would like to say that we both basically
underline our comments with the same general theme. That we probably have more confidence frankly
in architects and the owners of land necessarily than in staff or council folks or planning commission
members in designing buildings. And that has worked very well for Chanhassen. It's worked very well
in the past because so often in the past we gave TIF or we created PUD's and so there could be a trade-
off. In other words when the landowner had to give somethin~ up, he got something in return. In this
instance you're asking all the future landowners to give so~ing up without necessarily being able to
get anything in return. Now the same thing can occur, this just occurred to me as Kate was talking, that
when people ask for a variance you can also extract some things from them and they get something in
return. But it kind of goes against both Charlie's and my grain I think to have so many restrictions on
landowners. Taking away yet another freedom. I think just lately all of us have come to the conclusion
that we're for, if there's a very good reason we're more than willing to give up our freedoms. I also read
from time to time in articles, as I'm sure you do, that while we're so aware of the freedoms that are taken
away from us at the national level, in fact more freedoms are taken away at the local level. And I think
this falls in that category. I don't think that necessarily the plans, the ordinance that might be proposed,
the specifics necessarily will get us where we want to be. If, and I struggle with this. I've thought and
I've asked some of you, where did this idea come from at this time and I guess I know now it csrne from,
it's been around for a while. It came from one of the prior councils. But then thought more reasonable
question to ask probably is what real purpose is it going to serve for Chanhassen given the fact that we
have a lot of tools already to hnpose regulations and design criteria and given also the fact that we are so
13
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
nearly fully developed also because it's attempting to cover such a broad range of types of buildings,
types and sizes and locations of buildings. I guess in my memo I mentioned that folks, municipalities,
counties, governmental units will adopt these standards when they're trying to preserve something
specific and something that's fairly well defined. Some of the references that were handed out for
Northfield, Chaska for example, they know exactly what they're trying to define. An old town character.
We, as I mentioned, we have character here but we haven't first defined the character that we're trying to
protect and then adopted our design standards to that character. So I think that step has been taken and
probably should be studied. As I go through here, you'll see that I will talk about some of the specific
standards that were suggested, but what I really want is not at all so I want to make that perfectly clear.
We have a lot of tools in place already. I think at the beginning of this report was probably the most
interesting, the most enlightening portion. The portion where various quotes from various well qualified
and articulate folks explained the difference between design standards and, or design review and
aesthetic control. I think then we went on and went let's take a, took a gigantic leap into aesthetic control
when in fact when we're trying to label it is design standards. Thank you Kate. Countless ugly brick
buildings can be found throughout the country and I would submit one or two in Chanhassen possibly.
The part that I guess I don't want to take so much time but it says that our cities have a long way to go
before it's appropriate to use the great work standard of architectural review for everything. Several
other interesting comments and the one that I guess I want to use as sort of springboard here and going
into the specific designs is the one that refers to superficial characteristics of buildings such as materials
and colors. It says and indeed design review has acquired a negative image in some courts due to
ordinances and reviews that dwell on superficial characteristics of buildings. This is the wallpaper
approach to design review. Just make it pretty and does not address more fundamental issues. And so as
I suggested in the first Planning Commission, and you know I'm going out of my way to make myself
popular here, I realize that, but I think then we immediately went onto do some explaining how we would
do wallpapering. I have some other points on the process it says in a few cases. This is the question I
have that I want you to think about is what happens to buildings that are already in place, if these
standards were adopted. I mentioned what might happen to folks that might be considering coming in my
memo, and I'm talking about the folks that are already here. It says on page 12, paragraph 1, make
existing buildings on buildings non-conforming, which at some point in the future if they removed it
would be rebuilt with higher quality materials. And then it listed as an advantage, or disadvantage, give
the community or structures a homogeneous appearance which later on is listed as an advantage. I think
it is, would be a disadvantage because we would have much more monotony in buildings is everyone had
to try to adapt these standards. Then it goes on under advantage, it says under leave design standards as
is and expand the Highway 5 Overlay District requirements city wide and it lists an advantage, new
ordinance to be used to require improvements with existing uses as they expand or rebuild. Later on it
says that wouldn't be the case. I'm sure that if, not sure because of the apathy that I'-m so familiar with
but I have a feeling that if all the building owners here in town currently knew that this was going to be
applied to them if they renovated, there would be more people here. And I think at this point one of the '
reasons more people didn't respond is because most owners have not land around Chanhassen, have not
had the experience that Charlie and I have, and so really don't understand what this means to them in
their right to choose the type of design that they want, or in the costs that might be attributed to that. I
guess I should add as a comment here, for what it's worth under the disadvantage of having a design
review committee. I believe it was, and that would be the case if there was an architectural review
committee or an architect retained by the city. Add to that another disadvantage that would tend to
reflect the likes and dislikes of the committee only. Or the architect only and so forth. That does occur
but anyone, even architects have previous...for certain types of design. The conflict that I was referring
to occurs on, under Section 20.1061 and 20.62. District applications. The second bullet from the top
says that it would apply to single family residential lots are exempt fi'om design standards. The design
standards with the following exceptions. Replace or repair of existing materials. So I don't, that relates
14
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
to single family I guess but that doesn't apply that replacement or repair of existing materials might be...
Let me go and just pinpoint a few things. I just would like to ask, and I've seen this before but under
Section 20.64. 20-1064 it says in addition provisions for washing and cleaning buildings shall be
included in the design. I've seen that pop up before and none of the buildings that I've ever been
involved with have any provision for washing or cleaning and I don't understand why we would be
washing buildings.
Kate Aanenson: Can you tell me where you're reading that from.
Councilman Labatt: Page 3.
Mayor Jansen: Page 3.
Vemelle Clayton: Page 3.
Councilman Labatt: Section 20-1064.
Vemelle Clayton: Section 20-1064, Size, Portion and Placement. So that's just a sticking point but it
was a curious one. On the next page it says all buildings shall be located as close as possible to the
principle building setback line and the majority of parking shall be at the rear or side of the building or
screened area. Building entrances shall be as close as possible to abutting streets. And then you showed
a Ridgeview building and I just would like to point out to you that while that looks nice it doesn't work.
One of the two buildings, one of the two, I think in both cases, one of the two doors are simply not used.
They're just locked. In fact Ridgeview has stuff stored right in front of it. You couldn't possibly go in
that door. And the only times people use the other door frankly is when they're running across to
Milly's. And the reason it doesn't work, and doesn't ever work for office or retail buildings, is because
there's no parking on the street. There is so much work and so much study going on in how to make
street friendly and apply certain segments or all of their segments or guidelines for new urbanism, and
always you have to have parking on the street for any number of reasons. One is people don't like to
walk in the streets unless they're protected by that row of cars parked there to protect them from the '
traffic. It's a perception. It's a feeling. The other is just plain convenience. Frmher on in one place it
says one row of parking across the front of the building is okay, but then later on it says preferred not for
that. So we've got to get some consistence and we have to think seriously about what's going to work.
Under entries, I'm a little concerned. It says, this is number one. The main entrance shall be placed at
grade. Well, you know what exactly do we mean by that? What grade? There's some elevations where
we really like to push the envelope a little bit because Chanhassen is not level and if we want to have one
long building up to the street, then part of that building will have entrances that aren't at grade and we'll
have to deal with some ramps. So I guess I'm trying to make the point that we're being far too specific
and the more specific you get the more problems you nm into. And speaking kind of generally now, I
drove through the industrial park and I noticed, and you'll love this because you guys need to know that I
am about as fussy as anybody about how buildings look and buildings that I bring in here and before you
have a chance to attack, and even during, I'm pinging away at these guys and staff and I have had all
kinds of meetings about how did we get this particular or that building or that to be a little bit better
looking so what I'm going to say now is going to, is surprising me. But as I drove through the industrial
park tonight it struck me that under this guideline we would not have any of the Instant Web Company,
and we probably wouldn't have Pillsbury. And I want to tell you if this community could have another
Instant Web group of companies and another Pillsbury, we ought to be out there saying what can we do
to help you. You're exactly what we need. We need your taxes. We need your people coming to our
restaurants. So what I'm trying to say is, don't be too specific here that you don't leave some wiggle
15
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
room so when the Pillsbury's coming along and Instant Web folks come along and people with otherwise
good designs can't be fit, can't fit in. To that end then we need to get away from the aesthetic controls
and go back to basic design controls which will give staff the same level of ideas of concepts without the
restrictions that some of these specifics would dictate. The entries, it says here the main entrance and so
forth and I won't re-read it, but then it goes on to list canopy portico overhang or arch above the entrance.
Recess or protections in the building facade surrounding entrance. Peaked roof or raised parapet over the
door. Display windows surrounding the entrance. Architectural detailing such as file work or
ornamental molding. Permanent planters or window boxes for landscaping. We're talking about the
single purpose, single user building here. Most of our buildings are not that. Most of them are multi-
tenant, and most of our larger buildings are multi-tenant. So again, and we don't want to put, I don't
think that any architect would want to put canopies over every single door. I know no building owner
who would want, let's just picture Market Square for a little while. Every time we change a tenant, and
that tenant wants to have their door somewhere else, that building has been designed so that a window
can be a door this year and a door can-be a window next year and they can spread from 1,000 square feet
to 5,000 square feet and still have the basic building intact. But we're not going to redo and put canopies
over doors here and there.
Mayor Jansen: Vernelle, I don't mean to interrupt but I'm hoping you're close.
Vernelle Clayton: I'll try. I'll just list some other, just quickly what the problems are without the so
compel. The 40 feet I think in some buildings, on articulation, something in and out. Every 40 feet is
probably too little if it' s a big building and too much if it' s a small building. Ground level of any multi-
story structure should be visually distinct from the upper stories. I don't think we want to really tell our
architects that they have to do that. I think one of the, for example.the building that's pictured, Heartland
America has a band but it's not at the first story. It's higher and if you have a higher building you've got
to have it higher, ff you have a really long building, you want it broken up by vertical as well as
horizontal. Okay, I'm glad that I'm not totally out of time here because we have two very important.
Material and details. You know how I feel about brick. Now, there are new materials coming out. One
that's being very successful is called concrete board. The 7 inches I guess I question, if anybody would
like to drive by the new building over in Eden Prairie. The name of the huge company that's passed
down all the building that I've forgotten but they're using concrete board to look like wood and it's a
huge expanse so it' s probably about that big and it looks great and that' s, in those proportions, if they use
7 inches and they use wood, it would look funny. Stucco and I would like, that leads me down to the
next one which is building materials that shouldn't be used which is EFIS. ff we didn't have the right in
Chanhassen to use F_flzlS, we wouldn't have Perkins looking as it is. We wouldn't have Taco Bell. We
wouldn't have the Americana Bank and we wouldn't have the building that everybody's raving about as
to how great it looks, Bookoo Bikes. If we didn't have stucco we wouldn't have the variety that lends to
the charm that we have in our downtown, and you need that variety. This issue first came up several
years ago and I don't think that the perception has caught up with reality with respect to EFIS. If you
require that folks using EFIS use contractors who have had, who have successfully installed EFIS, that
goes a long way towards avoiding any problems. There were initially some contractors that didn't know
how to install it. And secondly, the material itself has been upgraded and it' s much better now than it
originally was. So I really would hope that you wouldn't throw out this oppommity for variety in our
town.
Mayor Jansen: I need you to wrap up in 2 please.
Vernelle Clayton: Wrap up, I think I'm about done. I appreciate being, oh, pitched elements. We've
been talking about pitched elements for a long time. If we had pitched elements we wouldn't have
16
city Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Byerly's, and I think we need to think about, I talked about the parking, landscaping, the new urbanism
approach is not by grouping plantings. Putting up rows. We need to have the flexibility to do that.
Alright, I think I know when I'm not supposed to talk anymore. Oh, fake windows. That's a big one.
Don't like fake windows. Thanks. Sorry.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you Vemelle. We do appreciate your concern and your input on our working
through the ordinances and as you mentioned you've followed the progress that was in making on this
one for some time so appreciate your involvement Kate, I think the c, ooamon themg that I was hearing
that I would like to maybe have you address as a staff member, is whether this ordinance is going to be
restrictive of your ability to introduce flexibility and avoid monotony if you would. I know that you
regularly remind us that when you're working with the applicant that you are trying to make .adjustmen~
and have some give and tak~. As a staff person having to. imp,.lement this Ordinance, are we taking away
or are we improving your ability to he able to work with your applicants?
Kate Aanenson: Thank you, that's a good question. Fm going to try to comment on some of those back.
F 11 try to be brief but the intent of this was to give the staff more specifically through pico. n'es and text
what we're trying to accomplish. And what we did is we took a photo essay of all the buildings in town,
so we spent a lot of time. We pulled up what Chaska's doing for their Target. The 40 feet came
specifically at looking at a lot of buildings. Could they make the 40 feet? We believe that works. That's
the Target which is a very large one in Chaska and 1V[innetoRka. Their articulation. If you look at all of
our industrial buildings, they would make it. Again, there was a menu on a lot of things that Mrs.
Clayton was going through. If you go through those, under entrance it talks about if or. The roof
articulation was what' s been applied in the past. It will he cont{nued. We've done different approaches
to it I think we've been very creative in Byerly's in pitched roof elements. How we came up with that.
Applebee's, using canopies. There's other approaches to it. Even Perkins. So we've applied that being
creative. I think what this is giving us is again some direction. As far as having a theme or a'c .ha.,act~
for the community, in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie who says brick or better, I'm not sure what their .
character or their theme is. It's a lot of monotony. I think that's what we wgre. tryiilg to say, there's
some other things that are really important in a building and it can be the landscaping, it can be the
windows, it can be the front entrance. The orientation. So what we're trying to say is instead of a
specific material, there's some other ways to accomplish good design. And as far as the other point I
wanted to make is that there is also in this ordinance some discretion for the level of renovation. If
you're just doing some minor alteration, we're not going to hold ydu hostage to come back and re-do the
building. It specifically states in there that the staff would work in that specific area thai you're working
on, that we would try to bring that up to code but it's not, you have to take the whole building down. I
don't think that's reasonable. The Planning Commission did discuss that. So that is built into the
ordinance. The other thing I just wanted to comment on too as far as, ~.was an a .ptnx~h at.one time
to have an architectural control committee. Vfnat the stare'law requires is a 60 day review. We thought
that would just become very bureaucratic and then after that process, if the Planning Commission 'and the
Council's not in concurrence we'd kind of add this other level and I think: in my perception is that the-
Planning Commission is doing a good job reviewing that level. What we're trying to give them is a little
bit more specifics for the applicant's benefit too of what our intent is and move that through the process
so the bottom line, to answer your question is, we believe this is going to be helpful to us and I think
there's, the intent is to build some flexibility. Every circumstance is unique, lust as we talked about the
changes going on in Villages on the Pond. Every circumstance is a little bit different, but this is giving us
the good framework, a point of beginning for the dialogue. What our expectations are when you're
coming here. And the other thing is the TIF dollars aren't there. Those incentives to get it up there
aren't there. What we're saying, those people that already built there, the rest of them, our expectations
to come in close to that same level.
17
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. To the new members on the council I want to share with you and
compliment staff for all the work that you have put in to pulling these standards together. Council
received a presentation from Kate that was an extensive photo tour of the community and the different
buildings and if anything Kate emphasized to us the necessity of the variety of the building materials and
really put a case together for how Chanhassen looks and how we want to maintain that so this isn't an
effort to change what we've done, but more so compliment what we've done. And that same video tour
or picture tour was also given to the Planning Commission and there's been a lot of time and effort and
comments put in by the Planning Commissioners to go through some of these detail and try to ensure that
both the Planning Commission as well as staff have some of that flexibility to be able to make sure that
we're not getting monotonous or hopefully too restrictive. But they in fact could then back down and
adjust accordingly by project. With that, any more questions for staff council?
..
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, since I'm considered a new member of council, I wonder when I'm going to
be just a member of council but has this been test, has there been a test bed on your design standards?
Has it been tried out in actual applications to see how it works?
Kate Aanenson: Have other communities done it?
Councilman Ayotte: No, have you done something with it to try to see how...
Kate Aanenson: Well .it's the Highway 5 ordinances basically with some additional things added to it
now city wide.
Mayor Jansen: And Kate maybe share the comment that you've made all year long as you've been
sharing the development proposals with us. That you have been comparing the proposals as they've
come forward to what the new s~handards would be.
Councilman Ayotte: But I'm saying with the things that you've changed in this, you've tried it and it's
tried and true do you feel or?
Kate Aanenson: Do I think they're going to work?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: You know and that goes back to the comment that Charlie James had., which is a
relevant comment. What if you make 75 % rule? What you think is relevant but there's certain things
that everybody has hot buttons on like you know, if it just didn't have that large green s .tripe. I mean
you've got to wrestle that so if we say you've met the 75% rule, then you can, we'll acquiesce on the rest,
but what if it's the most important design element? We don't know that until it comes in and that's the
nature of the beast. Every project is so different. We have to look at them all individually and then our
job as planners is every little piece is part of the puzzle. How do they relate to each other? What's the
rhythm that we're creating and the patterns and that's what make the communities livable. That's what
people like and that's what we're trying to maintain and making sure the pieces work together. And so
yes, I believe that there's, are there going to be some mbs and somebody that's going to need a variance?
Absolutely. I can't prevent those. I can't predict the future but I think this is a good point of beginning
to give us some direction for the developers.
18
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Mayor Sansen: And a good point you bring up on being able to give the variances too to this. Gary, did
you have a question?
Councilman Boyle: Well Fve got a couple comments. I find it quite restrictive and not flexible. I
believe it's very specific in fact and L you commented that it would also be beneficial to the applicant
because the applicant would know exactly what could be done or couldn't be done. With that it raises
the question, we're pretty happy it sounds like with what we have today, is that correct7
Kate Aanenson: I'll let you answer that.
Councilman Boyle: Well I think so.
Kate Aanenson: I got directions to change the standards so.
Councilman Boyle: Oh, okay. Well see I'mthe new mendx~ she was talking about so I'mmaking
comments that's probably already been talked about.
Mayor Jansen: Well and pan of that, and what Kate is reflecting is that this is indicative of what we have
in our Highway 5 corridor so it's looking at some of the development that's come in under those
standards and whether we want to compliment that and use that in the rest of our development as we go
forward and there's a level of comfort in that ordinance and what we've seen developed under it to say
through the Planning Commission also, that this would enable us to continue with the rest of the
development in the community under those same standards and be complimentary of what exists
currently.
Councilman Boyle: Do we need this to do that?
Mayor Jansen: There's nothing like this in place in those areas of the conmmnity.
Councilman Boyle: But my point is, we've done, if we assume we've done pretty good in the past.
Kate Aanenson: But let me put a caveat with that.
Councilman Boyle: Why couldn't we have the same process?
Kate Aanenson: Because we had TIF back then. A lot of the projects were given TIF. There was an
incentive to get some additional level. That is not there anymore. You know you had a carrot and stick
Councilman Peterson: There was a stick yeah. It wasn't a carrot. It was a stick
Councilman Boyle: In your perso~ opinion would this detract, would this deter a good builder from
saying he wants to build in Chanhassen? Obviously I know how you're going to answer.
Kate Aanenson: Well Minnetonka has brick So does Eden Prairie. Do people still build there? I
believe there's market forces. Are people willing to go where there's less, you know they still have to
have a market. If somebody wants to come here because there's a market, they'll come here and I think
that's pan of the discussion that went into the be~nning of this is that there's certain expectations in this
market that you're going to meet that level. And ff that level's been set.
19
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Councilman Peterson: And further, to help you out and answer that question Gary, I think that the
Highway 5 corridor standards haven't dissuaded anybody from developing on Highway 5 so I mean
that's probably the best answer to your question. That it hasn't stopped the development on 5. We've
got some very good developments on 5 because of it.
Councilman Boyle: I agree, but isn't this making, it just seems very specific. Almost, what did Vernelle
call it, the wiggle worm? Room. It takes a lot of the room...
Mayor Jansen: Well and that's why we posed the question to staff. Because staff likes to have the
wiggle room and the flexibility and if we're in fact taking that away, knowing Kate she would be very
comfortable expressing that to us and it's definitely been a discussion at the Planning Commission
because they also don't want to lose that flexibility and again trying to avoid the monotony. In fact very
specifically this is to make sure that within some developments we're not creating and having the
monotony. It's a requirement that they not be.
Councilnum Peterson: I think it' s also important to think back of the developers and the landowners or
however you want to characterize them that have put buildings on Highway 5 corridor. They have
challenged the Planning Commission and challenged Kate, even though design standards were there
clearly in writing. They still have challenged the process and it's gotten, and I think we're better for it.
We have some different buildings that potentially were outside of the standards but staff worked with the
applicant and found a way to have a better product so I would, I looked at it, I didn't see it as that
restricting because I know how staff works is that if a developer or an architect, which I've never found
them to be overly shy, you know present something to staff, they're not going to, they're going to look at
it and really have a feel for whether or not it's appropriate. This gives them that tool to say that, and to
give the developer or the architect, this is kind of where we're thinking to give you a tone. Show me
what you can do. But that's how I interpret that.
Councilman Ayotte: Target a deviation then? You know if they want to have something different, give
them a start point to go.
Councilman Peterson: Sure. I mean as what has been proven itself to be effective on Highway 5.
Mayor Jansen: And we've seen that flexibility given even within some of the more restrictive PUD's like
Village on the Ponds. There was a great deal of discussion initially over the swim school. The
architecture. The color didn't, you know it was a little tough and it was something that the city definitely
wanted to see happen and there needed to be some flexibility and it certainly, it happened. It's there. But
it at least gives you a starting point.
Councilman Boyle: Well that was the point I was trying to make. That what the flexibility in the past. I
mean we've made it happen in the past but this is, as I understand now, and I respect your comments also
Craig with your experience on Planning Commission, this just tightens the guidelines I guess, right?
Kate Aanenson: That's the intent. I mean the city attorney can speak to that but if it's not in the
ordinance it's difficult to make somebody do it. If you don't have an ordinance to say that. We've been
lucky in the fact that we have a staff that's willing to get beat up. Sometimes we're in concurrence and
sometimes we're not. The Planning Commission maybe hears it once or twice before we get to that
point. But our goal is, if you're not interested in that, I understand that but if you want to give us the tool
to ensure that people understand the rules, then this would be it.
20
City Council Meeting- September 24, 2001
Councilman Boyle: Kate, I don't want to discourage in any way, shape or form economic development,
and that's kind of where I'm coming from, okay.
Councilman Ayotte: Would this stop the discussions over the selection of brick at council meetings that
have occurred in the past?
Kate Aaneuson: I don't think so.
Mayor Jansen: We've tried to move those back into the Planning Commission and~staff.
Kate Aanenson: Everybody likes to pick colors.
Councilman Ayotte: Mauve.
Mayor Jansen: And to restricting economic development, I think that this council in fact has shown that
they are looking at being more proactive and if anything, in the di~ussions over forming a task force for
economic development we're demonstrating that we would lilte to encourage thaL So that is where we're
trying to be sure that if staff has pulled this together that they have the flexibility to be able to work with
businesses and not keep them restricted to the point that they can't build in Chanh~sem Steve.
Councilman Labatt: The question with EFIS came up Kate, and shooting f~m the hip here. How much
of Bookoo Bikes is EFIS? What percentage?
Bob Generous: About 60%.
Councilman Labatt: About 60%.
Kate Aaneuson: The Planning Commission discussed that at length with EFIS versus stucco.
Councilman Labatt: In your wording on it, where EFIS may not be used as an accent. Or may be used as
an accent but not as a primary material.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. In that circumstance it would .have required a variance if it was to come in
today.
Councilman Labatt: I just want to get clm'ificafion on that. And so let's say hypothetically here that a
homeowner owns an old cottage and he wants to 'come in for, to renovate his house. He's going to be
held to the new uniform building code. The new standards that are set, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about a store or a house?
Councilman Labatt: I'm talking about a house. I'm trying to, the question of renovation came up.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Councilman Labatt: The store owner has an older building, he wants to come in and renovate it, he's
going to be held to these new standards. Will that same apply to a homeowner?
21
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Well we did put something in there. Let me flip to the page where I had that real
quick. There is a percentage. If you look on page 3, at the top of page 3. Internal alterations to the
building that affect less than 50% of the building gross floor area do not result in the change of the
building height, roof line or footprint. These are some of the places you start. The bottom of the last
page. District applications so there are some exemptions. Replacement or repair of existing material.
We're not going to make you go. If you want to just repair it and maintain it, certainly with our
maintenance code that's what we're going to want. And then the other caveat would be, only those, if
you're just changing exterior material we wouldn't make you do the whole thing over. Just that portion
that they're fixing. If you're changing your entry, it would just be the entry then. So we're trying to be,
again the Planning Commission did discuss that at length too. Kind of making it a rationale approach
because we certainly do want people to maintain their property. We talked about that earlier tonight.
And so we're not going to say well if you don't fix the whole thing you can't fix anything. I don't think
that's a rationale approach. You know slowly over time if you're getting it to where we want it to be,
that was the intent.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, well just clarification. No, I like it. I mean I think it's clear direction for
development in the community and what the rules are, so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other discussion council?
Councilman Ayotte: I do have a question.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there, and this is to Vernelle's point. Vernelle, I think this is excellent. That it
gives some parameters but also is there room for, and I'll use the term performance targets that would be '
a little bit more of an extension to the intent? Is that asking too much?
Kate Aanenson: Well again, I think that's a similar question that Mr. James asked, and Charlie James by
the way did the Byerly's development. Just so you know. We did send this out for comments and we
tossed that around, but again each building, something might be most impo/rant on that building. What
they think is significant might be not the same interpretation as the Planning Commission. But again as I
go back, every project has unique circumstances that they can't, and we work with that.
Councilman Ayotte: It would be hard. Like for example, when you're dealing with hard and fast
applications it isn't, but with the diversity we have, I can see where it could be...
Kate Aanenson: Right, for example we struggled with Chapel Hill, the proximity. Or the height of that
building based on the character of that neighborhood and how do we balance the two so each one is so
unique that you kind of, you give on one and take on the other and you just work. It's a process. And
it's form and function. Whatever that building needs to be and how it needs to work so you have to take.
Councilman Ayotte: And that's where the deviation would come in versus the.
Kate Aanenson: And it happens, sometimes people have to ask for a variance and we have to be willing
to look at that because it's unique. Just as the mayor was speaking about the swim school and we all just
rolled up our sleeves and said we felt it was an important element to add to the community. What can,
how can we make it work? We take that with every project.
22
City Council Meeting - september 24, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: With that, if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Mod.m Mayor, Fd recommend the City Council approves repealing the Article
noted for the Highway 5 Corridor District and replace it with these options, the regulations set forth
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Ayotte: I'll second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve
repealing Article XXIX Highway Corridor Districts and replace it with the adoption of Article
XXIV General Supplemental Regulations, Division 7, Design Standards as attached with the
condition that the repealing and adoption occur concurrently. Ail voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, could we also get, would you also consider a motion approving the summary of
the ordinance for publication. We need a separate motion on that That saves the city a lot of money so
we don't have to publish the whole thing.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, and a second please.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the summary ordinance for
publication of Article XXIV General Supplemental Regulations, Divigion 7, .Design Standards. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimonsly 5 to 0.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. As you stated this is a two part review. A
conditional use permit for a drive thru within the Villages on the Ponds project. This building is located
up in the northeast corner of the Villages project. It's adjacent to the Bell Mortgage building or Building
4. It's accessed off of Great Plains Boulevard and it's addressed off of Pond Promenade. Recently in
August the City did amend the PUD standards to permit thru' s drive on thig specific lot subject to a
conditional use permit review. The criteria that we looked at were that it be on this site. That the traffic
not back out into the parking area. That the sound from the ordering system be not heard off site and that
the drive thru itself be screened. We reviewed the site plan based on those criteria and the only addition
that we have for that is that the applicant provides some evergreens in the northwest comer of the
property to screen the drive thru from the north. Based on the traffic information we received from the
23
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
developer, initially they showed us information for a Culver's in the resort area during the peak season
and so these numbers were higher. The Planning Commission requested that they get us numbers from,
traffic generation numbers from a local restaurant so they went down to Shakopee and did the actual
traffic counts there and they came in under what the projections would have been. The developer, I
believe that this is more reminiscent of what will happen in this community. The engineering department
reviewed the traffic circulation pattern and agreed that there should be sufficient stacking in the drive
thru aisle so that the back-up doesn't go into the parking area for the rest of the development. Staff is
recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the drive thru subject to the conditions in our
staff report. The second part is the site plan review. This is a one story building. It is a hybrid brick-
block type structure. It's a light color and there are material samples there. We worked hard and
Vernelle worked hard to have the architectural mimic some of the other architectural within the Villages
project. They've included the tower element on both the north and south ends. They've incorporated the
tall windows. To comply with the design standards that were just approved tonight,, based on our review
they only had to add two windows to meet the 50% transparency. Otherwise the design of this project
with it's articulation orientation would have met our design standards. The roof element has various
angles and while it doesn't show up well on the plan, when it's actually built you'll see a lot of different
details in that. We believe that this project meets the design standards for the Villages on the Ponds and
for the new design ordinance and we're recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
of the staff report. The Planning Commission did review this and recommended 4 to 1 approval of the
conditional use permit and 5 to 0 approval of the site plan. With that.I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. The main issue that was really kicked around the most of course was the
traffic generation. That's been the main concern both at the Planning Commission, Council level as well
as any of the comments I think we initially received from residents. I was present for the Planning
Commission meeting on this and there was a resident there who was really reflecting that he as a
neighbor was supportive of this proposal, having now really seen these traffic generation numbers that
are being shared with us. And I think staff did a nice job of showing us that difference between Culver's
trip generation versus the fast food because that of course was the main consideration' on this whole
traffic generation. And Planning Commission having requested the Shakopee numbers I think was
excellent to give us another piece of information as far as what we're really looking at to get our arms
around it. Council, any questions for stuff7 .
Councilman Labatt: None.
Mayor Jansen: Seeing none, I know I've gotten both phone calls and e-mails and I w0ui.d have to say
they've been equal for and against. Community survey saying that we definitely need restaurants. We
know that we want sit down. This is at least meeting partially that request. We know that the community.
would like some nicer site down restaurants but this certainly, from the positive comments I've gotten
and received, families are seeming to be quite excited about this type of a product coming into the
community. So appreciate staff's efforts and Planning Commission as well as the applicant working with
the community to make this fit the concept of that development. It certainly will be a nice addition. If I
could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: I do have one question for staff I guess.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Councilman Peterson: I thought you were going to do comments by.
24
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay, sorry. Go ahead.
Councilman Peterson: Bob, one of the things that came from Planning Commission was that they
considered changing the color of the roof. Bob you can humble me by letting me talk about color for a
second. Did they come back and change the color at all or not?
Bob Generous: They haven't. They'd like to go with a darker color actually. I'm not sure, if we get a
sample palette from them.
Councilman Peterson: I mean if you drive by, even though I know the one in Savage isn't the same color
but I mean that roof just, in looking at it, is going to stand out like a neon sign. If you look back at what
we just approved in the previous.motion on design standards, it .doesn't necessarily speak to thac It's an
abrupt difference and an accent that, it's an aggressive color change.
Councilman Ayotte: That was the same guy that picked the colors for our brochures?
Councilman Petemon: So you know I guess I haven't hid the fact that Fm not a big proponent of having
a drive thru in Villages, as I commentexl I think in the last meeting and didn't vote for it but I think that
what that abrupt and pretty neon roof is going to do is going to attract visual. I can see why they want it,
but it's just going to bring all the eyes to that roof and go fight down to everybody looking at the drive
thru so I guess I would like to at least consider reinforcing .what the Planning Commission recommended
to soften that color to as much as we possibly cam
Kate Aanenson: That is in condition number 22. I don't know if you wanted to direct staff to look at
different palettes or, I think the Phmning Commission's recommendation was to go darker.
Councilman Ayotte: Say again Kate?
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission's recomme~on was to go maybe a shade or two darker.
Mayor Jansen: They wanted a dark navy.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, and that is a condition, number 22, changing the roof to look at darker so that's
something that certainly.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I'd like to see that if we could.
Kate Aanenson: It was my understanding that the applicant's okay with that too so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So you just need to see the color palette and approve it.
Vemelle Clayton made a comment from the audience which was not picked up by the microphone.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure if that sample reflects it.
Vemelle Clayton then introduced the manager of the new Culver's restaurant
Mayor Jansen: Welcome. Thank you for being here.
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Kate Aanenson: Maybe just to clarify that motion is that we darken the roof, if that's your direction.
That we work with the applicant and make sure.
Councilman Peterson: That's my opinion, yes.
Councilman Labatt: Can we reword 20 then, or 22 to give it a little bit more teeth?
Kate Aanenson: Right, that's what we're suggesting.
Councilman Labatt: Craig's what your options here? You know the applicant shall consider, I think
that.
Kate Aanenson: Take consider out.
Councilman Labatt: Puts everything in his book.
Mayor Jansen: Should work with staff?
Councilman Peterson: Should work with staff to find a color more appropriate to Villages on the Ponds.
Kate Aanenson: Can the staff be more specific?
Vemelle Clayton: Can you say the mol in Shakopee...
Mayor Jansen: Kate, what would you like it to say?
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess we would be happy with the applicant shall change the color roof to be a
darker shade of blue. I mean so a little more specific. And then from my understanding that's what Mr.
Riser agreed to. I'm not sure that that blue reflects it. Is that the question?
Bob Generous: No, that was the original.
Kate Aanenson: That's the original application so if you're looking at that blue, it'd be these may be
darker but that material sample.
Councilman Boyle: Is the objective to get to the same color as the Shakopee store?
Councilman Peterson: No.
Mayor Jansen: No, darker.
Councilman Peterson: If you drive by there, their standard corporate color is extremely bright.
Kate Aanenson: So we'll get the different color palettes and make sure it's the dark, on the darker shade.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. Okay, are we set? If I could have a motion please.
26
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
Councilman Labatt: I move that we approve Conditional Use Permit g2001-7 subject to the following
conditions, 1 through 5. Do we need two motions then7
Roger Knutson: You can do one motion and combine them...see if they go.
Councilman Labatt: Subject to conditions 1 through 5 and we approve Site Plan g2001-7 subject to the
following conditions I through 22, and changing 22 to read the applicant shall work with staff to change
the color of the roof to a darker shade of blue.
Mayor 1ansen: Can I have a second please?
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Mayor ~Iansen: And discussion of the motion? ·
Coundlman Labatt moved, Coundlman Boyle seconded that the City Council approves
Conditional Use Permit #r2001-7 for a drive through window subject to the following conditions:
1. The drive-through shall provide sufficient stacking to assure'that traffic is not backed into the
parking lot drive aisles.
2. The loud speakers used for ordering shall be shielded so that noise is not heard off-site.
3. The drive-through shall be screened from off-site views.
4. The drive-through window is approved only for a restaurant use tbat'cuswm prepares foods at the
time of order. '
5. Trip generations for any restaurant use on the site shall be within 25 percent of the avera2ve trip
generation rates shown for a high turnover, sit down restaurant in the Trip Generation, 6
Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers.
And Councilman Labatt moved, and Coun_eilmRn Boyle seconded to approve Site Plan//'2/)01-7 as
shown on the plans prepared by John Oliver & Assoda~ Ina, dated 8f15/01, subject to the
following conditions:
1. An understory evergreen element shall be added to the northwest area of the property.
Evergreens should be 10 to 15 feet at maturity.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
3. All areas between paved areas and wetlands shall be revegetated per the planting plan that was
approved as a part of Villages on the Ponds.
4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice HandbooL
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
,
,
1
,
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their
conditions of approval.
Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
Add the following 2001 City Detail Plates to the detail sheet: 5203, 5215, 5300, and 5302. Also,
show the most current revision of plate no. 3102.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be'prepared and signed by a professional civil
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
No building permits will be issued until the City receives as-built plans for the development.
Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner(s).
Revise the western slope off of the drive through area to show either a maximum slope grade of
3:1 or to install a retaining wall.
Some of the parking stalls are less than the minimum allowable width of 8.5 feet. These should
be revised as necessary.
Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
The applicant shall eliminate the staking and wiring instruction detail in the landscape plan titled
"tree planting - guy wire".
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street.lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, US West Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire
hydrant can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division g6-1991 and Section 904-1, 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire
code.
A stop sign shall be installed at the exit of the drive through.
Add windows on the floor plan to reflect the windows shown on the elevations.
28
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
22. The applicant shall change the color of the roof to a darker shade of blue.
AH voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who abstained and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 in favor and 1 abstention.
Councilman Peterson: Abstain just on the simple basis that I like the project with the exception of the
drive through.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, and the motion passes 4 with 1 abstain. Thank you and welcome to Chanhasse~.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: C~UNCIL/COMMIgSION LIAISON UPDAT~
Mayor Jansen: Do we have any council me~ with commission'reports7 I would just say we had'a
couple of major issues that came before us this evening that Planning Commission and Kate spent a great
deal of time on. They've been doing numerous ordinance reviews and certainly the two that we passed
tonight took a tremendous amount of time so certainly appreciated and they did a very nice job of going
through all of the detail in bringing that forward so just thank you for having done that
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON TH $ ROAD CONSTRUCTION
REGARDING ENTRANCF~ TO THE LANDSCAPE ARBO~ AND ~'~IIM~QN BAY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. Update might be a wrong work for this. This evening I
have a 30% submittal that MnDot supplied to us and the purpose of presenting this tonight is so that the
council can see what is being proposed for this section of roadway. This is from Highway 4t out to
approximately the intersection with Arboretum entrance'and Crimson Bay. MnDot's map here is not the
best. The one that was presented in the staff report is much more accurate of the limits of the project. It
also reflects Highway 5 incorrectly so that is something they need to correct on the plans. Still their map
is not quite accurate. These plans are on file in the' engineering department If any ofthe ~'
owners in that area are watching tonight and would like to come in and see these plans, they are available
but we do request they make an appointment so someone is there to answer any .questions. I will also be
sending out a letter to the pmpen~ owners detailing the information I'm giving you this evening and
letting them know these plans are available. We should be receiving 60% plans in approximately a
month. A little bit more detail for the council. This is why you didn't get a copy in the staffmport The
plan is huge. This is a copy of the plan as it appeared all on one sheet. It is relatively small. What .they
are proposing to do, I'll just talk really loud. What they're proposing .to do is this is appro' ' .xium. rely where.
the existing project is under construction right now... We have' the 4 lanes, an existing raised concrete
median...by the time this project goes forward that will be in place. It tapers down to 2 lanes and paved
shoulder. As they come through they'll be creating...and eventually that will become a left turn lane into
the Arboretum entrances. The private drive into the Arboretum. And there will also be a left turn lane
into Crimson Bay. A large number of our accidents out in this area, people that are sitting in the traffic
drive lane trying to make that left turn...Crimson Bay. We also have right turn lanes added. The right
turn lanes will allow...to get off the road... The revised section occurs mainly in the existing roadbed.
Most of the work will require simply paving the existing shoulder and they'H be dragging out some
pavement...is not widening the roadbed at all and it has very minimal impact into the wetland to the
north near Lake Minnewashta and into the wetland... As I said, we'll be sending out a notice to these
property owners...They have not supplied any plans or information with this provided along to the
property owners... That's about all I have for tonight. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer
29
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
those. Or if you have any concerns I'd be happy to bring those to MnDot. This will be a MnDot project,
not a City of Chanhassen project. We have not been asked to participate financially in this project.
Mayor Jansen: That's good news. We like hearing that.
Teresa Burgess: So far.
Mayor Jansen: So far.
Councilman Labatt: Is this going to be completed in conjunction with the completion of 5 and 417
Teresa Burgess: This proj .ect is slated to be done after the golf. tournament..Highway 5 is slated to be
finished before the Hazeltine golf tournament.
Councilman Labatt: So this will be September, 2002. Completed or began?
Teresa Burgess: It will be initiated in September of 2002, possibly August. I'm not sure of the exact
date but it will be after completion of the Hazeltine golf tournament that they will initiate this project and
start construction. They will have it substantially complete in 2002. There will probably be some work
that needs to be completed in the spring of the following year, just as .Highway 5 will be completed
substantially this year with follow-up work in the spring.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: Just on Highway 5, what is their progress, their hopeful schedule.
Teresa Burgess: Right now they are on schedule for Highway 5 and we will be switched back over, if
they continue on schedule, be switched back over in June of 2002. For traffic back on Highway 5. They
will remain on the bypass through the winter and they will work on that road as long as they can given
weather conditions. And strike conditions. There is a potential for Mn.Dot to go on strike October 1It.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any other questions for staff7 Okay, thank you Teresa. Appreciate it.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Mayor Jansen: Under correspondence I had one letter that I guess I was surprised to read on the parade.
Councilman Peterson: I would agree. It's on my list to talk about.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I wasn't sure if the discussion had occurred when okay, in my absence but there is
a letter and I will mention this to Mr. Gerhardt when he returns, that was sent to Deb Kind addressing the
parade and the financing of that. I want to make it perfectly clear that there has been no council
discussion about whether or not the financing for that parade will be included in our budget. Obviously
this letter was generated due to the staff recommendation that council has not had an opportunity to
review yet. Normally these kinds of details are what we go through as we start in with our department
head reviews of their budget issues and Mr. Gerhardt has those scheduled over the next couple of work
30
City Council Meeting - September 24, 2001
sessions. And I believe Park and Rec is one of the initial discussions that we will have so I just wanted to
note that and I will let Mr. Gerhardt know that that needs to be conmamicated that we're not doing
budget cuts until after staff has actually done those reviews with council. Were there any other items
under correspondence discussion?
Councilman Ayotte: Not correspondence but in the liaison with cornmi.~sions. I want to just comment. I
didn't get the opportunity yet, that the Environmental Commission received a presentation by Bob
Generous on solicitation of garbage removal and so on in the city and there was some concern. ~are
an information paper for council. I just want to advise council that it was coming forward.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you very muck Anything else from council members? Okay with that if I
could have a motion to adjourn.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to' adjourn the City Council meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
31
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
RF~ULAR MEWrlNG
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRF_~ENT: Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Lu.inn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, and
Craig Claybaugh
MEMBEI~ ABSENT: Bruce Feik
STAFF PRF_~ENT: Kate Aanenson, Conm~mity Development Director, Sharmin Al-laff, Senior
Planner, and Matt Saam, Project Engineer
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
7305I. aredoDrive
7302LaredoDrive
(~ONS_mER AMIilNDMF~ TO Ti:iF. __CITY CODE CIdkRIFYING TFIF~ PROCEDURF~ FOR
AD~TRATIVE SUBDIVI~IONS.'
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to table this item to get further darffieation from the City Attorney.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
CONSmF. R AMF~NDM~.NT~ TO ~ CITY CODE TO PI~RMIT ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY
A(~CF.~ PER LQT.
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, we did see this befor~ Does anyone h~ve any new
questi~ based on what we see before us tonight? LuAu: why don't you go atmad.
Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. Sharmin. In, I guess is it part (h); or whatever, it says one driveway
approach. I'm wondering if approach is the term we want to use or should we use access point? Or
could you clarify that please? Because that's a word that's been thrown out but not clarified.
Al4aff: Okay. We can use aca:ess.
Saarm Madam Chair, Planning Commissi~. Access would be fine with me, unless planning has an
issue with the word approach-
Al4aff: Either or.
Saam: We were struggling I think with what word to use so we're looking kind of for some feeling from
you.
Sidney: Yeah, I'd suggest saying one driveway access. That's consistent with the rest of the
amen~ts. And the one other point that I noticed, and this is gxammatical. In the fust section there,
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
access from driveways. The intent is, and then...so it should be a semi-colon to reduce and then it's
consistent throughout that paragraph. That's all I saw but it's well clarified and I understood when I read
it what the intent was.
Blackowiak: Uli any questions?
Sacchet: Yes, it'd be real clear at this point we're not going into the setback issue at all with this?
There's no setback requirement? We're not reducing one, we leave that alone?
Aanenson: Right. That's our recommendation, correct.
Sacchet: Okay. And then you made a point .that the first 100 feet of a driveway need to be bituminous or
concrete. And that could possibly reduce to just cover the easement stretch. Matt can you give.us a little
more context for that please.
Saam: Sure. At the last Planning Commission meetings one of the commissioners raised that point We
left it in. At a minimum I would like to see it at least to the edge of the fight-of-way. What we're trying
to get at here or avoid is erosion from, this is dealing with areas outside the MUSA so typically they're
agricultural type lots or parcels. We're trying to avoid a gravel driveway which you see commonly in an
agricultural setting from eroding into the drainageway. Putting sediment in ditches. Getting in the
culverts, that sort of thing. The ditches are out in the right-of-way so I would be okay with the minimum
going with driveway surface to the right-of-way.
Sacchet: And a detail question. Is there reason why when we talk about that 100 foot stuff, you're
saying concrete...don't saying bituminous. Why don't we say both or?
Saam: No. No reason.
Sacchet: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.
Saam: We could add bituminous there.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions.
Blackowiak: Alright. Deb, any new questions?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I'd like to touch on the side yard setback issue that was discussed at the last
meeting. Staff originally suggests the driveway should be setback at least 5 feet from the side property
lines and after the last meeting that was taken out. I'm interested in maybe putting that back in because
this is our opportunity to address this issue and that is an issue that happened in my neighborhood which
someone on a straight street wanted to put a side load garage and proposed to put the driveway right on
the property line in order to achieve that. And that put the driveway 10 feet from the neighbor's window.
And this is a situation that I would like to avoid and I would like to see us consider putting a side yard
setback for driveways. And this is our opportunity to do it. We don't, right now we don't have anything
that prohibits that.
Slagle: Why did we take it away? I was trying to remember. The setback. Why was it?
Planning Commission Meeting- September 18, 2001
Aanenson: Well some of the issues that staff had is that is boats and trailers in yards is a big
neighborhood issue and the place that you can put it is in your side yard. The most common place,
acceptable place is next to your garage. And most people put some sort of surface next to their garage to
park their boat or their camper. If you eliminate that, you're causing another problem by forcing
someone to put their boat in the back yard which tends to cause more neighborhood concerns so.
Kind: My question would be, I believe we allow patios so if it wasn't going out to the street, I thinl~ you
could call it a patio. And then you don't have to have a permanent driveway to get your boat back there,
as long as, I mean we drive our boat across the grass all the time. Just one at a time, not daily. But this
would preclude somebody from having an end load garage that's used daily with headlights shining into
neighbor's windows. Just throw it up as considerafiom This might be our opportuni~ to do something
about that.
Blackowialc Okay. Any other new questions or any other questions I should say? Deb.
Kind: Well actually one other and maybe it comes more under directing staff for future amendn~nts but
I think Section 20-908, if we do decide to allow driveways to encroach only 5 feet, I think we would need
to amend that ordinance. So it kind of depends on what we decide here tonight but I want to bring that
up.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any new comments? Or new questions, sorry. Not comments.
Claybaugh: This is for Matt. The definition of access, is that determined by the curb cut or What are
you?
Saam: Well yes.
Claybaugh: Essentially people come.
Saarm Yes, the access from the street. The curb cut, correct.
Claybaugh: And this is aimed at basically scattered lots like you're already regulating subdivided lots
but what I'd considered a scattered lot. Where I left most the acreag~ in there is 4 ½ to 10 acres so
there's a purpose for people living on 4 ½ to 10 acres. So they can have some of those accessory
buildings so on and so forth so.
Claybaugh: It doesn't do them much good if they can't get back to them but, is there any distinctions
whatsoever made between the subdivided and scattered lot in this ordinance?
Saam: I believe, and maybe Kate can help out too. We brought this up before on the larger lots. How
they could get back to their accessory structures. Yes, we are trying to limit the amount of street access
that one lot has to a street. Whether you be in an agricultural setting or a suburban setting, a quarter acre
lot size. You're concerned with getting back to accessory smxcnn~.
Claybaugh: ...is the purpose of living on a larger lot. If you're living on something and you have
accessory out buildings on the rest of it, it makes it very logistically difficult to get to them under some
circumstances. Certainly not all, but under some circumstances and isn't really conducive to why people
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
occupy those properties. I'm just trying to run through my mind how restrictive that would be in some
circumstances.
Saam: Kate, we had talked about this the last time this was here. About the bigger lots getting back to an
accessory structure or another house back there. I think we talked about, it would have to be platted if
they wanted to do another lot. So then you'd need a private. Yeah, then you'd need to come in for a
variance. Then we'd look at it separately from this and we could put any conditions you wanted.
Claybaugh: And then subdivide. If you're platting another lot that's subdividing. What I'm talking
about is, there's a lot of properties.
Saam: You want to put a barn in the back.
Claybaugh: Well maybe a barn. It may just be that you want to access the back of your property to store'
your boat or your trailer or whatever. It isn't.
Aanenson: A lot of people do that without a driveway. They take it in once and out and they don't use a
driveway approach.
Claybaugh: Right, but most the people that live, that I know that live on 5 to 10 acres at some point in
time put up an accessory structure and use it for substantially more.
Aanenson: And that's the problem because they-become other than accessory structures and that's
probably one of the biggest problems facing the city right now is the illegal use of some of the outdoor
structures because they have a secondary driveway, and our recommendation is we want control over
that. If they want to come in for a driveway, we want to know how they're being used.
Claybaugh: What kind of illegal?
Aanenson: Running businesses out of them and neighborhood complaints.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Aanenson: That's what we talked about last time.
Claybaugh: And you feel this is the best vehicle to deal with it?
Aanenson: Correct, because then if they're coming in for a variance we can attach a condition that says
if you want a secondary driveway you will not be running a business out of that. We're reviewing cases
right now, that is a big problem. Or people that end up renting sometimes there's an accessory garage
that tums into a rental property and we have a few of those that are causing a lot of problems right now
too in some neighborhoods so, what we're trying to do is, for those neighborhoods it's a big concern so
we're saying...
Claybaugh: Okay, so for the person that genuinely wants a use, a structure, a barn, whatever in the back
of their property, it' s purchased that way and the out accessory structure' s already them and wants to use
it purely for their own purpose, they still have means to.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Aanenson: And most of them do. I mean we just approved a stable permit today that already has access.
I mean they come in pretty regular. People buy horse property and get stable permits. They go through
the process but they use an existing driveway. It's pretty rare that someone had an agricultural property
needs to come in based on the way their property's laid out and topography. If you're looking at the
southern end of the city there's not a lot of secondary access points that come in. If you look even in the
Hesse Farm neighborhood, those sort of things. Most of those already kind of have existing driveways.
If ~ is an anomaly there and they want to come in, I think we also want to look at it for grading
purpose, etc. We kind of went through that exercise internally in stall to say you know what, we don't
want to make it punitive but looking at the number of cases that we think that variance is probably the
best way to go. If there's something really unusual that they can't get at their ~, and they need a
secondary access, we maybe want to look at it.
Saam: If I could add something. In most agricultural settings you're abutting county roads, maybe even
state highways some~. You'll have to get a driveway permit from the county and the state toaccess
the road so. I don't have a problem with ff you own 10 acres and your house is here and you have a barn
way out here, accessing off another road. From an en~neering standpoint but I know planning' s been
seeing these as Kate said, accessory structures being used for other purposes so.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Blackowiak: Did you have another question? Uli?
Sacchet: Yes. I want a point of clarification that you're suggesting that we keep in the minimum setback
of 5 feet for the driveway. Would we then also want to keep in the letter (g) that says on lots not meeting
the minimum width requirement at the right-of-way line, driveway setback may be reduced subject to the
following criteria. One, the driveway will not interfere with any existing easement And two, the '
location of the driveway must be approved by the city engineer. Are you thinking to put that back in as
well or how do they correspond?
Kind: I don't see that they necessarily correspond. I think we can still leave (g) out.
Sacchet: Okay. What's staff' s position on that7 Do you have an idea whether the two kind of go hand
in hand7 Does this seem to be correlated?
Saam: Yeah, ye.O. That was the intent of (g) with (a) initially. Because they're tied in with the setback
reference so if you're going to limit or set a minimum for a setback, we might want to consider putting
(g) back in.
·
Sacchet: Okay. And then one more real quick point. In (b), driveway grades shall be a minimum of .5%
and a maximum grade of 10%. I think we talked about that briefly last time. That you may want to
clarify that that's anywhere in the driveway. If we would want to say at any point or in any portion of the
driveway, something to that effect. I think that would be consistent with other statements last tim~.
Blackowiak: Alright, any other questions7
Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I thought of a~o~r one for staff. Would you object to including language in
the intent statement that clarifies that this is for single parcels? I know that our driveway definition
includes that but I think it behooves us to be really clear in the ordinance itself. For instance the first-
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
sentence could say, the purpose of this sub-section is to provide a minimum design criteria and slope
standards for driveway construction on single parcels.
Aanenson: I guess I'm looking at individual lots and if we can.
Kind: Individual lots?
Aanenson: If we can get a legal opinion. I know what you're trying to say. You want to clarify the
intent. This is for a multi-family, we're bringing this in the code just to make sure it's not ambiguous. Is
that what you're?
Kind: Yes, which is just for clarification. If you feel that the driveway definition covers it, and this may
be something we could actually get, get'half this on'tonight and get the opinion before it goes to council
and then give them the option of adding or not adding that based on the attorney's opinion.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, this item is not open for a public hearing but I see we have people here
tonight so if anyone wants to get up and briefly add any new comments to what we're seeing before us,
feel free to come up. State your name and address for the record.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen. I feel like a
broken record up here, but I want to clarify. The difference between driveway and a driveway cross
access easement, whatever they want to call it. A driveway that allows a homeowner ac'cess to his
property from a street. Like this. That's a driveway. It goes into, you mm around and you come out.
This driveway has a private street accessing it. It goes into, through, out, into another lot, turn around,
come back out. It's like a Bemstein Bear book. Into, through and out. This driveway goes through
somebody else's property. It goes out and then into the lot that it's support to serve. It's unnecessary
because a private street already accomplishes that. In the recent past this type of driveway was called a
private driveway and it was described in 18-57 and regulated 'in 20-615. It had a 20 foot easement along
it's length or a piece of land 30 feet wide. It could serve 2 to 4 homes. It had to be 20 feet wide at the
common section and then 10 feet for the uncommon section. And a 1096 grade. The common section
had to be built to a 7 ton construction. Now there's nothing in this code that they're proposing that says
anything to do with that. It is going to be going through somebody's property. It's only 10 feet wide and
it doesn't have an easement covering it over. You step off the 10 feet, you're in somebody else's
property. That doesn't make sense. Also, the former private driveway was governed by Chapter 20-615
which says that in order to have it the lot had to have 100 foot frontage. And they determined the front of
the lot by how it faced the public street. Now that code was all changed to be the private street. The
language wasn't changed, only they changed the word driveway to street. So now that is their private
street. But now we have nothing mentioned in this 'proposal to determine what is the front of the yard,
access via a private driveway easement, or how wide the yard should be for frontage. Why are we
lowering our standards here? The purpose of it was to have access to a landlocked lot. A private street
does that. It only requires a 30 foot width and a 10 foot pavement, or 20 feet at the common section.
Why don't we want to stick with that? You're crowding our properties together. Another question. Can
this access driveway go through a front yard setback parallel to the frontage of the lot? If this is a private
street and here's the first driveway and here's the second driveway, can it go into this 30 foot front yard
to access this house back here? That's not a driveway. We'll have driveways winding all over. It just
permits the kind of infill lots in established neighborhoods. A developer can buy a lot with a home and a
larger back yard and throw in a 10 foot cross access driveway to a house built in the rear and ruin the
privacy of the neighbors and make an ugly situation. Why would you want to permit this? Now as to the
fact that you don't need a 10 foot setback, a driveway is, what they're quoting here in Chapter 20-908, it
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
says it can be allowed to go into any required front, mar or side yard, driveways, sidewalks, and stand
wire agricultural fence. Into. It doesn't say through and out. It says into. A driveway can go into a front
yard, into a side yard or into a back yard, but that doesn't have anything to go with going through.
Kind: Madam Chair. I hesitate to ask but I just want to clarify for Mrs. Paulsen, we're not talking about
private streets tonight.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Kind: This is driveways for single lots. Every example you showed me, that I saw toni~ involved
more than one lot and this is just for single, individual lots and that's why I'd like to include the langna~
in the intent statement that clarifies it's for individual lots and that would be my ~dation.
Janet Paulsen: If they state it the way it is, they're saying there's a variance to have 2 driveways.
Kind: They still show this, this is 2 driveways. That's a private street example.
Janet Paulsen: This is a private street. This is a driveway.
Kind: That would be a private street as well.
Janet Paulsen: Well you're calling it a driveway.
Aanenson: It requires a variance.
A14aff: You will have control over it. You will decide whether you want to approve it or not. Whether
such a lot should be created or not.
Kind: And then that would be a good reason to approve, my other suggestion which is they must, a
private drive must stay at least. Not private drive. A driveway must slay at least 10 feet away from the
side.
Aanenson: 5 feet.
Kind: 5 feet for the side yard setback.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Deb, I love your idea about a side yard setback. I
think that setback should be 10 feet. 10 feet is what a setback is. If you look at the definition of gtnlCtu~
in our city code, a concrete slab is a structure. So I think 10 feet from a neighbor's pwtmrty line is
reasonable. It's what a structure setback currently is. To make it 5 feet, we're reducing our standards.
Thank you.
Blackowialc Kate, could you clarify. Is a concrete structure.
Kind: A patio?
Blackowiak: A patio, or is a concrete slab a s~?
Planning Commission Meeting- September 18, 2001
Aanenson: The city attorney already made an interpretation on the definition of the driveway structure
when we reviewed the previous ordinance. A driveway doesn't meet the structure setbacks. If you had
to maintain the setback you'd have to maintain the 30 foot setback approaching the street .... 30 foot
setback If you're interpreting it the same way they are on the side yard, you'd have to have a 30 foot.
Well then how would your driveway touch the street? It doesn't work that way.
Debbie Lloyd: The side yard has a 10 foot setback.
Aanenson: And a front yard has a 30 foot setback
Debbie Lloyd: But the street, the driveway comes from the street into the house. Into the front yard .
setback and typically would mn into a house. If you were moving that to the side...
Blackowiak: I think what Kate's point is, if I am heating you right Kate, is that if we enforce the front
yard setback, which is 30 feet, then your driveway could never go through that.
Aanenson: Right.
Debbie Lloyd: Well then you could clarify and say the 10 foot side yard setback... And on page 11, :58-
4, Chapter 20, definition of structure it says, anything structure means anything...or erected which is
normally attached to or positioned on...would be temporary or permanent in character including, but not
limited to buildings...hard surface parking areas, boardwalks...concrete.
Aanenson: I would concur with that and also exempt in Section 209, which the city attorney gave a legal
opinion on that driveway's are exempt from setback requirements.
Blackowiak: Okay. So we're comfortable with the city attorney's opinion that the driveways are exempt
from that.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sacchet: Point of clarification, since we're talking about setback numbers. What's the minimum
frontage of a lot7
Aanenson: 90.
Sacchet: How much?
Aanenson: 90 in RSF.
Sacchet: In RSF, okay. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other new comments?
Aanenson: I was going to clarify that. Just if you're on a cul-de-sac you can measure it at the 30 foot
setback line. If you're on an elbow, it could be a little bit narrower if you take the radius. Just for
clarifications so I'm not misquoted.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Sacchet: That's why I'm asking.
Aanenson: Yes, you could be maybe 80 at the street and 90 at the 30 foot setback or something like that.
Blackowiak: Alrighty.
Saam: Madam Chair, if I could ~ one point. One thing I noted was mentioned, a comment ttmt we
were possibly lowering standards. I think as staff our point here was to make the standards a little more
strict so we'd have more control. Right now we don't have any control. You can put 4 driveway
accesses off a street if you want to and we can do nothing about it. And our city attorney couldn't
believe it. That we didn't have control so we're, I think, trying to make this a little mare smlctm'ed.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alrighty. Let's move on with this. If anybody has'any new comments to
add before we go for a vote Rich.
Slagle: I just wanted to throw out, I think Matt I agree with that and I think probably the group here
agrees that we're taking the right steps. I think the concern becomes that, and I don't know if it was
driven by Roger's legal opinion to whether it requires a setback or not but if there's a desire on this group
to have a setback for more what I'll just call practical reasons, seeing two lots with a driveway right next
to it coming close to someone's house, we probably don't want it. And so what I would like to throw
out, and I do think we should have a setback for side yard. I don't know if it's 5 or 10 feet but we should
have it and we would then I think by enacting that, or proposing that, take care of Matt's desire, the
staff's desire to control it and then hopefully make it easier for neighborhoods to manage. So I'min
support of that.
Blackowialc Okay, thank you. Any other new comments to add before we go for a vote? You weren't
here last time I know so go ahead.
Sidney: I think if we do talk about setbacks we have to look at that first paragraph and include setback in
slope standards for driveway construction as part of the verbiage. I do agree with Deb's comments and if
we're talking about driveways that are used for vehicular traffic.
Kind: Oh yes.
Sidney: Not just parking of trailers and boats or something. We are talking about a driveway which is
used, and not just a method to access a spot. And I think that really makes me think that we should have
consider a setback of at least 5 feet, which had been struck before but Fd include that. And that sounds
like that if we do that, and include point (a) again, then (g) should be inclnd_ed. But we're talking about
an active driveway which I think is the concern.
Kind: Right.
Blackowiak: Okay, any more new comments?
Sacchet: Real quick. I do believe the comments were well taken by Deb and also our visitors that it's
good to have a setback. It's definitely making this requires more stringent because right now there's
none. I feel comfortable with 5 foot setback. I would want to leave in (g). I would want to say that at
any point the grade is within the restrictions. I personally would be comfortable reducing the
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
requirement of what has to be surfaced to the easement portion of the driveway in the rural area. I think
that would suffice. I want to emphasize once more that we're talking about driveways, not private
streets. It seems like there's still some confusion about that. That's my comments.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Deb7
Kind: Madam Chair, I think I'll probably just say no comment. I think I did enough commenting all
along here.
Blackowiak: Okay, Craig anything to add?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I likewise would be in favor of a greater side yard setback for the road. I'm a little
concerned about how tedious the process is for someone who genuinely wants to just access or put up an
accessory structure, not for the purpose of business but for the purpose of their own convenience and
whether it be a hobby shop or whatever, what the process is for them Or what it will entail in the future.
Saarn: IfI could. I would be fine with just reviewing those on a case by case basis. That's what we had
talked about. Maybe it's not spelled out in here. If you would like to have some...
Claybaugh: ...contradiction and if there's a number of places down there that have structures to the
back that are used for the intended purpose, that we're well within the city ordinances and as you come
off Powers Boulevard, I believe it'd be the second property to the north there where you've got that
private street. That highlights exactly what Ms. Paulsen was describing where someone come in and
drop the property right in the back of another two there, split the lot up. So now that's the least desirable
outcome, but at the same time I'm just concerned that for people that want to pursue it for the means that
I described previously that then it's not too labor intensive for them to try to navigate that process. They
can still do that in the future. That's kind of one of the driving purposes for owning a larger lot.
Blackowiak: And Kate, that would just be a variance process, correct?
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: And that's already in place. We're not re-inventing the wheel here. No, okay. Alright.
Well with that, I'd like a motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission approves the attached amendment to Chapter 20
with the following changes. The first paragraph should read the purpose of this subsection is to provide
minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce erosion,
and then it continues on as it' s shown in the staff report. I would like item (a) added back in, and
changed to state, driveway shall be setback at least 10 feet from the side property lines. And I would like
item (g) added back in and item (h) changed to read one driveway access is allowed from a single
resident lot to the street. And item (i), add a period at the end of that paragraph.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any comments?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Sacchet: Yes, please.
Kind: I left it out.
In the first paragraph, that double strike out part, did you leave that out or?
Sacchet: Since that is relating to setback I wonder what anybody thinks to put that back in also. It
doesn't make that much difference to me.
Blackowiak: Is it relating to setbacks or is it relating to neighbors? I mean I think the 10 feet is more of
a.
Sacehet: Okay, that's fine.
Blaekowiak: I could be wrong.
Kind: Yeah. I mean that adds more substance to the rationale by leaving that in.
Saeehet: I think since we put back in setback, since this is somewhat related, it makes sense to add that
back in as well.
Kind: I would accept that friendly amendment
Sacchet: And then Co), I would like to clarify that this is at any point or in any portion of the driveway.
Kind: Sounds fine. I'll take them one by one.
Sacehet: And (c), yeah that makes sense. (c) I'd like to, in order to be consistent, like to add bituminous
and con~.
Kind: With concrete or bituminous?
Sacchet: Yeah because.
Kind: Or other hard surface material?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Kind: Last sentence.
Sacchet: Just to be consistent with how it's worrl__~_ before in the other context.
Kind: I'll accept that.
Sacchet: And then the one you may not accept, I would feel going 100 feet is encroaching a little bit on
these property owners. I'd like to take that down. The right-of-way's usually 30 feet?
Saanr Yeah, in the agricultural settings those county road right-of-way's are sometimes 80 feet and
wider so if you say to the fight-of-way edge then it's irrelevant.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. So I would like to propose that we say instead of for the first 100 feet of the driveway,
that we say at least to the right-of-way portion of the driveway.
Kind: I would accept that with the caveat that I would like Matt to research what other cities do and have
roles before going to council.
Saam: Okay. I'll just mention that we did gather information from roughly 6 to 10 other cities. 100 feet
is what we found in a couple of them. I can't guarantee it's in every city but that's where that number
came from. From other cities data.
Kind: I don't feel strongly about it either way. I just think the council should have that information.
Saam: Okay.
Blackowiak: Do you accept those amendments?
Kind: Ido.
Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
following amendments to Chapter 20:
Section 1. Section 20-1122 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 20-1122. Access and Driveways.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback'and slope standards 'for
vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easement by proViding
setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface for all driveways; to limit the number of
driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the street via establishment of
minimum driveway slope standards, Parking and loading spaces shall have proper.access from a public
right-of-way. The number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and
abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria:
a. Driveways shall be setback at least 10 feet from the side property lines.
b,
Driveway grades shall be a minimum of 0.5% and a maximum grade of 10% at any point
in the driveway.
In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified on
the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other
hard surface material, as approved by the City Engineer. In areas outside the MUSA,
driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right-of-way
portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as
approved by the City Engineer.
d,
On comer lots, the minimum comer clearance from the roadway right-of-way line shall
be at least 30 feet to the edge of the driveway.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
e.
For A-2, RSF, and R4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed
24 feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the fight-of-way may be paved except that
portion used for the driveway. Inside the ~ line of the site, the maximum
driveway width shall not exceed 36 feet. The minimum driveway width shah not be less
than 10 feet.
For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width
measured at the roadway fight-of-way line. No portion of the fight-of-way may be paved
except that portion used for the driveway.
g.
On lots not meeting the minimum width requirements at the right-of-way line, the
driveway setback may be reduced subject, to the following oriteria:
h.I. The driveway will not interfere with any existing easement; and
h.2. The location of the driveway must be approved by the City En~neer to ensure that it
will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties.
h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or
collector roadway as designated in the comprehemive plan, and onto city streets where
this is deemed necessary by the City Engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances,
street grades, or other relevant factors. If a turnawund is required by the engineer, this
requirement will be stated on the build~,ng permit.
j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted.
AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THAT AMENDMENT~
REZON1NG PARCELS REQUIRE A TW0-TIHRDS (2/3) MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL
MEMBERS OF Tim CITY COUNCIL.
Blackowiak: This is something we saw before and we did ask for the opinion of the city attorney as to
whether or not we were required to do this. Bob's not here tonight so Kate, are you going to be taking
this one or is Sharmin7
Aanenson: I'll be covering this one.
Blackowialc Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: Thank you. The way our current city ordinance reads is that for a .zoning ordinance
amendment requires a 4/5 vote. As you know we have changed the zoning ordinance. The way our
zoning map is set up is that area~ that are outside the current MUSA are left in agricultural. We do have
a comprehensive plan so the way it'~ set up is that if we were to at,nd the zoning ordinance we have to
make it consistent with the comprehensive plan or also amend the comprehensive plan, which we've
done in some circumstances. For example, Pulte Homes we had to change the low density in order to get
the twin home attached on that northern side. So we have used that process in the past. What thlg new
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
amendment, which was passed by the state legislature as part of the very end of the session, part of the
discussion as the city attorney pointed out, there' s some people proponents of affordable housing, wanted
to for those communities that do have a 4/5 majority, gives some opportunity for some input. So as the
city attorney has stated in his letter that it is, the voting requirement is mandatory. The city does not have
the discretion and we do not have the right to pre-empt that requirement. So the language as stated in the
proposed amendment is consistent with the state law so I hope with the letter that we, and the cases that
he cited, it clarifies that issue. So with that, staff is recommending again being consistent with the state
law. Amending this language to make sure that we are consistent with the law and I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Blaekowiak: Okay, given that does anyone have questions?
Sacehet: Is there any difference between what we saw last time and this time?
Aanenson: No. Same language, just clarification.
Blackowiak: Just that the attorney...well it was a little ambiguous before. But he says we have to do it
SO.
Kind: I have just, it' s probably a stupid question but how is 2/3 any different than 4/5 for our city
council? It still takes 4 out of 5 votes.
Aanenson: That would be required. The 2/3 is only the 3 votes.
Kind: But it says of all members of the city council, so it still needs to be 4.
Aanenson: But if you have 4 people there, you'd have to have all 4 present.
Kind: You'd have to have all 4 vote in favor of it.
Aanenson: Right. And this way you would not have to have all 4 vote in favor if you didn't have a super
majority.
Kind: The language is not quite that way here. It should say all present members of the city council, but
I'll leave that to Roger.
Aanenson: That's the way the statute reads, correct. And that's how it's been interpreted.
Kind: Okay. Interesting.
Blackowiak: I know. That's why we wanted the clarification.
Aanenson: That was the issue that came up last time.
Kind: Okay.
Blackowiak: So with that, could I have a motion please.
Sidney: Public hearing?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Blackowiak: Oh wait. Is this a public hearing?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Yes, thank you. As our revised agenda says, this item is open for a public hearing so if
anybody would like to speak to this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and
address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Any comments? Okay, Fd like a
motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance
amendment that shown in the report of September t8, 2001 to an ordinance amending Section 20-41 of
the Chanhassen City Code.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Succhet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~sion re~omm~ approval of the
ordinance amendment to SeOion 20-41 as shown in Attachment #1. Ail voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
AlV~ND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS.
Kate Aanenson presented the siaff report on this item.
Sacchet: I just want to be clear that basically the discussion type of smffI guess towards the end of the
meeting would be under ongoing items?
Aanenson: Correct. If you want to direct the staff or there's any issue you want to make public.
Sacchet: Okay.
Blackowiak: Any comments from commissioners before we vote on this?
Kind: I just have one nit under the secret ballot section, 4.1. I wonder if the language would be better to
say each member shall cast it's vote for the member he wishes to be chosen for the chairperson.. If no
one receives a majority voting shall continue until one member receives the majority supporL Ballot to
me feels like there's a piece of paper involved.
Blackowiak: Physical, yeah. Okay.
Kind: As long as you're cleaning it up.
Blackowiak: Let's clean it up. Okay. Any other comments? Changes? Proposals? Alright with that,
I'd like a motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt these changes to our by-laws as proposed by staff with the
addition of using the word vote instead of ballot and voting instead of balloting in 4.1.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Kind: I'll second that.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussions?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the By-laws amended to use
the words ballot and balloting instead of vote and voting in Section 4.1. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTF_~:
LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Pl_~nning Commi~fion meetings dated August 21, 2001 and
September 4, 2001 as presented.
Sacchet: I would like to note also that one is incomplete. The one from the 21't and the one from the 4t~
is pretty spotty.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Blackowiak: Kate you have an update on Villages.
Aanenson: Yes I do. First I just want to talk about our next meeting. We do have a site plan coming
forward to you. You'll have one item on your next meeting. As I indicated the item that was tabled
tonight, the large site plan has been withdrawn. I don't believe we'll see it back yet this year. But you
will see a site plan for Dell Road and 5. That's an office building. Also we'll be talking about
Presbyterian Homes, but they should be in this week and you'll be seeing them and we do have a work
session scheduled for the 16t~. I'm going to try to get you out to look at some projects and we'll come
back and kind of go through the things that we'll be working on this next year and get some feedback
from you.
Blackowiak: Okay, Kate was that work session on the 16th, are you looking to go earlier than 6:00? I
mean is light going to be an issue.
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: So are we going to be touring?
Aanenson: Thank you for bringing that up. Yes, I would like to start a little earlier if that works for
people. If we could maybe leave at 5:00, if that works for people.
Blackowiak: Okay. Again if they know they can't make it at 5:00.
Aanenson: Commissioner Kind has informed me that she is unavailable.
Blackowiak: Who is?
Aanenson: Commissioner Kind.
Blackowiak: Commissioner Kind is unavailable.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Kind: Vacationing.
Aanenson: It is the MBA.
Kind: It's MEA.
Blackowiak: There's still school Tuesday, isn't there? No press~.
Slagle: Should we consider this vacation request?
Blackowialc We should maybe go back and review the official by-laws. Vacations must be approved.
Okay, but I suppose if there's anybody else that can't make it maybe we should.
Aanenson: Yes, I'd like to know because we have...try to make space for that It is an i .mlmrtant time.
Again we want to gear up for what things we'll be doing this next year. G-et some feedback and we'll
spend a little more time at the different areas within community development so we'll talk about some
forestry things and some environmental things...and get some feedback so it is an important meeting.
And again I'd like you to get out and see some of the things we've done this year too.
Blackowiak: Okay, so RSVP to Kate by what? End of this month? Is that too late? By the end of this
month, is that too late to tell you?
Aanenson: No, that's fine.
Blackowiak: Okay, let Kate know either way. Call her.
Kind: Modurn Chair, one more comment on ongoing items. I migs having that little list. I just want to
give you positive feedback for improving that. I like having that in there.
Aanenson: Do you want it in every time?
Kind: I do.
Aanenson: Okay. No problem.
Kind: Preferably with things checked off.
Blackowiak: Okay, Villages.
Aanenson: Okay, I wanted to give you an update. When we looked at the Culver site plan there was a
discussion based on the fact that this was a PUD, as to whether or not the Planning Conwni~sion wanted
to deviate from that. Where the council was going with that on that. So what we did is we know there's
some other changes coming forward and you're to see one with Presbyterian Homes and so what you did
on your work session, went to the City Council and kind of went through some of the changes to get
some feedback to see where they're going. And staff also gave their input of how they felt about some of
those changes. And what you've got is a very brief synopsis of the work session. They're not the
verbatim but I want to go through those with you. Kind of what's in place right now. When we did the,
this whole project again is being driven by the PUD, the design standards and the environmental
17
Planning Commission M~ting - September 18, 2001
assessment document that was in place. As you recall when we looked at this area over here that there's
the three apartments. Originally we also looked at one of those could actually be an office building. The
PUD. It had to be either or scenario so it came in with all the apartments. The other change on that is we
looked at trying to do the affordability. The EDA looked at that and the margin was so great so there has
been some changes in that and when this originally came in. The Americlun is in place. The retail
space. Starbucks. Quizno's. Retail space. Furniture store. Addition of the Culver's. The Foss Swim
School which you recall there was a lot of discussion on that. The architecture and so each one is unique
and we try to work through those. That was one where we used the, actually we used the open
discussion. Rolled up our sleeves and spent a lot of time trying to figure that out. Again the driver in
this whole thing, the St. Hubert's project. We had approved it. Office building. This kind of held them
at bay to see what St. Hubert's was going to do as far as their expansion. Whether they use that or not.
And Bookoo Bikes, not to leave them off. And Houlihan's, what's in place. Right now the configuration
for the Presbyterian Homes will be coming iff. Approximately 170 units. They are going to be asking for
a height variance. We apprised the City Council 'of that. The staff does support it. It's in the core center
so it will have underground parking. It's providing additional parking also for St. Hubert' s. But based
on the uniqueness of that and how it lays out, we think it makes sense. Originally they were going to
come to the next meeting and ask for some variances. The staff's preference is to always do it with a
project. It's more palatable to see how it's working. Whether it makes sense. Based on the last
discussion we weren't sure where to go so we ran this past the City Council, just to make sure both
groups on the same page. They also want to look at some of the changes to the sign ordinance, and I
know there's been a lot of discussion when we did, even the Amerielnn, putting the sign up there on the
cupola. Spending a lot of time on that. The staff's recommendation and the developer agree~ that I think
through everybody's good wisdom, we make decisions. We may not all agree with each other but
collectively this group made a decision and the council maybe even has tweaked it a little bit more but
we'd just as soon leave the sign ordinance as it is. If somebody has a unique circumstance, I think we're
all reasonable to make the recommendations to modify that so they agreed to leave that. The other thing
goes back to the EAW where we specified there's different sectors and I didn't bring that map down but
it's in the environmental assessment. There's different sectors and within each of those there's only so
much residential, commercial. You can change those based on traffiC. What the applicant's apprised us
is there may actually be a little bit more residential than we had anticipated. You know we had set the
goals to keep that commercial in the core. We will still have the commercial on the first level. It looks
like there will be another building coming in, probably an extended care. Commercial on the first floor,
maybe some meeting space on the second floor. But there may end up being some more residential
depending how that mix works. We're saying we may be receptive to look at that and try to get some
more owner occupied in there too. Again the Presbyterian Homes is obviously...and what we're trying
to get is some of the owner occupied long term residents in there. So with that, really we said we're
going to let the process be the process. You're going to look at the plan with a variance at the same time.
The Presbyterian Homes. There's no, we're going to give you a height variance. They're tied together,
which is the right way to do that. The council agreed. They're saying they're willing to look at it.
They're expecting you to do your job and look at it. Put your fingerprints on it and then it will go
through the process. So I just wanted to let you know that we have talked to them. They're aware of
these changes are coming forward and again, we look at the energy that was spent on this project as far as
the thought process. Where we were then and how it's been evolving. We've had to compromise in
certain areas but I think as it's coming together, good things are happening. We want to make sure that
we're taking our time and not just saying you know we're going to completely deviate from what was in
place. And being careful about those and so far I think we've taken that approach. Any questions on
that?
Blackowiak: So we expect to see this?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Aanenson: If they submit this week you'll be seeing it I believe the first one in November. Your first
meeting in November.
Blackowiak: Okay. Anybody else?
Slagle: I have a couple questions. Could you put that map up again? Kate, ff you can talk about the
center of the development. What those buildings on all four corners of that center are supp~ to be.
Aanenson: Those are retail. The retail core on the first floor.
Slagle: Okay. And then possibly residential above?
Aanenson: Correct. And that's where when we say maybe more residential above on those, correct.
Slagle: Okay. So let me, if I may just try and summaxize what I think is happening. This development
was proposed some time ago. The idea was a pedestrian friendly community. There's been some
difficulties developing it for whatever reason and I've heard comments from the developer .that times are
changing and we have to change with it. And now I'm seeing in this short minutes that there was a
comment along that same thinking that things are, you know we have.to go with the changes and maybe
that's what the idea of the variance is. Or we look at it and pass it onto the council. I mean is that?
Aanenson: Well I don't want to say, I don't think we're throwing the baby out with the bath here at all. I
certainly don't want to do that, and I don't think there's anybody that's saying that. But what we're
saying is that they're going to, when something comes in and asks for a change, everybody throws their
arms up. What my point is, is when we put this together Presbyterian Homes wasn't even in our thought
process and what they're trying to do and complimenting what's happening there and the architecUn'e,
we've seen the plans, we think works. Just like I didn't anticipate Foss Swim School and it's a nice
compliment to that area. It's a nice asset to the community. So sometimes some of those uses.
Nobody's saying change the uses. We anticipated residential in there but we're saying some of the
architectural things, some of those other little fine points sometimes we have to shift. The staff did make
their recommendation on the drive through. We didn't support it but the fact of the matter is thare was a
small loophole in that a bank or a pharmacy could have a drive through. As the community survey
pointed out, there is a need for more sit down, or desire for more sit down restaurants, which we hope -
still will happen. We anticipate a lot more, but no. As far as the overall mix of uses, we still
anticipate...
Slagle: Were all the councilors present for that work session?
Aanenson: No.
Slagle: Who was present?
Aanenson: I believe 4 were there. One left shortly after.
Slagle: Okay. Then last question would be, if you remember the last meeting on the Culver's
discussion, my closing points of really wanting to stress that because of what I feel, or see here in this
development and what I've read about it, the way the streets are confi~ I'm concerned about traffic
volume. Is it fair to ask the businesses, what are you guys laughing at?
19
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Saechet: Feelings.
Slagle: Oh that's right, I'm sorry. I can't think of another work for it. But is it fair to ask these
applicants to develop traffic patterns, studies, what have you based upon this site versus using in the case
of the previous applicant an average of a national restaurant. Because either this development, and I
don't know if you guys agree or not, but I think this development is a very unique with the way the roads
are structured and I think trying to imagine all of these buildings and traffic in there, it's just going to be
a nightmare. And I don't agree with the thought that more traffic brings safer streets.
Sacchet: People drive slower. It slows them down.
Slagle: Oh yeah, sure. So anyway.
Aanenson: You points well taken and that was one of the discussion points, if you read through the
minutes, is that any changes has to go back to the underlying EAW which studied the traffic. If you're
putting in a, if you looked at a residential use and now you're putting in office that's generating twice as
much traffic during the peak hours, that's going to be a problem That's what we're saying. There are
certain driving forces to this that.
Slagle: So questions at least will be raised by staff too?
Aanenson: Absolutely. That's a good question, and that was our issue with the Culver's thing too.
What are the peak hours? What does that do to the rest of this site and that was a concern.
Blackowiak: Okay Kate, if we're going to be seeing this, I know that there are certain commissioners
that probably don't have a copy of the EAW or have even a copy of the design standards for Villages so
if you've.
Aanenson: I think I'll put that out in the next packet. Then you'll have plenty of time.
Blackowiak: I was going to say, make sure that you ask for it or get it before we see this again because
that might be helpful. I know I've got mine but I don't know Deb, do you have a copy?
Kind: No.
Blackowiak: I was going to say, I think I might be the only one.
Kind: That's old enough.
Aanenson: Sure. I'll put that in a binder for you. That's a great idea. I'll put that out in the next packet
and then you'll have plenty of time before Presbyterian Homes, and then if you have questions at the next
meeting.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I will adjourn the meeting.
Chairwoman Blackowlak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
20
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
21
CITYOF
CHANII EN
~ ~ta 55317
952 95 Z1900
952.937.5739
952.937.9152
952.9342524
TO: Mayor
City Council
FROM:
DATE:
October 4, 2001
SUB J:
School District 276 Refc~mdnm
Attached is an informational packet for the upcoming referendum for School
District 276. A representative from the district will be present on Monday
evening to give a summary of the referendum and answer any questions you
may have.
56~1 County ~ 101
M?mnetmlki. MN 55345
(952) 401-~]00
September 17, 2001
Dear Minnetonka School District Resident:
Your School Board has decided to place two finance questions on the November 6 ballot. Each
question is another reason for you to vote. As your representatives elected to govern the
Minnetonka School District, we have carefully reviewed the needs of our schools and the financial
requirements to operate those schools effectively and efficiently.
We made cost containment decisions earlier this year that utilized available resources and
reco~ that insufficient revenues were available to operate the existing programs and services.
Accordingly, we reduced the fiscal year 2002 budget by $2.2 million. This was the fourth time in
six years that such decisions had to be made. This year, we have received an increase in state
financial support of just 0.7%, and next year it will be 2.2%. Costs are going up 4-5% per year.
Further deep cuts in our programs, services and staffing will be required without action on our part.
The Legislature and Governor decided to give sizable property tax reductions instead of aid to
schools this year; however, they are also giving voters the authority to pass levies to support local
schools. At a special meeting held September 14, we adopted a referendum package that will come
before voters on Tuesday, November 6. This package will consist of two levy referendum
questions one asking voters to support increased funding for operating expenses and one asking
voters to support increased funding for instructional equipment and technology.
Passing both ballot questions will not change the fact that homeowners throughout the District will
receive a property tax reduction. It will only change the mount of the reduction. Please review the
attached table. A smmnm3' of the referendum proposal is also enclosed. Please check the backside
of this letter to see how you can get more information about the referendum. We welcome your
questions and hope you will get the facts to help you make an informed vote on November 6.
Sincerely,
The Minnetonka School Board
Bob Quam, Chair
Ph: 474-1847
Bill Slowter, Treasurer
Ph: 931-0250
Bill Wenmark, Director
Ph: 476-0015
Peggy Stefan, Vice Chair
Ph: 470-0966
Jane Kennedy, Director
Ph: 470-0292
Erin Adams, Clerk
Ph: 380-1352
Perry Schwartz, Director
Ph: 933-3272
Here's how you can learn more.
Attend a Community Information Meeting about the referendum on any or all of
the following dates.
Tuesday, September 25
Monday, October 1
Monday, October 8
Tuesday, October 9
Thursday, October 11
Monday, October 15
7 p.m.
7 p.m.
7 p.m.
9 a.m.
7 p.m.
7 p.m.
Clear Springs Elementary School
Groveland Elementary School
Minnewashta Elementary School
Scenic Heights Elementary School
Deephaven Elementary School
Excelsior Elementary School
Call any School Board member or Superintendent Dennis Peterson (phone
numbers listed below)
· Call the We Listen Hotline at 401-5090 or send an e-mail to
welisten @ minnetonka.k 12.mn.us
· Leave a voice mail message for School Board members by calling 401-5097 or
send an e-mail to mtka-sb@minnetonka.kl2.mn.us
Check the District's Web page for regular updates at www.minnetonka.kl2.mn.us
· Read your local newspapers and watch for future District mailings
November 6, 2001 Referendum
Some Important Points for Minnetonka Residents to Know
Property Tax Relief- The 2001 Minnesota Legislature and the Governor developed a new
plan for funding schools throughout the state starting during the 2001-02 school year. The
plan provides that the state will pay for the "basic costs" of education in all districts. The
state also assumed up to $415 per pupil in levies previously approved by local .voters. Thus,
substantial reductions in property taxes for houses throughout the state will occur in 2002
(see attached table).
Modest Increase in Public Education Funding - The ''basic cost" of edu~on included in
the new formula fails to acknowledge the considerably higher cost to suburban and urban
districts just to provide the same programs and services. Further, the in~ in state
aid to suburban districts in 2001 and 2002 are very small (0.7% and 2.2% for Minnetonka).
The logic offered by the Governor's staff has been that local voters must use their new
authority to either pass a referendum to make up the shortfall or force their district to make
additional budget restrictions.
Legislature Increases Referendum Authority - The new financing plan provides authority
for voters in each district to determine if they will use some of the substantial property tax
reductions from the state to supplement the low amounts of state aid in 2001 and 2002.
Metropolitan legislators worked hard to get this right for suburban communities in light of
the very small increase in state aid.
State Formula for Equipment Increased by only 4.6% since 1991-92- Special funds for
technology and instructional equipment have been available for several years based upon the
authorization of local district voters. Because of the growing need to provide current
technology for all students and the need to replace maps, globes and other basic instructional
equipment, the Board is asking voters to increase the amount of the levy.
Reclaim Operating Dollars to Reduce Class Sizes - Another important consideration with
the "technology/instructional equipment" levy is that it will allow that fund to absorb the
costs of technology support currently in the operating budget. These costs should be in the
technology fund but there is not currently enough revenue to support them and they have
been taken from operating funds. By making this readjustment, about $800~000 in the
operating budget will be made available to reduce class sizes.
Operating Referendnm will Avoid Future Budget Shortfalls - A shortfall of $2.2 million
in 2001 forced the elimination of program.q, services and personnel. Those losses will not be
reinstated with the small state aid increase. Another $1 million shortfall will occur in 2002
without the new levy.
Operating Levy will Increase Revenue by 4.7 % - The ballot issue for the operating fund
will provide taxes of $304 per pupil unit, which is about $2.7 million. That amount will not
grow in future years unless the currently stable enrollment increases. Also, the issue will
"sunset" the current levy of $1,072 that would expire in 2005 and coordinate the expiration
with the new levy in 2011. Passage of this levy will allow us to:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Improve our schools
Maintain current programs
Avoid further deep cuts in 2002-03
Reduce class size in critical areas
Provide a prudent budget reserve to cushion a projected shortfall for 2003-04
Technology/Instructional Equipment Levy will Address Multiple Needs - The ballot
issue for the technology/instructional equipment fund is calculated differently, and it will
provide for an increase of $2.5 million over the two current levies; however about $800,000
of that levy will be used for technology support now funded by the operating fund; thereby
releasing that amount to be used to reduce class size. The levies set to expire in 2002 and
2006 will "sunset" early and be combined with the new levy to expire in 2011. Passage of
this levy will allow us to:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Expand use of technology for learning and communicating with parents
Update instructional equipment, maps and globes
Replace and upgrade existing technology throughout the ten years of the levy
Support technology on an on-going basis
Reduce class size (see next bullet)
Community Survey Indicates Support of Issues - An extensive, random poll of
Minnetonka voters in mid-August revealed that 66% support the need for the operating levy
to only 24% who are opposed (10% undecided) and 53% support the need for the
technology/instructional equipment levy to 36% opposed (11% undecided). Overall, 70% of
those polled believe the district must maintain current technology equipment for students.
Modest Monthly Cost- The cost of the operating levy will be about $12.33 per month and
the cost of the technology/instructional equipment will be about $10.67 per month for the
owner of a house with a 2001 assessed value of $200,000. These amounts will be more than
off-set by the property tax reductions provided by the state.
Strong Schools Support Property Values- A January 2001 survey of our community
revealed that 87% of residents believe strong schools support property values. Many believe
it is critical to keep schools strong not only for students who attend them but for the strength
of the overall community and property values.
lVlgMORANDUM
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
PO J~:x147
~ ~ 55317
952937.1900
952937.5739
95293Z9152
952934.2524
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Todd G-eahaxdt, City Manag~
Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director
September 26, 2001
SUB J:
Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation; Roundhouse
Neighborhood ~on Project
The Commission was infoxmext on Septe~ 25m that the heighborhood
initiative to restore the roundhouse did not get off the gimmd this past summer.
Deanna Bunkleman, the project leader, experienced an extended family heal~
issue over the summer and was unable to put everything together. Anticipating
that Ms. Bunkleman will be asking the City Council for a lime extension to
complete the work,, the Commiaaioll mnde the following recommendation:
Park and Recreation Commissioner Karlovich moved that the Park
and Recreation Commissian recommend that the City Council consider
granting a one-year extension on the Roundhouse renova~n project,
affo~g D~anna BunMeman the necessary time to mobilize her group
and neighborhood in order to complet~ tho work. Commissioner Howe
secondtd the motion and it passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Moes
voting agaimt
Manager's Comments:
If the City Council is considering granting Ms. Bunkelm~ an extension, I
would recommend that you request the following information prior to granting
the extension:
Work Plan: A work plan should be provided that details the scope of the
project from start to completion. The plan should include budget,
materials, subcon~ list, building permits, etc.
Project. Schedule: The project schedule should inc_lude a month-to-
month account of the work to be completed.
$. Commitmtnt: Each.'p~ject team volunteer should state their
commitment to the project and its completion.
/~~: All of the information must be submitted to the City Council
by November 12. If not, staff should be directed to prepare the site for
demolition by the end of November 2001.
c: Park and Recreation Commission
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other.questions from council? Comments? Okay. Thank you very
much. Keep us posted.
Beth Hoiseth: You're welcome.
Councilman Labatt: Thanks Beth.
ROUNDHOUSE PAVILION RENOVATION. ROUNDHOUSE PARK.
Public Present:
N~me Address
Jan Lash 7001 Tecumseh Lane
Fred Berg 6910 Chaparral Lane
Rod Franks 8694 Mary Jane Circle
David Moes 6241 Near Mountain Blvd.
Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road
Michael & Connor Howe 2169 Stone Creek.Drive
Deanna Bunkelman 4191 Red Oak Lane
Ed Kling 4169 Red Oak Lane
Jody & Greta Carlson 4041 Leslee Curve
· Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road
Jim Manders 6791 Chaparral Lane
Todd Hofhnan: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. It' s my pleasure to be here this evening
again to talk about the round house with the City Council. This past February you directed staff to
coordinate a neighborhood meeting between the Park and Recreation Commission and the neighborhood
to discuss alternative methods of renovating the round house. And if you recall at that time we were
talking about a public bid project of approximately $125,000 to complete this work. On T-ues~y, April
l0z the commission conducted this neighborhood meeting. Approximately 20 to 25 residen/s attended
representing both sides of the issue. Those sides being tear it down, and either just leave the hole or fill
it and plant grass or put an alternative shelter up, and those residents supporting the renovation or saving
the round house. The meeting lasted approximately 2 hours. Upon conclusion of the discussion that
evening Commissioner Franks recommended the City Council move forward with Option g4. And that
option in brief is, have the City invest approximately $50,000, or up to $50,000 in the project. Then have
a neighborhood group or neighborhood committee with a chairperson work with local contractors and
local building suppliers to complete the project as a neighborhood initiative. And that would lead' to an
adaptive re-use of the round house as a park shelter and that the commission would review the progress
to that end at their September meeting. And if a consensus of the commission at thattime is that progress
is not satisfactory, that the commission would then entertain demolition of the round house at that time.
The motion was clarified to specify that a neighborhood coordinator and committee would form to retain
and work directly with a local contractor to complete the renovation. Commissioner Berg seconded the
motion which passed in a vote of 5 to 1. In the audience this evening we have Deanna Bunkelman who
has volunteered to serve as the neighborhood coordinator, or at least play out that role if another member
were identified. And then there's members of the neighborhood here as well this evening. In addition
we have all members of the Park and Recreation Commission in the audience this evening here to answer
questions, or offer assistance to the City Council.
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: None of them have an opinion though, do they?
Todd Hoffman: I believe they may have an opinion, sure. If you'd like to hear those. With that, I'm
excited about the process. I think this is what, sometimes we're criticized for...that ~y takes some
element of risk on the part of the City and the City Council, but I think it's a project that is worthwhile.
One thing that I noted at the meeting was that it took some bravery to stand up in front of those neighbors
that opposed the project and say th~ we support it and we're willing to take it on if the City gives us a
chance. I think there's a good deal of neighborhood peer pressure in the area that will PUsh these people
to make the project a reality. That's the end of my report.
Mayor lansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Peterson: Todd, is the design that was presented 'in'Febmary'and the design that is
essentially is there today, is it substantially different? It was a hundred and some thousand by having an
architect drawing and an outside contractor doing it. Is the building still essentially the same or has it
changed substantially?
Todd Hoffman: The project I would think would be relatively the same with the exception of prohably
the clear story or the glass glazing would go away from the top. It's an expensive element. Some of the
structural steel that was identified in the project may go away as a part of a neighborhood project. But
the neat thing about it is that plans that were developed and the city paid for would be utilized by the
contractor and the committee to make use of in their project so we are getting some value out of those
plans.
Councilman Peterson: We also authorized a certain amount of money to be spent in Febmm-y to stop the
deterioration. Was there any money spent at all or?
Todd Hoffman: Not to date, no. The roof membrane which h~ been placed over it is still in good
condition and holding water out of the structure so it has dried out. We have not placed a te~0orary
fence around it at this time.
Councilman Peterson: Lastly, we talk about a $50,000 investment from the City. How confident are we,
and I don' t know whether or not it's appropriate for you to answer this. I' 11 leave it up to you. If we get
down the road and realize it's still going to cost more, there's a, are we going to be caught between a
rock and a hard place if we end up spending 45. Get down to September and we need another 25 to
finish it, I mean what are the odds that that might happen you think?
Todd Hoffman: There's some risks listed under hem and One of those, as is stated directly in the staff
report, is that the possibility that the money may nm out prior to the completion of the project. But I
think if we're clear to this committee that the reason that $50,000 has been identified is that's the limit
for, that a city can invest in a project such as this without going out to public bidding and so that's a
pretty clear message to that organization that you'd better budget wisely. Get an upfront plan. Make
sure you know who you're getting donations from and where your labor's coming from and plan
accordingly because nobody wants, is interested in getting ~A of the road down the project or halfway
down and running out of money.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you.
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: First off, I did some checking last week and I got the answers today. A number of
residents e-mailed me inquiring about safety issues. Safety issues in terms of improving the facility and
people using it inappropriately. That sort of thing. I got a hold of Bud Olson. He had some people
check it out and they do not see that as a viable safety issue, which surprised me. So he changed my
mind. Not just because he's the sheriff, but because he had some good, credible information associated
with this so just as a matter of public record, I want that to be known. With respect to liability for folks
working on the project. How do you couch liability for the volunteers?
Todd Hoffman: There are certain segments of the project which will have to he subcontracted and the
one that I know of today is the removal, if the paint is removed on the outside, of that lead-in paint. And
so the group would need to work with a licensed contractor in that area, if they want to strip it. If they
want to paint over or encapsulate that paint, they would be perfectly fine doing that work.
Councilman Ayotte: Does the commission or anyone else view any potential liability areas outside of the
Hazmat? Crawling up on the second floor scaffolding. Things along that, and how do we protect the
City?
Todd Hoffman: There's risks in that area. I'm not sure if Roger would like to comment on that but
anytime you have people working with a project such as this, it's a two story project. There's demolition
involved.
Councilman Ayotte: How are we protected?
Roger Knutson: Liability normally attaches based on negligence and a lot of other theories. It depends
on what we have these people doing, and whether the conditions are safe and if we have them doing
things that only skilled people should he doing and we allow them to do it, we could have some liability.
Of Course we are insured. So it' d be whatever deductibles we'd have. That' s little comfort if a person is
injured.
Scott Botcher: Without the city exercising direct supervision of the activities and the volunteers, we
have liability.
Roger Knutson: Again, depending on what you're doing.
Scott Botcher: Absolutely.
Roger Knutson: If you're up on a scaffold and you have a 16 year old child working on a scaffold,
there's a problem.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm just voicing a concern. I'm hopir~g that it's addressed properly and that the
supervisory issues are there. That the QA issues are there and that possibly we inform folks of the risk
and liability associated with the project before we do a go forward. That is a concern of mine.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: I had the same concerns with liability so Bob once again answered them for me. As
I look at this building, every time I drive by it, it's a building that definitely is an eyesore but I think with
what.
10
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: I think that was agreement.
Councilman Labatt: And I look back to what the folks in Excelsior did with the Minehaha steamer and
how they used a group of volunteers over a long period of time to restore that. And I think that this
option 4 gives us that option so I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. This is in fact not a public hearing and we certainly have extensive minutes from
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. I'm sure everyone did read through those and we
appreciate every one who did come in and speak at that hearing. The individual that, if council wouldn't
mind my asking her to approach the microphone and speak to her supervis~ the project, would be
Deanna Bunkelman. If she, did I tmderstand she's here this evening? If you wouldn't mind coming
forward to the microphone and if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record.
Deanna Bunkelnum: Deanna Bunkelman, 4191 Red Oak Lane.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for joining us tonight. We appreciate it and for stepping up and volunteering to
organize this effort. We appreciate it.
I)eamm Bunkelman: I'm not sure, I had sent you a separate e-mail. Were you able to read that?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. Appreciate that.
Deanna Bunkelman: Okay. One thing I did want to let you know is I did find a co-coordinator so that
we can definitely have the time and resources available to do this because I think it would be a lot for one
person, since I do have a full time job. And he's here tonight as well and I don't know if you want him to
speak. He wasn't able to come to the comminsion meeting but he would be willing to say a few words.
Mayor Jansen: I'm sure we wouldn't mind meeting him as well;
Deanna Bunkelman: Ed Kling. And I pretty much, if you've read my c-mail, I pretty much said
everything I ne_~_ed to say so I don't know if you have any specific qtiesfions for me.
Mayor Jansen: Well, some of the issues that I'm hearing, and maybe if you wouldn't mind potentially
~Odressing, the one that came up as far as the city's contribution and we haven't established yet as a
council what that contribution amount will be. But it inevitably will take more financial wherewithal to
get this accomplished.
Deanna Bunkelman: We are hoping to get as many donations as possible from local businesses. I just
found out tonight, we were hoping to hit some'major window man~ because we re, ally liked the
design of the building with the windows up above. You know fight under the c. one of the roof, and I just
found out tonight we have a great connection with Marvin Windows so we're hoping to get all the
windows donated. We'll he going to other local building manufactmers to see what type of building
material we can get donated, such as all the roofu~ materials, the cedar shakes. We also have
connections with some local builders so we're hoping that they can donate whatever they can donate, so
at least the materials. Labor, we have many neighbors in the neighborhood that are willing to offer their
time and labor so again we're hoping to do as much as we can. Ed has connections with, he has with
painting you know so hopefully the varnish and all of the painting type materials we can also have
donated. So we're just going to go out and try to solicit more volunteers and try to solicit as many
donations as we can. And what we're hoping to do with that is actually similar to Excelsior. They have
11
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
that playground next to the lake down, right on the main lake there in Excelsior. And you can see
everybody that donated like Norwest Bank and stuff. They actually have plaques there to show that they
donated so we're kind of thinking maybe we would do something similar. Just to recognize them for
their donations. You might be aware that on Lake Minnewashta, I don't know how many years they've
been doing it because I've only been in the neighborhood for a couple years, but they actually go around
to get donations for fireworks, to do their own fireworks on Lake Minnewashta so we're thinking that if
they can do that, that we should be able to get donations even from people that live on the lake and from
the neighborhood as well so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for addressing that. Do you know in reference to some of the volunteers
in the neighborhood, what kind of a skill level you're going to be able to bring in? I'm hearing our
liability issue as far as our ending up with some of, you know if you were to put me up on a roof we
would definitely have a liability issue.
Deanna Bunkelman: I don't know if they're professionally licensed. You know I'm sure the builder
would be, and his contractors would be if we can get any time from them. My husband built on a third
car garage on our previous home. Put on cedar shakes, did things like that. He's not a licensed
contractor but he's done a lot of work like that. I know Ed, in his previous home built a gazebo and did
all the construction on that so, I don't know as far as licensed bu~ I do know we have a lot of people in
the neighborhood. They build their own decks. They do a lot of things around the home. You know
they're handyman type people so as far as truly skilled and that's their profession, I'm not sure.
Councilman Ayotte: One of the things I would request is if we could, and when a motion is made I might
throw in the thought of having a QA plan and a safety plan integrated into Option 4. That it may not be a
bad idea that when the plan is put together that there'd be really heavy staff review by our city engineer
to ensure that if there is potential issue or potential concern with some of the things that .are going on,
that they can introduce some of the safety parameters so we're not causing ourselves a problem. I'll
probably throw that out when we're ask to vote on this so, but would you be receptive to working in that
kind of constraint to have the plan reviewed by city engineers to make sure you haven't had any hiccups.
Deanna Bunkelman: If they're not going to'charge us.
Councilman Ayotte: She set me up.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions?
Councilman Ayotte: Heck no, geez.
Deanna Bunkelman: And I definitely wanted to give Ed an opportunity...
Mayor Jansen: Sure, thank you.
Ed Kling: Hello, I'm glad to be here tonight. Thank you for inviting me up.
Mayor Jansen: If you could state your name and address just for the record please.
Ed Kling: Okay my name's Edward Kling, 4169 Red Oak Lane.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
12
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Ed Kling: I think you know when we look at the building and what it has to offer and also the support
that we're getting from our people in the neighborhood, and then also the oppommity to have businesses
contribute to this building, I think what we have, or what we really need to look at is, when we see
communities, some of the small towns that surround the Twin Cities are survi~ on the fact that they
have an appeal, an aesthetic that you can't get by building a new building. And some of these small
towns are surviving only on the fact that they have bed and breakfast to bring people in and now they're
starting to thrive on that. And by looking at this building we can rebuild this building and have
something that we couldn't get by building a new building. And ! see as we go forw~ we have more
and more support and there is a lot of excitement and there are a lot of options that we have to cut costs
and to get this building built. ! don't thinl~ that's a problem. Concerning the liabih'ty, I don't know if
there's any way that we can maybe draw up a liability waiver for those that are going to be involved, and
then whenever we do go forward to do any construction on the building, make sure that there is someone
from our local neighborhood committee on site to make sure that if there is anybody there, that we have
the liabilities signed and we have everybody accounted for. If that is an option~
Mayor Jansen: That's an interesting question. If we could maybe have Roger speak to that.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think what I'm hearing tonight is kind of a concept for a proje . ¥ou'11 need
to have professional supervision of anyone working in that building, whether that's staff or a hired
consultant, contractor, whoever, you'll need someone who's responsible to the city to do that and you'll
need a project budget and you'll need to know exactly how much money you're spending and all that
before you actually go over there and start working, I would assume. So yeah, all these things you'U
need and waivers aren't that effective.
Scott Botcher: They're not worth the paper they're written on.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: I wouldn't go quite that...
Scott Botcher: Save the trees, don't even write them.
Ed Kling: Okay, that's all I have.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it. And appreciate your stepping up to co-chair.
Ed Kling: Thank you and I have, you know this if my first time tonight but I have c0mmi~ to seeing to
it that if there is something that needs to be taken care of to spearhead any issues that would beco~ our
responsibility, and give as much time as I possibly can to make sure that things get done. Okay?
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you very much. Bringing this back to c. oun~il, I'm watching our city
manager agitatedly fidgeting over here as he's going to explain to us all of the impmcficalifies of what
we're trying to accomplish, which is why we have hired professional staff. And I guess before he takes a
crack at it, I know all of us are sitting up here looking at the practicalities of the project and trying to
weigh that with the emotional side of it and I'm intrigued that apparently every time this project has been
debated, it's been the same thing. You've got 50/50 and the e-mails that we have gotten in opposition to
our renovating this have been just as adamant and pracfi~ as the ones who want to save it and renovate
it. It's good arguments on both sides. And I think what you're going to be hearing our city manager
.13
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
explaining to us that in order to do a project like this, there are going to be some significant issues that as
a city we may have to come up with some answers for them As Couneiknan Ayotte was pointing out,
the whole liability issue on the city's part. I think everyone here as residents can certainly appreciate that
you don't want to see the city put in a worse financial position than we are currently because we got all
warm and fuzzy about the round house and put our necks on the line and everyone's tax dollars on the
line in order to do something with it. So there may be some issues that you're going to hear us having to
address in order to actually put this together. And I'm hearing from our city attorney that we may have to
have a more concrete plan in place if in fact we do choose to go forward with this project. So with that
I'm going to mm the practical aspects over to.
Scott Botcher: Dr. No.
Mayor Jansen: Dr. No.
Scott Botcher: That was a great movie. He had those gloves, remember that? I thought you were Dr. No
Bob? Sorry to take your thunder. I'm just, I'm perplexed by this. Not being the emotional guy, although
I told Todd Gerhardt I'm going to be Alan Alda the last month just to see how it feels. Todd, how much
have we spent on design so far of this, I mean the drawing of the specs for this thing?
Todd Hoffman: Approximately $15,000 with the testing. Materials testing.
Scott Botcher: So we ultimately could have 65 grand sunk into this thing and not know if we're going to
have anything when we're done. Is that correct? Yes, it is correct. So my question is, is there anything
else in the entire city that you would spend $65,000 on and now know that you're going to get anything
for it? I mean I think that's just a fundamental issue. I mean we've worked so hard to deal with financial
issues and it's a passion of mine, I admit. And Brace is gone. And certainly the volunteerism aspect that.
Todd has mentioned is good, but you can have that same level of volunteerism on other things absent the
exposure that the city could potentially undertake if Option 4 were to be followed. The numbers that are
in this recommendation are significantly different, and I'm not sure where they came from. I know Todd
got them from the $50,000 or less but you all were pretty clear I thought in your last motion what you
wanted to do. And I'm admittedly a little confused as to how we got from where that motion was back
in, was it March, February, to where we are now. Just reading you all.
Mayor Jansen: Well and we haven't discussed the dollars yet.
Scott Botcher: Understood.
Mayor Jansen: So, you're correct.
Scott Botcher: And you're right. The e-mails that I got, and I've got copied on I think almost every e-
mail you all got, Linda's right. There's a significant number of people in that neighbor also who have
said gee, z, you know we'd really like to have the money invested into something perhaps with more
utility. More functionality. Something we can use. I still question, even at $65,000 the cost per square
foot of this thing and the functional utility of what you're going to have when you're done if it gets
pulled off.
Councilman Ayotte: What would be the cost per square foot at $50,000?
14
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Scott Botcher:. Well it's at 65. At 100, well I'm just roughing it out. At a hundred and a quarter, it was
about 275, ifI remember from last time. So cut it in halfrou~y. That's a significant amount. I mean
again, the library's out there at a hundred and a half.
Mayor Jansen: And just let me add, council's original motion at the February 120" meeting was that the
project cost had begun and had been budgeted at $40,000, because the referendum money went over and
above. So we were at 40 and the motion was to then take out of the 40, the 15,000 that's already been
spent. So then it would be in fact 25,000 so the city had a cap originally of 40. Now as it's come back
up through the public hearing process, if council wants to consider the cap 50, it's whether you consider
it 50 or 40 but.
Scott Botcher: Well, that's what came out of the Park and Rec Commission.
Mayor Jansen: Correct.
Scott Botcher: I mean it's up to the council.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, but the original motion was 40 less the 15.
Councilman Ayotte: And it's 600 square feet. 600 square feet?
Todd Hoffman: I don't recall what the total square footage was?
Councilman Ayotte: 600 square feet?
Todd Hoffman: I don't recall.
Mayor Jansen: He doesn't remember.
Councilman Ayotte: Does anybody?
Mayor Jansen: But I wasn't meaning to cut you off, but Fm agrees on the dollars. That we had a
discrepancy on the dollars.
Scott Botcher: I mean I just again, trying to watch what we do with our budget. And looking at the
expenditures and tax dollars as an investment for the future of our community, this is one that quite
frankly from the beginning, Fve been very open about it. I simply don't get and I think we're simply
struggling with the emotions of it and that's why we can't just say you know, because I thini~ cognifively
each one of you looking at this on a sheet of paper, if you didn't know what it was for, would say there's
no way in god's green earth we'll spend the taxpayers money on this type of project. But it's up to you.
That's why you get the big bucks.
Mayor Jansen: Yep. And you're right.
Councilman Peterson: One more question. Todd, do you recall what the demolition cost is going to be?
Todd Hoffman: Again the demolition costs were just an estimate but.
Councilman Ayotte: Just under 20,0001 thought.
15
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Todd Hoffman: Yeah. 15 to 20,000, depending on the landfill costs. Those are the biggest costs. The
landfill. The lead in paint material and the exterior.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, good.
Councilman Ayotte: You bring up a good point. If we have $20,000 on the table and if we have the
opportunity of turning into a functional facility for a little bit more, that's a reasonable consideration.
But I'm not about to feel good about spending 100 plus dollars per square foot. That's my hard point, but
I think there is a, if we can figure out a way to get the material, and it sounds like you've got a handle on,
which is your biggest cost. And if you get free labor, and if there was a set aside to offset the cost of
demo, given a timeline, that might be doable. The 50K, Mr. Botcher's got a very, very good point, even
though he doesn't have a fie on tonight.
Scott Botcher: Steve took it.
Councilman Ayotte: Well you trade off. Last time you didn't have a tie on. Playing the Steve McQueen
look, but I'd be receptive to looking hard at Option 4 if we could lower the threshold a bit.
Mayor Jansen: If we lowered the threshold a bit?
Councilman Peterson: Cost expenditure?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Scott Botcher: You know maybe the way to do it, if you want to do this, since I'm the only one who's
Dr. No. I think Bob's point of having a budget plan is excellent. And safety plan, absolutely. Because
we have, our butt' s in the sling out there. But I think, you know if a budget could be put together, we
need to confirm the demolition cost because frankly we haven't done that. It's a wag. We don't know
what it is. We need to confirm that amount and maybe the way to do it is to have, you know a dollar for
dollar match with the volunteer contribution or in kind sort of stuff so we're not just handing a check
over for 50 grand and we say okay, folks go do your thing and they come back and they say we've got the
windows. We've got whatever and we've got in kind labor in the amount of, estimated amount, fill in the
blank. We then can budget from that. Measure against that then a more firm demolition cost because
again we still have some internal debates as to is lead really in that paint to the extent that it's preported
to be by a single individual, which we then need to confirm. We need to confirm the handling of that
stuff. But if you really wanted to do it, you really want to spend the taxpayers money, that's what I
would do.
Councilman Peterson: I'd spin that a different way. I'd say let's find out what demolition cost is and I'd
be willing to spend that towards the project, nothing more.
Scott Botcher: And you could do that as well.
Councilman Ayotte: That would be a reasonable thing to do. Do you follow that? Ms. Lash is looking.
16
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Well I guess what I'm looking at is what we said on February 12~ we would approve, and
this went back to the Park and Rec Commission with the understan~ that this was our mtydon. You
know 40,000 was the budget We'll deduct whatever's been spent from that. The 1//,000. It did go back
for the public input and they stepped forward. You know//0% against,//0% for, but we have a couple of
individuals who are willing to organize this and maybe go out for the contributions and part of our
motion or part of the direction and summary that we gave was that there would be additional funding and
volunteer work coming from the community. So I do appreciate the city manager's suggestion that we do
roll up a budget and see what in fact those numbers could conceivably come to, and the residents then
will see what we need in kind and conceivably then also in a financial contribution, and we know before
we get started, that we can accomplish the project. Because the other concern I'm heating is we don't
want to get partially into renovation and be coming back for more dollars or having this delayed for a
year or two as we try to come up with more contributions to get it accomplished. I think we need to get it
accomplished in a timely manner. ..
Scott Botcher:. And I think to roll up the budget though, you're going to need to have the input from the
neighborhood as to what volunteer contribution, in kind contribution they can come up with. I don't
think it can go the other way. You have to identify what is really out there non-cash and then roll it back.
That's going to take time. Yeah, materials and in kind hbor and that's going to. take some time and that
probably means, unless they really move fast, and they might be able to, you know it may mean this thing
doesn't get started right away this spring because I practically don't see it happening. It's going to take
time to do that networking to see what you can dig up. But if ultimately the goal is, on the part of the
supporters to save the building, then it would seem to me that that commitn~nt of time is a good
investment if ultimately they can save the building that they want to save.
Councilman Ayotte: Is them a horizon date though that we have to put on it where we have to face the
reality of dealing, take the building down? Can we wait until your roll up budget showing the material
in kind and so forth, to what point? How far out before the building starts to degradate? We have more
lead base paint flaking and is there a problem in waiting too long?
Todd Hoffman: I don't think so. Not in the time frame people were talking about.
Mayor Jansen: I don't think a few months, correct?
Scott Botcher:. It's fully depreciated Bob.
Councilman Labatt: So let's try to recap what's here. So you're going to deduct the $15,000 already
spend off the 40 that we've set the budget for back in January? Whenever the last meeting was.
Mayor Jansen: Yep, that's what we said on February 12a~.
Councilman Labatt: Is that almost water over the bridge or under the bridge that's already been spent a
year ago before7
Mayor Jansen: It was just spent. It was just now spent on the engineering, in order to get to the
documents for the $125,000 bill.
Scott Botcher: Second half of last year probably.
Councilman Labatt: Second half of last year, 2000.
17
City Council Meeting - April 23,2001
Mayor Jansen: As a part of this whole planning process and budget process on the building.
Scott Botcher: Part of the capital budget.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So then, if I'm hearing it right, we may be willing to match in kind
contributions, right? Up to and exceed not a certain amount or is it the up to the demolition cost?
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Peterson had mentioned the demolition cost. Are you comfortable with...
Councilman Peterson: I suspect it's pretty close so I don't think we have an issue. I think the answer
would be yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So it'd be that 40,000 that we'd be looking at as the match.
Councilman Peterson: Minus the 15.
Councilman Labatt: Minus the 15.
Councilman Peterson: So you've got 35 you're dealing with.
Councilman Labatt: 25.
Mayor Jansen: 25. We will totally have 40,000 into the project.
Councilman Peterson: Exactly.
Mayor Jansen: In taxpayer dollars.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So this group of residents is going to be empowered here. They're going m
go out them and work their behinds off and come up with in kind of contributions, along with maybe
some monetary contributions from certain corporation. What are we going to do about that? Are we
willing to match that? If they come up with 15, 18, $20,000 in in-kind contributions and they go out and
get monetary contributions of 10, 12,000, 15,000, whatever they can come up with, are we going to put
our mouth behind those contributions too?
Councilman Peterson: No we can't. We can't go up over $50,000 so.
Mayor Jansen: The city Contribution cannot be above 50.
Scott Botcher: Without applying for bidding.
Mayor Jansen: Would be the maximum. I'm saying I'm comfortable having the city's contribution of
taxpayer dollars into this project being the original 40,000. They will then yep, they will roll up the plans
as to what this is going to take now to put this together and the residents will know what they need to
come up with in either in-kind or the balance of the financial in order to get it done.
Councilman Labatt: So the balance this group only has to work with is 25,000?
18
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Cone, ct, because we've already spent 15.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. I just want to make sure that that's clear to them.
Councilman Peterson: And we also have to consider, I think a lot of that 25 that's left is going to be
spent on supervising.
Mayor Jansen: That's what I'm hearing.
Councilman Peterson: ...requiremeat of the project from the city perstn~ve,
Scott Botcher: Well and if that's an option the city wants us to pursue, we can poke around and try to
come up with some other options but there certainly will be some expense to that. How usable are the
existing plans going to be if, and I think you mentioned Todd, maybe the windows on the top come out.
Are the plans still functional if you start deviating from them with any significance?
Councilman Peterson: You don't have co--on plans yet, do you? All you have is design plans.
Todd Hoffman: Design and bidding plans. What Deanna said is they're hoping to keep that Clear story
glass. I would think that the plans would be very functional for use as a part of the pxojecL If I could, I
know you're talking about a $40,000 budget. The original allocation from the CIP was $40,0(X). Then
the study was undertaken by Locus about what it would take and that's when the cost went up to around
80. Previous councils did allocate an additional $40,000 out of the CIP for an expenditure approved at
that time of up to $80,000 for the project. And then that's where the recommenrlntion to increalse it .to
120 came to the City Council so to date on the books we have an $80,000 allocation for the project.
Mayor Jansen: As I understood it, $40,000 was from the original park and trail referendum, which was
over spent and that's where we lost then the 40,000. It would have been council's prero~ve to decide
to pull that 40,000 then additionally out of CIP, but what I'm hearing this council say again, and they said
on February 12~, the $40,000 was the project budget that this council was conffortable woridng from.
And that was part of our summary statement that we had made as this was going back.
Councilman Ayotte: And the large part of that is, going back to the cost per square fool I keep going
back to that.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: You know it would be inappropriate for us to set a cost per square foot at the levels
we had originally. Just not acceptable.
Mayor Jansen: The other part of what I want to make sure everyone understands is this goes back into
the planning process. Is as I read through the minutes, there still seems to be some confusion over what
the final building is going to provide for the neighborhood. I'm still seeing some people even in the e-
mails thinking that there are going to be restrooms and not port-a-potties. That this building's going to
amount to more than we're actually accomplishing so if we can make sure that part of the communication
as this goes forward includes the fact that this is not going to be a functioning facilities building. So
everyone's clear. Does anyone want to take a crack at a motion? I can call off a couple of the points that
I heard mentioned. The supervisory responsibility. Making sure that the city has a qualified supervisor
19
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
on site during the project. Quality assurance plan that Councilman Ayotte brought up. The safety
considerations with the liability aspect and getting that addressed.
Councilman Ayotte: Let me give it a shot. I make a motion to approve Option 4 with the following
caveats. That the total value of the project from a bottom's up budget would not exee~ $40,000 and
would include as a minimum a safety plan, a QA plan and meet all the constraints normally exposed, that
a building' s normally exposed to for a project under the supervision of the city engineer and planner.
Did I miss anything?
Scott Botcher: How do we account for the salaries of those 2 individuals? Are they part of the budget?
Mayor Jansen: It all has to come out of the budget.
Scott Botcher: Are they part of this budget? It's a question, so we know because those two costs.
Councilman Labatt: How are we applying it to like the library or another similar building?
Mayor Jansen: Is it a staff person that's on site that you're thinking can supervise? I mean you'.re
talking.
Scott Botcher: I'm just responding to his motion. Whatever those costs would be a staff person, how do
we account those against that budget?
Mayor Jansen: Okay, we' ve got a motion on the table. We need a second so that we can go.to
discussion, if we want to discuss the motion.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, I have a second. Not to interrupt the discussion but now if we can discuss the
motion.
Councilman Peterson: I don't see it as a city person. Staff person as much as 'you know a licensed
contractor is fine, and they may get that volunteered. They may not. But we have to be, the project plan
has to have the appropriate, the supervision, the city or otherwise in there. So I don't think It has to be a
city person.
Councilman Ayotte: Doesn't the staff however have to review that project? As any other project, and
won't that consume x number of man hours? I think Scott brings up a point there.
.-
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, I think the review of the project, I would be okay with that. Just coming on.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I don't see it as an issue. We're talking about a building project's
provision that I'm concerned about.
Mayor Jansen: Which is more intense as far as the amount of time. Legally, do we need to have this
supervisor be a staff representative or a city representative versus just a licensed contractor?
Roger Knutson: No, but what I was, what Scott and I were talking about. When you're actually, during
construction, if you have volunteers there, you're going to want to have a professional. A real, honest to
20
City Council Meeting- April 23, 2001
goodness contractor, someone to supervise the volunteers on staff any time a volunteer is there unless
they're, as I said, cutting the grass or planting flowers. Yon don't need that, but if they're in the building,
if they're up on a ladder, I think you're going to want someone knowledgeable in the trades. Someone
them to supervise it to make sure it's the proper safety precautions are taken and kids aren't up on the
ladders with their parents and things are being handled properly. So I think that, I don't know. I'll
venture a guess, I bet you don't have anyone on the staff that has that time available to do that so I'd
assume you're going to have to hire someone.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So staff will need to take that into consideration when they're putting the budget
plan together on the building.
Councilman Ayotte: So amend the motion to include professional trade supervision on job site.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a second of the amen~t?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Jansen: Are there any other issues with.
Scott Botcher: And that service could be donated as well Bob. Imean understand if there's a
professional trades person who has the abilities to provide supervisory services and they wish to donate
the services, that would be great. That we can do that.
Mayor Jansen: As part of your motion when you noted the 40,000 as the not to exceed, is that less the ·
already spent 15,000.
Councilman Ayotte: Spent 15,000.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. lust as clarification. Any other questions or comets on the motion?
Councilman Ayotte: I hope not.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt to approve Option 4 for renovation of the round
house building at Roundhouse Park with the following conditions:
lm
The total amount of money allocated for the project shall not exceed $40,000, including
monies already spent to date.
..
A safety plan, a QA plan and a plan to meet all the constraints normally associated with a
building project such as this shall be submitted prior to construction-
3. Professional trade supervision shall be provided on the site~
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you neighborhood and we're going to wish you luck and obviously to move this
project forward, parks and rec commission, as well as park and rec staff, coordinating with the
21
City Council Meeting - April 23, 2001
neighborhood in order to pull the plan together and get all the specifications and good luck to all of you
working on the project. It should be a wonderful endeavor. Thank you.
REQUF~T FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2~ BLOCK 2~ CHANHASSEN
I~-qTATF~.q 2~ ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING
~ 8004 AND 8006 DAKOTA A~____.~_ ROBERT PAULSEN.
Julie Hoiurm Thank you Madam Mayor, councilmembers. I'm just going to give a brief background of
how we got to this point in the subdivision request. Staff met with the applicants who owned the duplex.
They are requesting to split their property.
Mayor Jansen: Julie, not to interrupt. Could you pull the microphone a titch closer?
Julie Hoium: Sure. Is that better?
Scott Botcher: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Julie Hoium: They currently occupy the duplex. They live in one half and rent the other half. They wish
to split the duplex down the center so they can sell one unit with the property. One-half of the property.
This property is zoned residential single family. This requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet,
with a minimum frontage of 90 feet. This district also permits a single family detached homes with 2
enclosed parking structures. What we have in this case is a duplex that is a non-conforming use, and a
subdivision of this duplex would create two lots with non-confo~ng lot areas, non-conforming
frontages, non-conforming parking requirements and POssibly some non-conforming setbacks. Initially,
when this application came through, staff considered several different options to subdivide this property.
Any option would require variances of the previous stated requirements. On March 20'h the Planning
Commission reviewed the, and tabled this request so that the additional information could be provided.
Staff went back and looked at the entire subdivision where this duplex is located, Chanhassen Estates. It
appears that this subdivision was initially created as a planned unit development. Staff believes that this
subdivision was referenced as a P-l, planned residential development in the 1972 zoning ordinance.
However there is no record. Staff has not been able to find any record of a rezoning to residential single
family. From everything we've found it's always been R-1 on the records. When looking at the
characteristics of Chanhassen Estates staff also discovered that a majority of the lots within the
subdivision are non-conforming with the residential single family district requirements. Several of the
single family lots are, have small lot sizes. Approximately 95 of the 130 lots within this subdivision do
not meet the 15,000 square feet requirement. Approximately 62 do not meet the frontage requirements.
This is just some examples that show this subdivision does have legal non-conforming lots within it.
And what this means is that any exterior expansion, modification or addition to these, any structures on
these lots would require a variance and for this, one remedy that we suggested was to consider rezoning
Chanhassen Estates to a planned unit development and in addition the 5 duplexes that are located near
the applicant's to planned unit development. The ordinance does state that no variances are required for
non-conforming lots if they meet a 75% of the minimum requirements. Within Chanhassen Estates 16 of
the 130 lots would not meet the 75% for the lot area, and approximately 20 for the frontage would not
meet the frontage 75% rule. In some eases the same lot does not meet both of therrr If Chanhassen
Estates was rezoned to a planned unit development, some of the advantages would be that a majority of
the lots would then be conforming lots and would not require variances for any additions.
Approximately 7 would remain legal non-conforming lots. However they would meet the 75% rule. It
22
CTrYOF
TO:
Teresa Burgess, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM:
DATE:
Matt Saam, Project
October 2, 2001
95293Z 1900 ·
95293Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
Vacation of a Driveway Easement - 8175 Hazeltine Boulevard
Vacation File No. 2001-5'
REQUEST
The City is requesting vacation of a driveway easement that benefits property '
formerly owned by the City.
BACKGROUND
The City obtained the driyeway easement in June of 1998 in favor Of the parcel
formerly known as the Wrase property. Tho Wrase property has an existing right-
in/right-om acca~s onto Highway 41, but the only full access to the property is
from 82n* Strut. To ufiliT~ the full acces~ vehicles must go across the property
to the south at 2960 82~ Street. The driveway easement allowed the City to have
full access to the Wrase parcel through the property at 2960 W. 82~ Street.
Likewise, the easement, gave the prop .erty to the south access'to Righway 41
through the Wrase p .arcel.
DISCUSSION
The City has recently sold the Wrase p_rqperty to Mike Schlangen who also owns
the property to the south at 2960 W. 82"~ Street. One of the conditions of sale
was that the City would bring forth thi.~ easement vacation for consideration by
the City Council. The City attorney's office has reviewed the condition of sale
request and has instructed staff to proceed with the easement vacation.
..
..
Typically, if one property needs access through another piece 0fproperty; staff
will require an easement to be obtained from the burdened property owner to the
benefiting property owner. In this case, there will be one property owner, Mr.
Schlangen, for both parcels. Therefore, an easement is not necessary. In the
furore, if either property is sold, an easement agreement could be attached as a
condition of sale.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
Teresa Burgess
October 2, 2001
Page 2
'~I'he Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution vacating the existing
driveway easement benefiting the property at 8175 Hazeltine Boulevard as
defined in the attached easement description.
Attachments:
,
Original Easement Agreement and Description of Easement Vacation
Notice of Public Hearing, Mailing List .and Location Map
C~
Mike Schlahgen, 2960 W. 82"a Street
Matthew Foli, Campbell Knutson PA
ff:~-nff~at~mos~easement vacation - 8175 ha2elfine.doc
par~r~p COranmr9 and The City of Chanhassen, a munioipal ~-[:,oration under the hw~ of the
Stat~ of Minnesota COrantee').
e.. ,f"-. '. . ~.
-....-~: ~,~[~,.;,.;..:~... ,Al.. ;..:C~-~-',, o"- -- rty local~ in Carver County, Mtnnc~ legally
and h~orpora~ h~ein b~
C. Gran~ bas asreed to IWant to Oramee the pennan~t, nonexclusive driveway
easement ~mted by this A~.amcnt, but upon and subject to the terms and conditions of this
purpose ofstatins tlzir s~--~mcnt ~onccmi~ tl~ conveyan~ by ~or ofti~ _~,__~,~_ t ~
NOW, TI-IBR~OP.P_~ in conslde~ of the fm'cgotn~ and of One Dollar, othcr good and
!
covcnanm and condition~ oftt,~. Bascm~t A~eement. ~ and C, ran~
2l:35 M I LLERSTE I NER P. 015/B24
1. DECLARATIONOF EASE~. (han~ h=~by/rants, bargains and conveys
onto Crrante~ a p~rpemal and nonexclustw ~zsement for driveway, acc. ess, Ingress and egr~
purposes (the "Flsement") owr and aczoss that part of the Burdened Property legally de.scribe, d in
Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated he. in by refc-r~ce. The Easement Is Eranted and
·
csmbllshcd solely for the benefit of th& Benefited Property. The F. asem=nt shall run with the title
to th= Benefited Prop~ ired the Burdened Property and bind all ira-sons who now or hereafter have
any right, title or interest in the B~=fited. Property or th~ Burdened Property, th,~ir s~ors,
·
assig~ and mortgag~ and shall inure t5 the bendit of all person, who now or hereaflrr have any
right, title or in~t in th= Bmeflted Property or the Burd~ed Property and their
~~, assigns and mortgZt~ The ri~h~s of Crrantee and its ~e ~rs and
in and to the F. as~ment shall be as s~t fo~ in this A~reem~nt
2. ~ENFOR_CRMRNTOF EASEMENTS, The Easenmnt is
~ppur~naut to the Burdcn~i Pro~ and the. B~Ited Prolm~ aud may not b~ tmn~emxt,
assigned or encumbered axoc-pt as au appmtmmnc~ to the B=n~fit~ Pro~rty or th~ Bu~¢n~
Property. Upon a conv~ance of all ar any pm-t oftl~ title to the Burdened Property or the B~n~fited
Protm'ty the (]mut~ by ac. cc-pting such coav~,auc~ shall b~ bound by th~ terms and condltions of
this ~~at. Th= ~ent is a non=c, lmive ~t for th~ b~adit of th~ Be~-~t~l Pto~
for driv~vay, ~ ~ aud ~gress pm'po~s aud may used for such purpose~ by ~h~ owner(s)
of Benefit~ Property and their ~ and assigns, in common with th~ own~s),
assigns, temmts and invlt=c~ of the Burden~ Pmpe~. Th~ F. asm~=nt is also graat~ subject to th~
utility and drai~go easem~ts dedic, m~ in th~ r~.orded plat of Arboretum Business Park Second
Addition. The ~t is granted soldy for th~ benefit of the ~ Property, aud no provi~on
¢:Xftk~V.,ue. am~ ~.~ 2
~2EM1 21.'3E; HI~ ~"RSTEII4ER
!
of~ ~~nt ~b~!l I~ in~ ~ a 8rant of ~y I~ of tl~ ~ Pm~ for u.~ ~ ~
public slzeet or fight-of-way.
Ommor and Orantee agree, h{ the event the State of~ta Deparlmeat of~rlatlon
("lVl-T~OT") requires, h conneaion with the developmem and co'n.m'aotion c;fimpro~ on the
Burdened Property, that tl~ driveway acceas within th~ Easement to State Highway 41 be moved
!
north, Om~ ~ ~llow ~ n~' dri~ ~ ~int to b~ ~ ~mt. Om~ ~11
·
·
convey and grant to Grantor, at no cost to Cnanlor, a pennazeoL nOaexclustve easement-for
!
driveway, access, ingress --d egress pm~sos (tim "P.~procal Basemen) over the Benefited
Propeuy twenty.six (26) f~t in width for the purpose of access to Siam Highway 41 by means
easement for the benefit of the Burdem~ Property, and Cu'an~ ahd Cu'antee shall eater into an
·
Amendment to this Agreem~ or a separate ~t Agreeing. in reco.,xhble ~n,w~. grautl.g and
m~bl~h~ t~ Reci~ ~t.
Grautor and Omu~ aS~. on behalf of them~ves and'th~ ~ successo= and
assi~,, that th~ rights and ?bll~lons of Orantor and Cuani~ and all subsequent owz~rs of the
thai equitable remedim, tnel~ ~ ~ shall be available to enibrco obligations
disbursements. Failurc on any one occasion by any party to enfo~ zigh~ creaIed trader this
Al~em~ ~ ~n no eve~n be ~ a waiv~ ofthe xi/ht to do so g~e~i~.
·
3. ~. The ~asement is ~ in duration and the rights, and obllgalions
,,
of Grantor and Grantee, and their successors and assigns, as staled in this Agreement, shall also be
pe~tuaI in duration.
4. . Grantor or its successor in
!
interest to thc Bun~ Property shall b~ solely r~sponsibl¢ for all costs associat~i with tho initial
construction of driveway and access impwvcments within th~ Basement, but Gmnwr shall not bo
obligated to construct such improvements uitles.s and until the Burdened Property is developed by
the construction of p~'manent building improvements thereon. Until ach time as the Benefited
!
Property is developed by the construction ofpermautmt building improwments thereon, Crmntor or
its successor in in~ shall also bo responsible for all costs and extw, nses for rep~, rn:iutenanc~
(inchidiug, but not limtte~l to, ~lng, re,surf~Ing or snow remo~) and capttal improvements of
any common or shared driveway or access tmprovemtmts consh'ucted wi.~ tho Easement. With
the exception of thoso costs to be borne by Grantor as provided in tho imrnediat~ly-p~g two
sentences, all costs and exp~ases for ret0air, maintansnce (including,.but not limited to, swe~ing,
resurfacing or snow removal) and capital improvements of any common or shared driveway or
access tmprowments .constructed within the lhsem~mt shall be allocated betwe~ and paid by
Crrantor and Cuautee bas~ upon and in tho sam~ ratio as th~ area ofth~ Bmefited Prol:erty In squar~
feet bears to thc ar~a of tho Burdened property, in ~ feet, and, at such time as development bf
the Benefited Property occu~ Orantor and Oraut~ shall execute an Amendment to this Agreement.
tn r~cordablo form, establishing such ratio or percentage, of record.
The foregoing obligation to pay ~air, matnl~uance and capital improvement expeases shall
run with tho title to the Benefi~ Property and tho Burdened Pm~ and bind all present and futura
F/.C.,--BG-:2E~I 21;:3S H]:~ ~:~STE~I~ER P. O11~/B24
owne~ of the Benditcd Property or the Btedcned ProperS. ~ch owner of th= Benefited Property
or tho Burdened Property, by accepting a conv~an~ of such Tract, whether or not it shall be
accordan~ with the provisiom of this Paragraph 4. ~ch agreement to pay said costs and/x~
·
shall be a pcrsonal obligation of each and every panmn or persons who are the legal or equitable
owners of the Benefi~d Prop~ or the Buntened Property at the time the repair, maintenanoc or
improvement costs are incurred, and shall be en~rcceblc 137 each o .wrier of thc Benefited
or th~ Burdened Property who has paid his, her or its .h_m'~_ of such costs and expens~
5. AME~~~. This Air.meat and a~ provision herdn contained n~y be
texminatcd, emended, modified or ammded, only with the express ~ consem of all of the
owners of the Benefir~:l Property and thc Bmdened PropeWy. Ho amcndmc~ modifi~on,
extension or termination of this A/recm~ will affcot {i~ rights of the holder of a mo.rt/age
con.~t~dng a lien on any portion of the B~ Property or thc Burdc'ned Propei-ty at the time of'
such amendment, modification, cxtnmion or termination unless stlch mortgasee consents to/he
same. Bio tenant, licensee or other person or mgIy that does-not own an ~ in the fcc ti~ ~o
the Benefited PropmF or th~ Burdened ~ will be required to join in tho &ecutlon of,.ar
consent to, any action of the parties subject to this ~
6. _INDEMNIFICATION. Bach owner of the ~~i .Property or the Buniened
·
Prop~ (as the case may be) shall bc solely respondble for, and shall proteot, indemnify aud hold
the owners of thc other Property harmless from and aga/nst,' any and all costs, expmses and
liabilities arisina in connection with the commmi~ of ~y im~ts or 'ofl~
21: 5~ M I LLERSTE I NER P. Ol~B~4
improvements consmmted in the F..esement without the prior written consent of the ownors of the
other Propexty, inoluding any meohenic's liens asserted in connection therewith.
7. ~. TI~ Agreememt is fnt~tdM to lm intexpreted in accordance
with Minnosota law, represen.ts the entire agnmnent and declaration of Orantor end Orant~ with
·
·
mspe~ to it~ subject mattor and shall run with the title to the Benefited Propexty and the Burdenexl
Property. and b~ binding upon Cn'antor end Grant~ and their respective successors, assigns ~nd
mortgagee~ to th~ extemt herein provided.
IN WITN~S WHF. RF. OP, Ch'an~r end Ore~ have executed this Agreement es of'tho dete
fa'~t above written.
~ Gat~ P~ Limited Partner~.'p
B), Staler Dovelot~ant, Inc., gener~ parmer
21:5'/ MI~II4~R
City of
_ i iii _
STATE OF MINNES~A )
)ss
COUNTY OF HENNI~P~ )
~ fo~o~ ~ w~ ~.k~~~d b.~ m~,~-,~~o~. ~- ...,
~ S~i~ ~1~ ~, ~ ~ of ~ ~y P~ ~ ~p,
a MJrm~sot~ limited parmmhip, bn be, half of ti~ limited parmmbip.
STAT~ OF MmUqKSOTA ) ,
~ )SS '
COUm'Y OF B~?!l~ )
of the City of C~--~__-__~_ a zntmtpal corporaikm und~ the laws of~ta, on bahaff of the
I
ii. -
·
THIS INSTRUM~,,U' WA~ DP. AFF//D BY:
Vesely, Miller & Steiner, P.A.
400 Norwest Bank Building
1011 First Str~ S6uth
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
i
8
·
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR BENEFITED PROPERTy__
North 20O ~ or thnt start ot the South ~r or tho ~ortttwest qtmrter of Sect~ 16, Township
North, Rnn~ 23, described ns faJlowm
C~clng at the Southwest eorfler of sam Nortltwest Q~u'tert thence South 89 de~. ~ rnlnu~,es
35 seconds East (n.qst~ed benrln~ nlong the South line of ~ North%v~st qu~m', a dlst.~nco of
1,410,72 feetl lhenun Norih 0 ~,,qZ minutes 20 seconds West n dl. st~ of 24S.// feet. to tim eet~l
potm or bm~_-_~e or land to be des~ibe~ ~ conth~hlg North 0 tlegrees ~ minutes 20 s~,~nds
West~ a distance nf300 teOtl thenco Sou~ 8~ defrees ~a. mlnute~ ~ semnd.q ~ along a.H~e parfdlel
witl~ th~ South line of said North. we~t. (:~n'ter~ a dl.qtnee of 4M feet3, thence South 0 desrees S2
minutes 20 em)rids ]tn~ n dJstn~ or 300 fee~ thmtee North 89 ~ $2 mbms 3//seconds West,
nlo~ a line pst'ariel with the South line of said Northwest Quart~ st dlstanoo or 4S'/tm to the pokt
or bes , Cer Count, Mlumote, ·"
EXHIBIT B
~,EGALDESCRI'PTION_OF BURDENED PROPERTY
The South :tO0 foet of that part of tho South Half of tho Northwest Quar(er of Seetion I~, Towndtlp
] 16 North, PmnRe Bo dmmr~ as fellow~ ·
C~muntncing at the Southwest ~m~ of said Northwest Q~I th~co ~t~ 89 deg~ ~ ~uut~
tho ~th lbo of ~d No~~ ~~, a ~ ~ ~ fe~; ~m~ ~u~ 0 ~.~
Outlot B, Arbo~n Business Park Second Addition according to thc r~.orded pla~ thereof, Carwr
I:LIF_z-I~F=-~]. L:~J.: 37 HI~II4~R P. 132~4
·
EXHIBIT C
A pe~etual easement, for Ingrate ~nd egress purposes over and across the we~ 75
fee~ of-~e 'norfl~ ~0 .feel. of I~e .ou~h ~.00 fee~ and t~e eoa~ :26 feat of ~e wes~ 7C
feet of ~e south 513 fee~
e~sterl7 of the no~herl¥ extension of the m~a~ wea~erl.v fine of Oul~ot B,
ARBORETUId BU$1HI~"~ PARK :2.HD ADDITION: .
That .part of the Sauth Half of the.~North.we.$'t Quart_er_ of Sect]o_n 1G, Townohlp
116' North, Range 25 West of the Sth Pnnctpal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest.comer of sold Northwest Quarter;, thence on an
assum.e.d bea_rin~[ of South 8g degrees $2 .minutes ~ seconds East, along the
south I~ne of sa:al' Northwest Quarbe~', a dista..nce al' 14.10.72 feet;-thenae North
0 degrees .52 mlnutes 20 seconds West a al,stance of'24,5.GO fee~ to the point
Of_ beginning of the land to b.e described;_ thence aontinufng North 0 degrees $2
_.rnlnute~ 20 _second~ West_ o distance of 300.00 feet; thenc~ South 89 degrees
5_2 rqinutes .~5 seconds East, para!lei wlth said south line o1' the Northwest
Quarter, a distance of 4,57.00 feet; thence .South 0 degrees 52 minutes 20
seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes
35 seconds Wesli, porallel with said south line of the Northwest Quarter, a
dls~ance of 457.00 l'eet to the point of beginning.
Together wlth a porpe, tual easement for |ngrese and egres_s purposes over and across
that part of the east 2G feet of the _west 78 feet of saidOufl,ot B which flee north
of the south 48 feet thereof.
And also together with a perpetual easemerit for In~ress and egre~ over and across
that part of the north 28 feet of the south 48 fee~. of the east 217 feet of the' wes..
287 feet of said Outlet B.
!
· _
And als~ together with a perpet:uql easement for In,gres_s and egress over and across
that part of the south 20 feet of the east. 100 feat of~weal 267 feet of said
Outlet B.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Vacation of Driveway
Easement
APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
LOCATION' 8175 Hazeltine Blvd.
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public headng about a proposal in your area. The applicant, City of
Chanhassen, is requesting to.vacate a driveway easement located at 8175 Hazeltine Blvd.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Mayor will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
,
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Council discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Matt 937-1900 ext. 114. If you choose to submit wdtten comments, It is helpful to have one
copy to the department In advance of the meeting. Staff will provide Copies to the City Council.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 20, 2001.
F~um
6Nit
6Aut
OF CHANHASSEN
SCOTT BOTCI-I~
crrY
55317
OF UNIV OF MINN~OTA
F.3TATE OFFICE
15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE BLI
MN 55455
SOUTH HWY 101
MN 55391
PARTNERS LLC
PO BOX 265
MN, 55387
'-t'
TH REALTY PTRS tJ.p
CO RD 101
MN 55391
OFCHANI-IA~SEN
$CO'I~B~~
CITY 1N
MN 55317
101
PARTNERS
MN 55391
CITYOF
CHANHg EN
PO Box147
l~bauot bPm. nesota 55317
952.93Z1900
952.937.5739
952.93Z9152
952.9342524
lVlEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works DireeWr/City Engin~_~~/~ .
October 3, 2001
Highway 101 Tumback Project Update, Project 97-12
Requested Council Action
No Council Action is required.
Discussion
Staffhas completed the traffic cotmts requested by MnDOT and have been
submitted for review. No results of thc MnDOT review have been receiv~
Raw tratfic data is on file in the City Engineer's office. MnDOT will use this
information to perform a Level of Service Analysis. A minimum "D' level of
service is required.
HTP0 is continuing to work on the fe, am'bility study for the trail.
C:
Robert Brown, MnDOT
Leslie Vermillion, MnDOT
Laurie Johnson, HTPO
Rep. Tom Workmm~
8:~nS~p~blic~/-I 2~mffrcport-1 ~ 1 .doc
C TYOF
CHtlH E
PO &oc147
M'w_____,es~_ 55317
95295Z1900
~ Fax
952937.5739
~9M2524
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Sharmin A1Jaff, Senior Planner
Matt Saam, Project Engineer
Octo~ 8, ~1
SUB&
MANAGER'S COMMF~NTS-. I supIx~ the Planning staff's
recommendation that "no driveway side yard setbacks should be required."
If we establish a setback requirement, we also will crea~ numerous non-
conforming situations throughout the comrmmity. For example, every
boat, car, or RV that is currently parked in a paved side yard would
become a non-conforming use. It would be an administl~ve nightmare if
the city had to tell each individual homeowner that they can no longey park
their recreational vehicle in their side yard.
The intent of this ordinance is to regulate how many private driveways a
single family home can have-not if they can park their boat in a pa~,ed
side yard. I strongly recommend that the City Council not include a paved
driveway side yard setback when considering the number of driveways for
residential use.
BACKGROUND
The city has been experiencing a proliferation of residents using accessory
smicmre~ access~ by second driveways. This is resulting in lots with two'
driveways within resid~tisl low-den~ity districts. These driveways are .causing
problems in some.neighborhoods. ' '
Also, the issue of landlocked parcels which are able to gain access through cross
access agreements remain uncontrolled under the current ordinances. In order to
give the city some discretion in denying such uses or ~'oving them with
conditions, staff is recommending the attached ordinance amendment be
approved.
One significant point that staff must clarify is that this amendment periains to
private driveways, which are defined in the ordinance as "Driveway means a
private access from a street to an individual lot." The driveway in question serves
a single home. This is not a private street which is defined as "Pr/rate street
~lO~ql~
~oo~ O~
u~nu4u!l/,,I
"0 '
Todd Gerh~t, City Manager
October 8, 2001
Page 2
means a street serving as vehicular access to two (2).or more parcels of land which is not
dedi~ to the public but is owned by one (1) or more private parties."'
A driveway and a private street should not be cortRksed as being the same. A driveway serves
one home and is a permitted use. A private street serves up to four homes and is only permitted
as a variance, under the subdivision ordinance.
i
.
At the August 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, some issues were raised regarding the
ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission tabled action on this amendment and directed
staff to respond to them. They are as follows:
a) "Code currently requires a 10' side yard setback for smmmres. A driveway is a structure.
Why reduce it to 5'?"
Answer:. See Sec. 20-908 subpara. 5(e). Driveways are exempt from the smacture setback
requirement. Staff initially proposed a 5 foot setback on all driveways. A number of in-house
discussions between the Planning and Engineering departments concluded that there will be
greater ramifications if a setback was required on driveways 1) create nonconforming uses,
2) most homeowners pave a driveway along the side of their garage, within the side yard setback
to park recreational vehicles, and 3) and approving a setback will crea~ conflicts within the city
- .
The city has some control over the location of driveways. There are utility and drainage
easements that run along the interior parameter of a lot. These easements can be as narrow as 5
feet. If there are Utilities within these easements, they are typically wider. In order for a
homeowner to pave over the easement, they must enter into an encroachment agreement. This
allows the city to evaluate these driveways on individual basis. This has rarely created a
problem in the past and we have always been able to work with homeowners to find agreeable
solutions.
The Planning Commission recommended a 10 foot setback. Staff is .re. commending no setback
b) "Code already requires a 10% maximum grade for a driveway.~
Answer:. Tree. See Section 18-60 (e) Lots. This requirement is in the subdivision ordinance.
Staff is amending the zoning ordinance to be able to regulate building permits.
e) "No minimum widths are required? The right-of-way is undefined, no minimum widths for a
right-of-way?"'
Answen. We've added a minimum width of 10' for driveways. We are not dealing with right-of-
way widths for this ordinance.
f) "If private driveways are to be used in Chanhassen, they should be excluded from RSF
zoning...It is inappropriate to permit private driveways in RSF."
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
October 8, 2001
Page 3
Answer: The intent of this proposed ordinance is to regulate private driveways used for every
single family home. We cannot exclude private driveways fi.om RSF zoning. It would simply
deny homeowners access to their property.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE:
On August 21,2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this item. Some
issues were raised regarding the difference between a private street and a private driveway. Staff
clarified the difference and presented the ordinance amendment again to the Commission.
On September 18, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this ordinance
amendment unanimously. The Planning Commission required a 10 foot side yard setback on all
private driveways. We need to remind the City Council that this ordinance amendment will
create nonconforming uses in the city and conflicts within the City Code. We also must point
out that home owners park their recreational vehicles within the side yard after extending their
driveway to that area. Staff strongly recommends that there be no side yard setback required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION{AIl shaded laneuaoe has been added)
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following amendments to Chapter 20:
Section 1. Section 20-1122 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 20-1122. Access and Driveways.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, 'setback and slo~.standards for.'
vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and Uti!i.'ty easement b~ providing
setback standards; reduce erosion by requiring a hard surface.for all driveways; to . limi' t:. the number of
driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the s ..t~t vih establishment 'of
minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public
right-of-way. The number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and
abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria:
a. Driveways shall be setback at least 10 feet from the side property lines.
b.
Driveway grades shall be a minimum of 0.5% and ia maximum grade o_f 10% at any poin't
in the driveway.
In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified on
the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous,~concrete or othe~
hard surface material, as approved by the City Engineer, In areas outsiile the MUSA,
driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right-of-way
portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete:'or other hard surface material, as
approved by the. City Engineer.
dl
On comer lots, the minimum comer clearance, from the roadway right-of-way line shall
be at least 30 feet to the edge of the driveway.
Todd Ge~ardt, City Manager
October 8, 2001
Page 4
. .
24 feet at the righ~-of-way:lineL
. - - -. - '
driveway width shall hof'~~:36!~-':.::
than 10 feet.
g.
On lots not meeting the ~'~~'~'~:' . ...
2. The location of the d!i._"~'.w'.ay:~'~ ' - -- - .... ' :
will not canse runoff onto'.'.~j~"..' .......
.j.
mis is ~ n~c~,a~ ~:~ Ci~:'~?,. .... ~' _ .. '' - ~-'
.street grades,' or other rele'.vin_"t ~~:~~ .... .Z-':, :~ '
requimmeat will be .stated.on'..the:_~"..:'--- _
Separate driveways serving ~lity
..
STAFF RECOMMENDATION(StafFs Amendment to Planning Commi~d_on's
Recommendation-The difference between the two recommendation, is th_e lan_mm_oe thai
has been struck thouj~h) AH shaded ian~u~,e is the same ~ the Planning Commi~aJ_on's
recommendation.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the following amendments to Chapter 20:
Section 1. Section 20-1122 of the Chanhassen City Cade is hereby amen~ as follows:
Sec. 20-1122. Access and Driveways.
.
The. purpose of this subsection is to provide ~:~~~ ~
-'*u""k r.'"'-a"~.z; reduce erosioo by req '' i ~'.i "=~': "-:'g~'""~ ' '
dr~.'v~, way access poin~ W public streets and to.-~~'~~ ~
minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper aex~,ss from a public
right-of-way. The number and width of a~ess drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and
b,
in the driveway.
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
October 8,2001
Page ;5
In areas located within theMetropolitan urban Services .Aze. a (MUSA) as identifie, d-o~
the Comprehensive Plan,. driveways-shall be'q~faced With bit-mlnous;' _c. onc.re .te..~ o~e~
hard s .urface material, as approved by the-City Engineer.. In.areas outsi.de, the .1~ SA,.:
driveways shall-be surfaced from the intersection.of the road .through .-the right,f-way.
portion Of the. driveway With bituminous,' concrete or other hard surface matefi~. (as
approved by the City Engineer.
do
On corner 1o~, the minim~ ~ clearance fi'om the roadwa~.in.'ght~f:qvay lin~ shall'
be'at least 30 feet to the .edge of the driveway;
el
For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveWay access shkll, not exceed
24 feet at thelright'-of-way line. No portion of the right-of:way ma.y bg..paved ex '.c.~. ptthat
portion used for the driveway. Inside.the property line of thb site~ the .maximum
driveway Width shall not exceed 36 feet. T-he minimum driveway width 8 ...hail'not-be'less
than 10 feet.
For all other uses., the width of the driveway ac.c. ess shall not exc~136 feet'in Width
measured at the roadway righ~ t-of-way line. No portion of the right-of,way may be'pa,;ed
except that portion used for the driveway.
One driveway access is allowed from a single'residential lot to'the street.
A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, Co .unty .road'~
coll6ctor roadway as designated'in the comprehensiv~ plan, 'and 6nto city st~.tsi~hei~
this is deemed.necessary bythe City Engineer, based on traffic counts; sight.dist~ncesi
street grades; or other relevant factors. If a turnaround is required by the engineer; 'this
requirement will be stated on the building permit.
j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted.
ATTACHMENT~
lo
2.
3.
4.
Illustration.
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 21, 2001.
Planning Commission Minutes dated September 18,2001.
Letter from 3anet and Gerald Paulsen dated October 3,2001.
g:Aplank~a\ driveway memo cc
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak~ There's been a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: I was not here for the long discussion you had in June so Fd feel...making a second.
Blackowialc Well I can't second so it's up to you. You don't want to second this?
Sacchet: Motion doesn't fly, alright.
Blackowiak: Okay then will you please withdraw your motiom
Sacchet: I withdraw my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'll entertain another motion.
Slagle: Motion to table this. I'll make a motion that we table the proposed Section 18-37, Exemptions
until further information from staff. Further, help me out.
Feik: That works.
Slagle: Okay. Further information from staff.
Blackowialc Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: I'll second.
· .
Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission fable action on the amendment to City
Code Section 18-37, Exemptions until further information is received from staff. All voted in
favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Blackowiak: And comments.
Sacchet: I would have liked to pass this through.
Blackowiak: Okay. And I would like to make one comment as well. I will direct staff to respond in
writing to the conm~ents made by the Paulsen's and to attach that to our next packet when we see this
again and also I want that attached to council's packet when it goes to council so they have a written
copy of what's been happening this evening so, okay. -
PUBUC AR G:
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO TH'F. CITY (~0DE TQ PERMIT ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY
ACCF~S PER LQT.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, do you have any questions of stuff?
Feilc I've got a few. How often does this issue come up?
Aanenson: Maybe I could address that too. It's been an issue lately. We've had a proliferation of
people using accessory structures for other uses and the way they can get those is through an additional
driveway. That would curtail some of that. It's caused a lot of problems in some neighborhoods. Some
bad feelings. So that was one of the criteria driving this. The other is as Sharmin indicated, the cross
access agreement was, is a way to subdivide property. And this would make it a criteria that we have the
ability to review so it would give some level of control for the city to review that.
Feik: This would be applicable to any size residential lot though, whether it's rural residential or
otherwise?
Aanenson: Right. We spent a lot of time trying to exempt what would and wouldn't work. And as I
indicated to you before we have a variance request for a very, very large accessory structure and having a
separate driveway makes it a lot easier. And those sometimes mm into commercial uses. Again those
are big rubs for neighborhood uses. We have quite a few of those that we're working on trying to
eliminate. So certainly if they want to come to the Planning Commission and say I store my RV or
whatever and it seems appropriate, it works well with the neighborhood, if the lot's large enough. We try
to develop some criteria that says gosh, if it's this big of a lot, it just became too difficult so we felt we'd
leave it up to you as through the process to say, because it's a large enough lot that would work,
depending on how the accessory structure, you got access to it. It seemed to make some sense.
Feik: Okay.
Blackowiak: Any other questions right now? No? Rich.
Slagle: Just a quick question. How do we define a utility facility?
AI-Jaff: We talked about that earlier. It would be.
Aanenson: A cell tower.
AI-Jaff: Cell tower.
Slagle: Okay. Water tower.
A1Jaff: Correct. Lift station.
Aanenson: Sometimes there are large utility boxes. We have some of those too. For example like Sprint
or some of those have those accessed to at the tower locations.
Slagle: So it'd the obvious ones that one would think? There's no way to get around that?
Aanenson: Yeah. It's intended to be a public utility, yeah.
Slagle: Alright.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah I've got a few questions. In the cover to thi~, which is a very brief introduction, the
background, you're talking about landlocked parcels and then the need that it needs a variance for this
second driveway situation. Access, cross access agreement variance. And I understand a little better
how the landlocked picture come in, but the proposed language that you put in front of us for this
ordinance doesn't really state variance per se. That's implied or?
i
AIJaff:. I'll give you a different example. Our ordinance says front yard setback is 30 feet.
Sacchet: And then if you want more or less.
A14aff: If you want less. It doesn't say if you want less you have to go before the Planning Commission
to apply for a variance.
Sacchet: That's a given, okay. Okay. Okay, that answers that question. I just want to make sure that we
have this properly correlated. Another similar thing in the introducto~ paragraph that you're proposing,
it talks about establishing the minimum driveway slope standards. I don't know where I ever looked it
but I don't really see it talking about slope stan~ in the.
AI-Jaff: It would be the 10% grade. -'
Sacchet: It doesn't say that....you sort of touched on it already with the numbers we put in there in
terms of how wide can it be, or narrow. To not exceed 36 feet. Where does the 36 come from?
..
AI-Jaff: Three car garage.
Aanenson: And people parking RV's and boats and that's again code enforcement tends to be an
increasing problem. Some people want to pave to get that.
Sacchet: So if they have a 3 car garage they make it full width, that's basically 36 so that's where that
comes from?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay. And then we're talking about inside the properS, like under clause (e) we're talking
about access maximum and then also the inside width. Under clause (f) we don't talk about the inside
limit. They can do whatever.
AI-Jaff: Please keep in mind that you always have to meet the 25% hard surface coverage.
Sacchet: So we count that impervious surface clause would keep that in check?
A1Jaff:. Absolutely.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. That answers that question. Now we're talking about the minimum, or the maximum of
how wide these things can be. We don't feel there is a need to define a minimum because we figure that
people, if they have a little car and they want a small driveway, I mean we basically trust people have
some common sense. Is that where we're at? Which is good. I mean if we don't trust the people we
might as well close shop. Alright. Could you define turn around? Is that, that probably is Saam
question. Where it says turnaround is required in certain cases. I just want to make sure I understand
what we mean by saying turnaround.
Saam: Sure. Thank you commissioners. Turnaround, acceptable turnaround area for such things as if
you're backing out of your driveway, just an area so you can turn around and pull back out. Similar
situation, access for emergency vehicles. We require sufficient turnaround areas and shared driveways,
things of that nature where a fire tmek or something may need to get to more than one lot. So a
turnaround, just an acceptable area where a person doesn't have to back out 100 or 200 foot long
driveway if you're, you know abutting a highway' in a rural setting.
Pamenson: Maybe ! could add to that too. If you look at the lots on Lake Lucy, they have tumarounds on
the property so they're not backing out onto that collector street. They have shared driveways, they also
have a turn area so they can make that mm movement on the property before coming out. That's a
different type of turn. Turn about.
Saam: That's a good point. It's a traffic concern too. Like Kate said, you don't want to be backing out
onto a 50 mph collector roadway.
Sacchet: I do understand the rationale. I just wonder how defined we are.
Aanenson: Yeah, we have different examples.
Saarm I think we do say in there we'll review it deemed necessary by the city engineer so we'll work
with that.
Sacchet: ...basically you'll work with the resident, okay.
Saam: Yep, let them come up with something and we'll review it.
Sacchet: Okay. That's the questions I have for right now, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just have a couple questions. As I look through these conditions Sharmin or Kate,
I see that there are a couple that are addressed elsewhere. 10% slope, I mean isn't that already in the
code? I mean aren't there some of these items are in the code?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Blackowiak: And why are we addressing them again?
A1-Jaff: It's under a private street and not private individual driveway. And these are standards that we
already implement but we just wanted to...as part of the ordinance.
Blackowiak: So you're saying then in what went before council last month, we talked about private
driveways and private streets.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
A14aff:. The 10% grades that we have in our ordinance.
Blackowiak: Are only private.
A14aff: I've only been able to find them under private streets.
Saam: They're for driveways also.
..-
Blackowiak: I thought so.
Saam: There is one spot in the code where it says maximum driveway grade is 10%, and that's the only
requirement which it specifies for driveways. We're trying to get all of the driveway requirements in one
spot so you don't have to be flipping through the code, because that's what I have to do. I flag my code
for ail these different things. Well it'd be nice to just mm to this and see oh, it's got to be this wide.
That's the maximur~ This is the maximum slope. You know this is the setback from a corner. We're
trying to get them all in one spot. We should probably strike that one if this is approved, remove the
other one so we don't have redundance.
Blackowiak: Okay, great. Thanks. Next question. We have no ~nimum driveway width and I know
you just said that if a car wants a smaller driveway, that would be fine. However this just brought me
back to what we said in our work session Kate where there was a house plan that came in without a front
sidewalk because they were right at that 25% i ,mpervious. What if we have the-same problem where
we've got a house that's at their 25% im?ervious and they come and say well We're doing a 3 foot wide
driveway to meet our impervious surface. That sounds pretty ridiculous. What can we do to fix that? I'
mean I think that there should be i~ome sort of minimum. ':
Saam: Sure, sure. That's a good point. We could _s_dd a minimum. 12 foot wide, that's our standard
lane width. That would be acceptable to me.
Blackowiak: That would be like a single car garage?
Saam: A single driveway.
Blackowiak: Okay, a single driveway, 12. I'm just saying that you know...
Aanenson: That's fine, I agree with you. That is a good point. I'mnot sure if 12 or 10.
Blackowiak: And I don't know what the number is but I'm just saying that.
Aanenson: But I think that's a good point, we should put something in.
Blackowiak: And I only thought of it because of what you said before.
Aanenson: But to calculate impervious surface, right. Someone said well I'm only going to do 8 foot.
Most people don't do single car garages because, but right.
Blackowiak: But I think that we should have some sort of ~ in there.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Aanenson: Or neck it down at that drive.
Blackowiak: lust a reasonable, you know a reasonable width so that cars can drive on it without going
off the edge. Okay, and my final question has to do with what happens when you have a big landlocked
parcel that you know is going to be subdivided in the future. Okay. We're talking about a single
driveway and a second driveway is a variance. Have we thought that through? Are we comfortable
doing that?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowialc And what would happen to that larger parcel that eventually will be subdivided? It would
just have to come in through, tell me the process. What would happen?
Slagle: Isn't there one over by Westwood perhaps? That's going to be landlocked.
Blackowiak: Well I think the parcel you're talking about.
Slagle: I thought there was one that was going to.
Blackowiak: Not landlocked but.
Aanenson: It has access onto a street.
Blackowiak: He has access but he wants the'church to~ right
Saam: Addressing your question Madam commissioner, if-you have one single parcel say in a rural
setting right now and your question is alluding to well what happens when this develops? Is that correct?
Blackowiak: Correct, yes.
Saam: Where you'll need multiple driveways. Well we'll require platting at that point so we'll have
separate lots. Multiple lots all with their individual driveway access. We'll have interior streets. Is that
getting to your.
Feilc Assuming they can get there. You could have wetlands. You could have other issues that you
could not access a large lot behind an existing rural residential.
Saam: Okay, yeah. I'm following you. So then we wouldn't have a plat, right? So we wouldn't have
another lot. So you can't subdivide.
Feik: Well you would have another lot.
up this existing driveway.
Aanenson: Right, and that's a variance criteria which we want to control.
Feik: Is the minimum length on this private street, driveway...
What you do is there'd be no access potentially other than going
Aanenson: For one home, no.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Feik: A minimum length. So could they in your example you show.
Aanenson: On length. Your house has to be set 30 feet from the street.
Feik: What I'm saying is in your example where you show the private street here, is there a ~
length of that street from the time it leaves the curb to the point where it can break off. Could it break off
within 5 feet of the curb there? I mean where does, how long does this private street need to be?
Saam: Edge of the right-of-way. We'd want it to the edge of the right-of-way and then they can break it
off.
Feilc So they could break it off immediately once they get through the right-of-way easement?
Saam: Sure.
Feik: So it doesn't need to be.
Saam: Provided there's sufficient turnaround, again like I spoke of before. That's something we'd look
Blackowiak: Comfortable?
Feik: No. Butthat's okay.
Blackowialc Alright tell you what, FII open this up for a public ~g and we'll have time to comment
later. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to comment on this issue please
step to the podium, state your name and address for the record.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. We take turns. Fd like to question item (b). We're
talking about a vertical profile of our driveway not exceeding 10%. As Matt brought up, a driveway
can't exceed 10%. When I brought a plat up to Teresa here months ago, I said does this driveway now
exceed 10% and she took the ruler and measured that much and she said yes. Is a vertical profile 150 feet
of driveway and it can have 20% up here and 5% down here? Or is thia ambiguous by saying, using the
term vertical profile as opposed to just saying the driveway can't exceed that 10%. I guess that's just a
question. It seems kind of strange to put this under, thia whole thing about driveways under parking and
loading. It's kind of a hidden way back. More proper might be _a_d_dressed under streets and so forth I
think. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. As Jerry said, I think it's placed in the wrong spot in
code. Private driveways have always been in 18-57 so why in parking and loading? Private driveway
easement does provide access but it serves the same purpose as a street and has nothing to do with
parking and loading. We're not really talking just about a driveway. We're talking about a driveway
easement. It serves the same purpose as a private street. It's a duplication. So why do we need a
duplication? It has less rules on it, has less width. That's why you can cram more into a smaller space.
It's a danger to my neighborhood and I object. Second amendment proposed makes no mention of a
variance. When you talked about private streets, you made sure that the word variance was put in there.
It should be put in there. That's the only way we can be sure. There are no stated minimums. When we
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
had the private driveway ordinance before 1990 and it changed again in '94, they had a minimum
easement of 30 feet and it had on the common section of it, it had to be 20 feet wide. Nothing's said
about that in this. And of course they finally addressed the setback. But again a private driveway allows
a street to be going, essentially a street to be going pretty close to a person's house. If it's a 10 foot
setback that'd be 20 feet from your bedroom window. So why are we lowering the standards? This issue
was almost discussed at the City Council meeting because I brought it up and I just wanted to show you.
The planning department really didn't want to address private driveway easements at this meeting, as you
can see. But they almost discussed except that Roger interfered. He changed the subject to just talk
about a plain driveway. That's not what we're talking about. I think it's really important to make the
distinction. Reminds me of a movie video we saw recently called The Pmefiee and it said lawyers never
lie, they just use the troth judicious!y to totally confuse. Well that's what I think was done. I think you
should forbid private driveway easements. You've got private streets to provide an access to a
landlocked lot. It has to be in a 30 foot easement and that protects minimally neighbors. They crowd
private drive easements would crowd, and in 20 years they deteriorate and who's going to keep them up?
It's going to be a big mess in Chanhassen. A bad infrastructure. A private street serves the same
purpose, and by the way Lake Minnetonka, or Minnetonka forbids private streets but they do have private
driveway easements and they make the stipulation. You have to have 25 feet all around in order to put a
home in there. We're ending up with a home 10 feet from our, it will be their back yard. 10 feet from
our property line because of what happened with the Igel thing. I object to private driveways.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I can't tell if you can still see this.
Blackowiak: I see Matt. Oh, yep we can.
Debbie Lloyd: When Shanuin pointed this out she pointed out, I mean this is essentially what we've
talked about as a flag lot. And she called this the cross access easement. But essentially this driveway,
as we're calling it tonight I guess, from the private street to this landlocked parcel, that is also a cross
access easement. And that's what I tried so hard to point out at City Council and I think Rich, you might
have gotten that. This is a cross access easement. The other thing about a driveway 5 feet from a
property line. I just kind of drove around. I thought 5 feet from a property line. Where can I find that? I
don't see that anywhere. Most people' s driveways come off the street into their garages. Their structure
has a setback. It's not 5 feet. I appreciate that we're trying to clarify some of this but again I think more
work needs to be done and I ask you to look at this with a fine tooth comb. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Come on up. We're not limiting you to 5 minutes.
Debbie Lloyd: I forgot one thing. 5 feet from a property line. We talk about tree impacts. Well a tree
impact zone I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, these numbers are starting to fade. I think the impact
zone on a tree is about 20 feet.
Aanenson: It depends on the tree.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. But if you put a driveway 5 feet from a property line, you're not affecting just
your property. You are affecting the property next to you. You're affecting their tree line, and that was
another environmental point I want to make. Thanks.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Unless there are any more comments, I will close the public hearing.
Staff, Fmjust going to give you a chance to ~ any comments or clear up anything you'd like to right
now before we commissioners make our comments.
Aaueuson: No comment.
Blackowiai~ Okay. Matt?
i
Saam: Fve got one. The driveway slope, I think: well Mr. Paulsen spoke to it I believe. Yeah, the way
it's worded there in (b), we could change that. The driveway grade maybe shall not exceed 10%
maximum slope. We're just talking about the vertical rise. If that was confusing to anybody.
Feik: At any point or over the.
Saam: No, that's overall. 10% max anywhere. It can't go 20% you know for 5 feet and then.
Slagle: From beginning to end.
Feilc Right.
Saam: 10% max anywhere. I guess we look at the contours between each one and make sure it's not
10%.
Sacchet: Basically no portion of the driveway will have more than 10%.
Saam: Correct. I guess unless you have any specific questions for mo, they spoke about a lot of stuff
but the driveway grade was the main one that I wrote down. Setback issue. Sharmin and I talked about
it. From an engineering standpoint our only concern was our easement. And the way we looked at it
was, well we pave our streets and we have utilities under there so we would allow them to pave over an
easement. If we have to go in there it will be ripped up but, so that was, and from an engineer standpoint,
that was our issue with the setback. I really don't have any issue with it.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, commi.~sioners. Time for comments.
Feiic rye got a few.
Blackowialc Go right ahead.
Feik: As long as you're up, by the way, is there currently a ~ length that a driveway needs to be
paved?
Saam: A minimum length?
Feilc I nwam you've got in your item (c) you've got in areas outside the MUSA they must be 100 feet
What is the bac~und of that?
Saam: We looked, we got information from a lot of different cities for this. About 10 different cities.
Neighboring towns around the Minnesota River Valley. The 100 feet number, that could be decreased.
Our point is, we don't want to have gravel driveways that could wash out into a drainage ditch and cause
26
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
erosion problems. Plug up culverts, that sort of thing. So that's why we're seeing outside of the MUSA
where typically that's an agricultural setting, we'd like to see the first 100 feet off the roadway paved to
minimize that washing out of the gravel, dirt, that sort of thing. I could go, if we want to minimi?e that,
we could go with the edge of the right-of-way. It's got to be paved to the edge of the right-of-way at
Feik: Thank you. Continuing my comments. As it relates to locating this in the parking and loading
space section. That's up to staffif they can manage it there, that's where it needs to be. I don't have any
concern with where this is located. I do have a concern with how this will be enforced in a rural
residential area wherein someone might have bought a number of acres years ago. At this point would
like to subdivide their 10 acres or whatever they've got left and would like to get some additional access
to the areas in the back without giving up their frontage or that may be constrained by wetlands or trees .
or other things. So I had a concern how this would be construed in the rural residential areas. I'm not
sure it's really appropriate.
Aanenson: Okay, can I address that? This is going in Chapter 20 because it's the standards for existing
lots. This is checked when someone comes in for a building permit, this is where you check to make sure
that the driveway's in the right spot. If someone's subdividing, that's Chapter 18. Those are the
different standards.
Feik: So this wouldn't be applicable to someone with a 10 acre lot that.
Aanenson: If they're going to put 1 house on there, yeah.
Feilc Well no, he's got 1 house on the front 2 ½ acres.
Aanenson: Then he goes through a subdivision, that's a different process.
Feik: And he will be able to do a cross easement to get to the back?
Aanenson: He would still need a variance if he needs a cross.
Feik: But via a variance he could get a cross easement to get to the back.
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. That's what this would require, yep.
Feitc Okay. Then in that case, thank you for addressing that. I guess I do agree with one of the
commenters that said, in a more urban area 5 foot setback on the side of a lot, considering we I think, the '
setback of a home is fairly short on the side.
Aanenson: The problem with that is,. that's where most people park their boats and their RV's.
Feilc I understand.
Aanenson: And when you have a 10 foot side yard setback, that's where we prefer that they be is on the
side.
Feik: Could we require screening though? Could we require them to put a fence up? If they're going to
put this street in, or driveway or whatever anybody wants to call it, and I am a homeowner and my
27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
neighbor wants to do this and I do not have, Fm not benefiting from thi~ at all other than Fm going to
have a driveway 5 feet from my shrub line and my swing set in the back yard, could We require them to
put a fence up along?
Aanenson: You're saying if someone wants to go closer than 5 feet to put their ~.
Feik: No, at 5 feet. You've got 5 feet in there, right?
Aanenson: No, we took that out. ..
Feik: So what is the?
Aanenson: There is none. There is none right'now. There are situations where people have side loaded
garage that back right close to the ~ line. Within 3 feet,/f feet on side loaded garages. Or people
that park their campers or.
Feik: I guess I'm more interested in addressing it in that if we were doing this to approve, in your
example of another dwelling in the back, that I don't think it would be unreasonable to require, to
develop some sort of a fencing screen.
Aanenson: Right, and that would require a variance. When they come in for a variance you can attach
whatever condition you d~m reasonable to-mitigate that.imp, acc That would be one...
Feilc So this really has nothi'ng to do with the flag lots anymore then?
..
Aanenson: No.
Feik: Never mind.
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say, thi~ is not. This picture back here, I gues. s refer to the upper left
hand comer lot, that is not a flag lot.
Feik: It's confusing.
Blackowiak: It is a landlocked parcel with a cross access agreement. Flag lot would actually own...
Feilc But we're splitting hairs here as it relates to the neighbor who's next to this sees no d/fference
between a landlocked lot and a flag lot.
Blackowiak: Right.
Feilc In their minds it's the same thing.
Aanenson: Right, and that's why we're adding the thing that would be require the variance to meet that.
So then you could attach, put a condition in. If you wanted landscaping or fencing, whatever. Or greater
setback.
Feilc Okay, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21,2001
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich.
Slagle: I have to say this. I'm getting really confused. And it's getting to the point where, how should I
say this. I really want to ask for help on this. And let me preface it by saying, you guys do an awesome
job. Day in and day out, you know that I feel this way. These folks back here who I don't know other
than seeing them here, seem to have good point. Seem to have a passion about this area, and I commend
them for that. I get frustrated when I see comments being made by some of us, the staff, other guests and
then in the back shaking their head no, like it can't, it's not in there. It can't be, whatever. I'm just
wondering is it, you know just an observer sort of, how can two groups have such different ideas about
what is being said. So my request is this, can you guys get together and talk about these things? 'Get
Roger involved if there' s questions about his interpretations of what you think it should say or you guys
think it should say, and I only would ask this in this case because these folks are here all the time. ff it
was just someone who came off the street and threw out a comment, I wouldn't say it. But I just don't
want to be listening to a lot of this anymore, just because I'm getting c6nfused. Every day.
Aanenson: In every code amendment I guess we could deliberate with them
Slagle: Well as an example, Roger in the notes throws out well wouldn't you, we wouldn't want
everyone to go through the process of getting I hope a variance for every single family driveway in town.
It seems to me a very good point. Yeah, I mean but I'm just wondering from your point, does that make
sense? I mean is that a laborious, bureaucratic thing.
Al-Jarl: That is exactly what we're talking about.
Slagle: Okay, then what's wrong with that? You know I want to be like this mediator but what's wrong
with that comment which seems to make sense?
A1-Jaffi We're talking about individual driveways. One person using that one driveway accessing their
home off of the street.
Slagle: Correct, and are you asking, if I can interject, you're asking, or suggesting we put a variance
clause in there to protect the citizens.
Aanenson: So people can't put 2 driveways oh 1 lot without a variance.
Slagle: Is that okay?
Aanenson: That's what we're trying to prevent.
Saam: If I could add something Commissioner Slagle. We do have design criteria for private streets or
driveways, whatever the. I'm sorry, whatever the correct verbiage is. We already have that. So this is,
as Sharmin said, separate.
Slagle: Okay. Then I'll just once again reiterate my request. Can there be some convening of a sit down
session with the Paulsen's and Ms. Lloyd, just to address these as a courtesy to our citizens who are our
clients, and just let's hopefully be done with what I consider to be some gaps in interpretation of what's
going on. Is that fair Madam Chair to ask?
Blackowiak: You can ask anything you like.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 2001
Slagle: Okay. I'm done.
Blackowiak: Uli, comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have comments. Well first of all I do want to again thank our permanent guests as we
call them for all their support in our work and unlike with the previous item that was before us where I
said I had a little hard time correlating it, I do believe that, and I got the letter that relates this item I
didn't get the letter for the previous item from you and I do think your points rglate vea~ff much to this -
item. And I think they should be looked at and put into the context. On the other hand, it really, I have
to say that too, I sincerely regret to feel like there is some sort of an antagonism a liode...
(Taping of the Planning Commi~don meeting ended at this point in the discn~dom)
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
3O
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRF~ENT: Rich $1agle, Uli Sacchet, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, and
Craig Claybaugh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Feik
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior
Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet & ~erry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THE PROCEDURES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONS.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to table this item to get further clarification from the City Attorney;
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE TO PERMIT ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY
ACCESS PER LOT.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, we did see this before. Does anyone have any new
questions based on what we see before us tonight? LuAnn, why don't you go ahead.
Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. Sharmin. In, I guess is it part (h), or whatever, it says one driveway
approach. I'm wondering if approach is the term we want to use or should we use access point? Or
could you clarify that please? Because that's a word that's been thrown out but not clarified.
Al-Jaff: Okay. We can use access.
Saam: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. Access would be fine with me, unless planning has an
issue with the word approach.
Al-Jaff'. Either or.
Saam: We were struggling I think with what word to use so we're looking kind of for some feeling from
you.
Sidney: Yeah, I'd suggest saying one driveway access. That's consistent with the rest of the
amendments. And the one other point that I noticed, and this is grammatical. In the first section there,
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
access from driveways. The intent is, and then...so it should be a semi-colon to reduce and then it's
consistent throughout that paragraph. That's all I saw but it's well clarified and I understood when I read
it what the intent was. -
Blackowiak Uli any questions?
Sacchet: Yes, it'd be real clear at this point we're not going into the setback issue at all with this?
There's no setback requirement? We're not reducing one, we leave that alone?
:
Aanemon: Right. That's our reco~tion, coixeet.
Sacchet: Okay. And then you made a point that the first 100 feet of a driveway need to be bituminous or
concrete. And that could possibly reduce to just cover the easement stretch. Matt can you give us a little
more context for that please.
Saam: Sure. At the last Planning Commission meetings one of the commissioners raised that point. We
left it in. At a minimum I would like to see it at least to the edge of the right-of-way. What we're trying
to get at here or avoid is erosion from, this is dealing with areas outside the MUSA so typically they're
agricultural type lots or parcels. We're trying to avoid a gravel driveway which you see commrmly in an
agriculan-al setting from eroding into the drainageway. Putting sediment in ditches. Getting in the
culverts, that sort of thing. The ditches are out in the right-of-way so I would be okay with the ~
going with driveway surface to the right-of-way.
Sacchet: And a detail question. Is there reason why when we talk about that 100 foot stuff, you're
saying concrete...don't saying bituminous. Why don't we say both or?'
Saam: No. No reason.
Sacchet: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.
Saam: We could add bituminous there.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions.
Blackowiak: Alright. Deb, any new questions?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I'd like to touch on the side yard setback issue that was discussed at the last
meeting. Staff originally suggests the driveway should be setback at least ii feet from the side property
lines and after the last meeting that was taken out. I'm interested in maybe putting that back in because
this is our opportunity to _s_d_Oress this issue and that is an issue that happened in my neighborhood Which
someone on a straight street wanted to put a side load garage and proposed to put the driveway right on
the property line in order to achieve that, And that put the driveway 10 feet from the neighbor'.s window.
And this is a situation that I would like to avoid and I would like to see us consider putting a side yard
setback for driveways. And this is our opportunity to do it. We don't, right now we don't have anything
that prohibits that.
Slagle: Why did we take it away? I was trying to remember. The setback Why was it?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Aanenson: Well some of the issues that staff had is that is boats and trailers in yards is a big
neighbo/'hood issue and the place .that you can put it is in your side yard. The most common place,
acceptable place is next to your garage. And most people put some sort of surface next to their garage to
park their boat or their camper. If you eliminate that, you're causing another problem by forcing
someone to put their boat in the back yard which tends to cause more neighborhood concerns so.
Kind: My question would be, I believe we allow patios so if it wasn't going out to the street, I think you
could call it a patio. And then you don't have to have a permanent driveway to get your boat back there,
as long as, I mean we drive our boat across the grass all the time. Just one at a time, not daily. But this
would preclude somebody from having an end load garage that's used daily with headlights shining into
neighbor's windows. Just throw it up as consideration. This might be our opportunity to do something
about that.
Blaekowiak: Okay. Any other new questions or any other questions I should say? Deb.
Kind: Well actually one other and maybe it comes more under directing staff for future amendments but
I think Section 20-908, if we do decide to allow driveways to encroach only 5 feet, I think we would need
to amend that ordinance. So it kind of depends on what we decide here tonight but I want to bring that
up.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any new comments? Or new questions, sorry. Not comments.
Claybaugh: This is for Matt. The definition of access, is that determined by the curb cut or what are
you?
Saam: Well yes.
Claybaugh: Essentially people come.
Saam: Yes, the access from the street. The curb cut, correct.
Claybaugh: And this is aimed at basically scattered lots like you're already regulating subdivided lots
but what I'd considered a scattered lot. Where I left most the acreage in there is 4 ½ to 10 acres so
there's a purpose for people living on 4 ½ to 10 acres. So they can have some of those accessory
buildings so on and so forth so.
Claybaugh: It doesn't do them much good if they can't get back to them but, is there any distinctions
whatsoever made between the subdivided and scattered lot in this orainan~?
Saam: I believe, and maybe Kate can help out too. We brought this up before on the larger'lots. How
they could get back to their accessory structures. Yes, we are trying to limit the amount of street access
that one lot has to a street. Whether you be in an agricultural setting or a suburban setting, a quarter acre
lot size. You're concerned with getting back to accessory structures.
Claybaugh: ...is the purpose of living on a larger lot. If you're living on something and you have
accessory out buildings on the rest of it, it makes it very logistically difficult to get to them under some
circumstances. Certainly not all, but under some circumstances and isn't really conducive to why people
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
occupy those properties. I'm just trying to nm through my mind how restrictive that would be in some
circumstances.
Saam: Kate, we had talked about this the last time this was here. 'About the bigger lots getting back to an
accessory structure or another house back there. I think we talked about, it would have to be platted if
they wanted to do another lot. So then you'd need a private. Yeah, then you'd need to come in for a
variance. Then we'd look at it separately from this and we could put any conditions you wanted.
Claybaugh: And then subdivide. If you're platting another lot that's'subdividing. What I'm talking ..
about is, there's a lot of properties.
Saam: You want to put a barn in the back.
Claybaugh: Well maybe a barn. It may just be that you want to access the back of your Nroperty to store
your boat or your trailer or whatever. It isn't~
Aanenson: A lot of people do that without a driveway. They take it in once and out and they don't use a
driveway approach.
Claybaugh: Right, but most the people that live, that I know that live on 5 to 10 acres at some point in
time put up an accessory structure and use it for substantially more.
Aanenson: And that's the problem because they become'other than accessory smLetur~ and that's
probably one of the biggest problems facing the city fight now is the illegal use'of Some of the outdoor-
structures because they have a secondary driveway, and our recommendation is we want control over
that. If they want to come in for i driveway~ we want to know how they're being used. '
Claybaugh: What kind of illegal?
Aanenson: Running businesses out of them and neighborhood complaints.
C~aybaugh: Okay.
Aanenson: That's what we talked about last time.
Claybaugh: And you feel this is the best vehicle to deal with it?
Aanenson: Correct, because then if they're coming in for a vadance we can attach a condition that .says ·
if you want a secondary driveway you will not be ronning a business out of that We're reviewing cases
right now, that is a big problem. Or people that end up tenting so~ there's an accessory garage
that turns into a rental property and we have a few of those that are causing a lot of problems right now
too in some neighborhoods so, what we're trying to do is, for those neighborhoods it's a big concern so
we' re saying...
Claybaugh: Okay, so for the person that genuinely wants a use, a stmctm~ a barn, whatever in the back
of their property, it's purchased that way and the out accessory stmcnue's already there and wants to use
it purely for their own purpose, they still have means to.
Planning Commission Meeting- September 18, 2001
Aanenson: And most of them do. I mean we just approved a stable permi. 't today that already has access.
I mean they come in pretty regular. People buy horse property and get stable permits. They go through
the process but they use an existing driveway. It's pretty rare that someone had an agricultural property
needs to come in based on the way their property' s laid out and topography. If you're looking at the
southern end of the city there's not a lot of secondary access points that come in. If you look even in the
Hesse Farm neighborhood, those sort of things. Most of those already kind of have existing driveways.
If there is an anomaly there and they want to come in, I think we also want to look at it for grading
purpose, etc. We kind of went through that exercise internally in stall to say you know what, we don't
want to make it punitive but looking at the number of eases that we think that variance is probably the
best way to go. If there's something really unusual that they can't get at their property, and they need a
secondary access, we maybe want to look at it.
Saam: If I could add something. In most agricultural settings you're abutting county roads, maybe even
state highways sometimes. You'll have to get a driveway permit from the county and the state to access
the road so. I don't have a problem with if you own 10 acres and your house is here and you have a ham
way out here, accessing off another road. From an engineering standpoint but I know planning's been
seeing these as Kate said, accessory structures being used for other purposes so.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Blackowialc Did you have another question? Uli?
Sacchet: Yes. I want a point of clarification that you're suggesting that we keep. in the minimum setback
of 5 feet for the driveway. Would we then also want to keep in the letter (g) that says on lots not meeting
the minimum width requirement at the right-of-way line, driveway setback may be reduced subject to the
following criteria. One, the driveway will not interfere with any existing easement. And two, the
location of the driveway must be approved by the city engineer. Are you thinking to put that back in as
well or how do they correspond?
Kind: I don't see that they necessarily correspond. I think we can still leave (g) out.
Sacchet: Okay. What' s staff' s position on that? Do you have an idea whether the two kind of go hand
in hand? Does this seem to be correlated?
Saarm Yeah, yeah. That was the intent of (g) with (a) initially. Because they're tied in with the setback
reference so if you're going to limit or set a minimum for a setback, we might want to consider putting
(g) back in.
Sacchet: Okay. And then one more real quick point. In (b), driveway grades shall be a minimum of .5%
and a maximum grade of 10%. I think we talked about that briefly last time. That you may want to
clarify that that' s anywhere in the driveway. If we would want to say at any point or in any portion of the
driveway, something to that effect. I think that would be consistent with other statements last time.
Blackowiak: Alright, any other questions?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I thought of another one for staff. Would you object to including language in
the intent statement that clarifies that this is for single parcels? I know that our driveway definition
includes that but I think it behooves us to be really clear in the ordinance itself. For instance the first
Plavning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
sentence could say, the purpose of this sub-section is to provide a ~nim.m design criteria and slope
standards for driveway construction on single parcels.
Aanenson: I guess I'm looking at individual lots and if we can.
Kind: Individual lots?
Aanenson: If we can get a legal opinion. I know what you're trying to say. You want to clarify the
intent. This is for a multi-family, we're bringing this in the code just to make sure it's not ambiguous.. Is
that what you're?
Kind: Yes, which is just for clarification. If you feel that the driveway definition covers it, and this may
be something we could actually get, get half this on tonight and get the opinion before it goes to council
and then give them the option of adding or not adding that based on the attorney's opinion.
Blackowialc Okay. Alrighty, this item is not open for a public hearing but I see we have people here
wnight so if anyone wants to get up and briefly add any new comments to what we're seeing before us,
feel free to come up. State your name and address for the record.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen. I feel like a
broken record up here, but I want to clarify. The difference between driveway and a driveway cross
access easement, whatever they want to call it. A driveway that allows a homeowner access to his
property from a street. Like this. That's a driveway. It goes into, you turn around and you come out.
This driveway has a private street .accessing it. It goes into, through, out, into another lot, turn around,
come back out. It's like a Bemstein Bear book. Into, through and out. This driveway goes through
somebody else's property. It goes out and then into the lot that it's support to serve. It's unnecessary
because a private street already accomplishes that. In the recent past this type of driveway was called a
private driveway and it was described in 18-57 and regulated in 20-615. It had a 20 foot easement along
it's length or a piece of land 30 feet wide. It could serve 2 to 4 homes, h had to be 20 feet wide at the
common section and then 10 feet for the uncommon section- And a 10% grade. The comnwa section
had to be built to a 7 ton construction. Now there's nothing in this code that they're proposing that says
anything to do with that. It is going to be going through somebody's propew]. It's only 10 feet wide and
it doesn't have an easement covering it over. You step off the 10 feet, you're in somebody else's
~. That doesn't make sense. Also, the former private driveway was governed by Chapter 20-615
which says that in order to have it the lot had to have 100 foot frontage. And they determined the front of
the lot by how it faced the public street. Now that code was all changed to be the private street. The
language wasn't changed, only they changed the word driveway to street. So now that is their private
street. But now we have nothing mentioned in this proposal to determine what is the front of the yard,
access via a private driveway easement, or how wide the yard should be for frontage. Why are we
lowering our standards here? The purpose of it was to have access to a landlocked lot. A private street
does that. It only requires a 30 foot width and a 10 foot pavement, or 20 feet at the common section.
Why don't we want to stick with that? You're crowding our pwperties together. Another question. Can
this access driveway go through a front yard setback parallel to the frontage of the lot? If this is a private
street and here's the first driveway and here's the second driveway, can it go into this 30 foot front yard
to access this house back here? That's not a driveway. We'll have driveways winding all over. It just
permits the kind of infill lots in established neighborhoods. A developer can buy a lot with a home and a
larger back yard and throw in a 10 foot cross access driveway to a house built in the rear and ruin the
privacy of the neighbors and make an ugly situation. Why would you want to permit this? Now as to the
fact that you don't ne_~_ a 10 foot setback, a driveway is, what they're quoting here in Chapter 20-908, it
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
says it can be allowed to go into any required front, rear or side yard, driveways, sidewalks, and stand
wire agricultural fence. Into. It doesn't say through and out. It says into. A driveway can go into a front
yard, into a side yard or into a back yard, but that doesn't have anything to go with going through.
Kind: Madam Chair. I hesitate to ask but I just want to clarify for Mrs. Paulsen, we're not'talking about
private streets tonight.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Kind: This is driveways for single lots. Every example you showed me, that I saw tonight, involved
more than one lot and this is just for single, individual lots and that's why I'd like to include the language
in the intent statement that clarifies it's for individual lots and that would be my recommendation.
Janet Paulsen: If they state it the way it is, they're saying there's a variance to have 2 driveways.
Kind: They still show this, this is 2 driveways. That's a private street example.
Janet Paulsen: This is a private street. This is a driveway.
Kind: That would be a private street as well.
Janet Paulsen: Well you're calling it a driveway.
Aanenson: It requires a variance.
. .
Al-$aff: You will have control over it. You will decide whether you want to approve it or not. Whether
such a lot should be created or noi.
Kind: And then that would be a good reason to approve, my other suggestion which is they must, a
private drive must stay at least. Not private drive. A driveway must stay at least 10 feet away from the
side.
Aanenson: 5 feet.
Kind: 5 feet for the side yard setback.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Deb, I love your idea about a side yard setback. I
think that setback should be 10 feet. 10 feet is what a setback is. If you look at the definition of structure
in our city code, a concrete slab is a structure. So I think 10 feet from a neighbor's property line is
reasonable. It's what a structure setback currently is. To make it 5 feet, we're reducing our standards.
Thank you.
Blackowiak: Kate, could you clarify. Is a concrete structure.
Kind: A patio?
Blackowiak: A patio, or is a concrete slab a structure?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Aanenson: The city attorney already made an inte~on on the definition of the driveway smlctm~
when we reviewed the previous ordinance. A driveway doesn't meet the slxucture setbacks. If you had
to maintain the setback you'd have to maintain the 30 foot setback approaching the street ...30 foot
setback. If you're interpreting it the same way they are on the side yard, you'd have to have a 30 foot.
Well then how would your driveway touch the street? It doesn't work that way.
Debbie Lloyd: The side yanl has a 10 foot setback.
i
Aanenson: And a front yard has a 30 foot setback.
Debbie Lloyd: But the su'eet, the driveway comes fx~m the street into the house. Into the front yard
setback and typically would nm into a house. If you were moving that to the side...-
Blackowialc I think what Kate's point is, ifI am hearing you right Kate, is that if we enforce the front
yard setback, which is 30 feet, then your driveway could never go through thac
Aanenson: Right.
Debbie Lloyd: Well then you could clarify and say the 10 foot side yard setback... And on page 11, 58-
4, Chapter 20, definition of structure it says, anything ~ means anything...or erected which is
normally attached to or positioned on...would be temporary or permanent in character including, but not
limited to buildings...hard surface parking areas, boardwalks...concrete.
Aanenson: I would concur with that and also exempt in Section 209, which the city attome, y gave a legal
opinion on that driveway' s are exempt from setback requirements.
Blackowiak: Okay. So we're comfortable with the city attorney's opinion that the driveways are exempt
from that.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowialc Okay.
Sacchet: Point of clarification, since we're talking al~out setback numbem. What's the minimum
frontage of a lot?
Sacchet: How much?
Aanenson: 90 in RSF.
.
Sacchet: In RSF, okay. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other new comments?
Aanenson: I was going to clarify that. Just if you're on a cul-de-sac you can measure it at the 30 foot
setback line. If you're on an elbow, it could be a little bit narrower if you take the radius. Just for
clarifications so I'm not misquoted.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Sacchet: That's why I'm asking..
Aanenson: Yes, you could be maybe 80 at the street and 90 at the 30 foot setback or something like that.
Blackowiak: Alrighty.
Saam: Madam Chair, if I could add one point. One thing I noted was mentioned, a comment that we
were possibly lowering standards. I think as staff our point here was to make the standards a little more
strict so we'd have more control. Right now we don't have any control. You can put 4 driveway
accesses off a street if you want to and we can do nothing about it. And our city attorney couldn't
believe it. That we didn't have control so we're, I think, trying to make this a little more structured.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alrighty. Let's move on with this. If anybody has any new comments to
add before we go for a vote Rich.
Slagle: I just wanted to throw out, I think Matt I agree with that and I think probably the group here
agrees that we're taldng the right steps. I think the concern becomes that, and I don't know if it was
driven by Roger's legal opinion to whether it requires a setback or not but if there's a desire on this group
to have a setback for more what I'll just call practical reasons, seeing two lots with a driveway right next
to it coming close to someone's house, we probably don't want it. And so what I would like to throw
out, and I do think we should have a setback for side yard. I don't know if it's 5 or 10 feet but we should
have it and we would then I think by enacting that, or proposing .that, take care of Matt's desire, the
staff's desire to control it and then hopefully make it easier for neighborhoods to manage. So I'm in
support of that.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other new comments to add before we go for a vote? You weren't
here last time I know so go ahead.
Sidney: I think if we do talk about setbacks we have to look at that first paragraph and include setback in
slope standards for driveway construction as part of the verbiage. I do agree with Deb's comments and if
we're talking about driveways that are used for vehicular traffic.
Kind: Oh yes.
Sidney: Not just parking of trailers and boats or something. We are talking about a driveway which is
used, and not just a method to access a spot. And I think that really makes me think that we should have
consider a setback of at least 5 feet, which had been struck before but I'd include that. And that sounds
like that if we do that, and include point (a) again, then (g) should be included. But we're talking about
an active driveway which I think is the concern.
Kind: Right.
Blackowiak: Okay, any more new comments?
Sacchet: Real quick. I do believe the comments were well taken by Deb and also our visitors that it's
good to have a setback. It's definitely making this requires more stringent because right now there's
none. I feel comfortable with 5 foot setback. I would want to leave in (g). I would want to say that at
any point the grade is within the restrictions. I personally would be comfortable reducing the
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
requirement of what has m be surfaced to the easement portion of the driveway in the rural area. I think
that would suffice. I want to emphasize once more that we're talking about driveways, not private '
streets. It seems like there's still some confdsion about thaL That's my. conm~ts. "
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Deb?
Kind: Madam Chair, I think I'll probably just say no comment. I think I did enough commenting all
along here.
Blackowiak: Okay, Craig anything to add?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I likewise would be in favor of a greater side yard setback for the road. Fm a little
concerned about how tedious the process is for someone who genuinely wants to just access or put up an
accessory structure, not for the purpose of business but for the purpose of their own convenience and
whether it be a hobby shop or whatever, what the process is for them~ Or what it will entail in the future.
Saam: If I could. I would be fine with just reviewing those on a case by case basis. That's what we had
talked about. Maybe it's not spelled out in here. If you would like to have some...
Claybaugh: ...contradiction and if there's a number of places down there that have ~ to the
back that are used for the intended purpose, that we're well within the city ordinances and as you come .
off Powers Boulevard, I believe it'd be the second property to the north there where you've got thai:
private street. That highlights exactly what Ms. Paulsen was describing where someone come in and ':
drop the property right in the'back of another two there, split the lot up. So now that's the least desirable
outcome, but at the'same time I'm just concerned that for people that want to pursue it for the means that
I described previously that then it's not too labor intensive for them to try to navigate thht process.. They
can still do that in the future. That's kind of one of the driving purposes for owning a larger lot.
Blackowiak: And Kate, that would just be a variance process, correct?
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: And that's already in place. We're not re-inventing the wheel here. No, okay. Alright
Well with that, I'd like a motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission approves the attached amendment to Chapter 20
with the following changes. The first paragraph should read the purpose of this subsection is to provide
'minimum design criteria, setback and slope standards for vehicular use. The in/ent is to reduce erosion,
and then it continues on as it's shown in the staff report. I Would like item'(a) added'back in, and
changed to state, driveway shall be setback at least 10 feet from the side property lines. And I would like
item (g) added back in and item (h) changed to read one driveway access is allowed from a single
resident lot to the street. And item (i), add a period at the end of tha~ paragraph.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is them a second?
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any comments?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Sacchet: Yes, please.
Kind: I left it out.
In the first paragraph, that double strike out pan, did you leave that out or?
Sacchet: Since that is relating to setback I wonder what anybody thinks to put that back in also. It
doesn't make that much difference to me.
Blackowiak: Is it relating to setbacks or is it relating to neighbors? I mean I think the 10 feet is more of
Sacchet: Okay, that's flue.
Blackowialc I could be wrong.
Kind: Yeah. I mean that adds more substance to the rationale by leaving that in.
Sacehet: I think since we put back in setback, since this is somewhat related, it makes sense to add that
back in as well.
Kind: I would accept that friendly amendment.
Sacchet: And then (b), I would like to' clarify that this is at any point or in any portion of the driveway.
Kind: Sounds flue. I'll take them one by one.
Sacchet: And (c), yeah that makes sense. (e) i'd like to, in order to be consistent, like to add bituminous
and concrete.
Kind: With concrete or bituminous?
Saceheu Yeah because.
Kind: Or other hard surface material?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Kind: Last sentence.
Sacehet: Just to be consistent with how it's worded before in the other context.
Kind: I'll accept that.
Sacchet: And then the one you may not accept, I would feel going 100 feet is encroaching a little bit on
these property owners. I'd like to take that down. The right-of-way's usually 30 feet?
Saarn: Yeah, in the agricultural settings those county road right-of-way's are sometimes 80 feet and
wider so if you say to the right-of-way edge then it' s irrelevant.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. $o I would like to propose that we say instead of for the first 100 feet of the driveway,
that we say at least to the fight-of-way portion of the driveway.
Kind: I would accept that with the caveat that I would like Matt to ~h what other cities do and have
niles before going to council.
Saam: Okay. I'll just mention that we did gather information from roughly 6 to 10 other cities. 100 feet
is what we found in a couple of them. I can't guarantee it's in every city but that's where that number
came fi'om. From other cities data.
Kind: I don't feel strongly about it either way. I just think the council should have that infonmfiom
Saam: Okay.
Blackowiak: Do you accept those amendments?
Kind: I do.
Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commi~lon reeommelltis approval of the
following amendments to Chapter 20:
Section 1. Section 20-1122 .of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended as follows:
See.. 20-1122. Access and Driveways.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope stan~ for
vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility easement by providing
setback standards; reduce erosion by requiting a hard surface for all driveways; to limit the number of
driveway access points to public streets and to direct drainage toward the slxeet via establishment of
minimum driveway slope standards. Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public
fight-of-way. The number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic conge~on and
abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria:
a. Driveways shall be setback at least 10 feet from the side property lines.
b,
Driveway grades shall be a miiaimum of 0.5% and a maximum gra_de of 10% at any point
in the driveway.
C.
In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified on
the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaceat with bituminous, concrete or other
hard surface material, as aplcn'oved by the City Engineer. In areas outside the M-USA,
driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right-of-way
portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as
approved by the City Engineer.
d.
On comer lots, the minimum comer clearance from the roadway right-of-way line shall
be at least 30 feet to the edge of the driveway.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2001
For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed
24 feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that
portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the maximum
driveway width shall not exceed 36 feet. The minimum driveway width shall not be less
than 10 feet.
For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 36 feet in width
measured at the roadway right-of-way line. No portion of the fight-of-way may be paved
except that portion used for the driveway.
On lots not meeting the minimum width requirements at the right-of-way line, the
driveway setback may be reduced subject to the following criteria:
h. 1. The driveway will not interfere With any existing .easement; and
h.2. The location of the driveway must be approved by the City Engineer to ensure that it
will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties.
h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or
collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where
this is deemed necessary by the City Engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances,
street grades, or other relevant factors. If a turnaround is required by the engineer, this
requirement will be stated on the building permit.
j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities .are permitted.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING THAT AMENDMENTS
REZONIN~UIRE A TWO-THIRD.~~a~~RITY VOTE OF ALL
MEMBERS OF THE~
Blackowiak: This is something we saw before and we did ask for the opinion of the city attorney as to
whether or not we were required to do this. Bob's not here tonight so Kate, are you going to be taking
this one or is Sharmin7
Aanenson: I'll be covering this one.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: Thank you. The way our current city ordinance reads is that for a zoning ordinance
amendment requires a 4/5 vote. As you know we have changed the zoning ordinance. The way our
zoning map is set up is that areas that are outside the current MUSA are left in agricultural. We do have
a comprehensive plan so the way it's set up is that if we were to amend the zoning ordinance we have to
make it consistent with the comprehensive plan or also amend the comprehensive plan, which we've
done in some circumstances. For example, Pulte Homes we had to change the low density in order to get
the twin home attached on that northern side. So we have used that process in the past. What this new
13
7305 Laredo Dr.
Chanhassen MN 55317
October 3, 2001
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen MN
Subject: Amendments to Chapter 20 (Sec. 20-1122. Access and Driveways)
-- .
We are in favor of the proposed amendment regarding driveways except for the ~mplied inclusion
of cross-access driveways. A cross-acCess driveway is one that crosses one parcel of land to serve a
landlocked parcel of land (see Figure 1). This amendment implies &e use of cross-access
driveways. This change would be detrim~ for our neighborhoods for the following reasons:
1. There is already a means to access landlocked lots by use of a private street (see Figure 2). In
1994, I~ term "private driveway" was changed to "private street". In fact, what was once called a
"private driveway" (i.e., a cross-access driveway) had all the same standards as what is now
required for a private street
2. Tl~ standards proposed in thi.~ amendment are less than have ever been allowed previously for a
cross-~s driveway. Since 1990:
· .A 30-foot easement or parcel of land has been required
· In RSF, a 10ff lot frontage has been required
· In RSF, the fix)nt lot line is the lot line closest to the public street
These standards have protected the privacy and value of homes tl~estened-by a new home being
buit(right next to a back or side yard of an existing home. In the proposed amendmeng the 30'
easement required, in the past for cross-access driveways would be reduced to a mere 10~ width of
paved easement. The 10ff frontage and front lot line requiremenls are not even mentione~
3. In addition, staff has claimed that a driveway can traverse into and through a side, back or front
yard setback (see Figure 3). This would make for a really awkward neighborhoodl
By changing code to permit this change for a cross-access driveway, our established neighborhoods
(becauso~his is where a cross-access driveway is most often used) would become a crowded tangle
of driveways resulting in loss of privacy and decreased property value.
Note tt~ in subsection (a), staff' recommended that the~e should be no setback requirement for
driveways. The Planning Commission recommended (and we agree) that a 10' setback from the
propec~y line be required.
Ple~e~brnove this item from the October 8 Council Consent Agenda to permit discussion.
Janet D. Paulsen Gerald W. Paulsen
^mchm'ents
Copy: I,inda Jansen, Mayor
Bob Ayotte, Councilman Steve ~ Councilm~
Gary Boyle, Councilman Craig P~ Councilman
[]
[]
[]
J~
I ,
· I .-
~ Cro55 CLCc. t.~
Letter from William Coffman, Sr., Coffman Development Servieesdated Octo~ 3, 2001.
·
l~n'e/Re~ue Calls - Week of September 17 - 23, 2001. ' "
F'nvdRescue Calls - Week of September 24- 30, 2001.
Let~- and attachments from Elliott Knetsch, Campbell Knutson Professional Assoc. dated
September-26, 2001.
School District 112 Board Report- September 13, 2001.
"The Hose I)mgg~' - September 2001.
COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
October 3,2001
Ms. Kate Aanenson
The City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Bigwoods on Lotus Lake
Dear Kate:
This letter is a brief follow up as to the status of the subdivision known as Big Woods on Lotus
Lake. As you know Coffwtan Development Services, Inc. has been hired by the Romporfls and
Swanson / Igels to assist them with the development of their properties. As you are also aware
we received final plat approval on August 27, 2001.
Due to the recent tragic events of September 11, 2001, as well as some unexpected issues with
the demolition of both the existing structures on the properties, the purchase of the Swanson
property by the Igels has been slightly delayed. It is our sincere intention to move forward as
quickly as possible to "close" the purchase of the Swanson property and subsequently file the
final plat and development contract with the appropriate, letter of credit. We fully expect and are
working in good faith to have this all completed by the end of October, yet we request that the
City allow us until De, c~mber 15, 2001 to have a "filed plat".
Furthermore, and in order not to slow the City's work on lift station #10 due to our unforeseen
delays, we have in place a temporary access easement from Guy Swanson / Igels and will shortly
have the same from the Romportls to help facilitate the City's much needed work on that lift
station.
We hope the City can understand the unusual circumstances we are faced with in this unusual
time in American history. If you should have any questions or need any additional information
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
President
COFFIIA# DEVELOPilENT SERVICES
600 WEST ?STH STREET ·
PO BOX 23! · CHANHASSEN lin
PHOHE: 952.S74.7877 · FAX:
C:
Sha~in A1-JatT
Teresa Burgess
Matt Saam
Karl Romportl
Dave Igel
Men
Tues
Tues
Tues
Wed
Weds
Fl'/
Fri
Sat
Sat
Sat
Sat
Sun
Sun
Sept 17 9:47 PM
Sept 18 8:05 AM
Sept 18 9:01 AM
Sept 18 5:56 PM
Sept 19 12:04 PM
Sept 19 4:41 PM
Sept 20 1:27 AM
Sept 20 6:16 PM
Sept 2I 7:09 AM
Sept 2I 9:53 PM
Sept 22 4:31 AM
Sept 22 1:45 PM
Sept 22 3:28 PM
Sept 22 6:36 PM
Sept 23 7:11 AM
Sept 23 1:53 PM
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE/RESCUE
WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 17- SEPTEMBER 23, 2001
Sunnyvale Drive
'City Center Drive
Red Fox Circle
Stone Creek Drive
Highway 5 & Highway 41
Landings Drive
Dogwood
Highover Drive
Lake Drive West
Cascade Pass
Mission Hills Drive
Highway 5 & Dell Road
Lake Point
Highway 212 & Highway 101
Heartland Way
Powers Boulevard
Fire alarm- false alarm, no fire
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Car fire
Medical- person fell
Car accident- cancelled, no injuries
Medical - diabetic reaction
Medical - chest pains
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Medical - diabetic reae. tion
Car accident with injuries
Medical- trouble breathing
Car accident with injuries
House hit be lightning
Car accident with injuries, unfounded
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Medical - trouble breathing
Men
Mon
Mon
Tu~s
Tues
Tues
Weds
Fri
Fri
Sat
Sun
Sun
Sun
Sept 24 12:24 PM
Sept 24 4:40 PM
Sept 24 8:38 PM
Sept 25 2:55 PM
Sept 25 6:22 PM
Sept 25 8:56 PM
Sept 26 5:53 PM
Sept 2~ 11:14 AM
Sept 28 6:26 PM
Sept 28 5:58 AM
Sept 28 7:27 AM
Sept 29 8:09 PM
Sept 30 6:02 PM
Sept 30 6:11 PM
Sept 30 6:36 PM
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
.WEEK OF SEFrEMBBR 24 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2001
Mission Hills Drive
Highway 7 -'
Stone Creek Lane West
Cheyenne Trail
Pleasant View road
Minnewashta Parkway
Market Boulevard
We~t 78~ Street
West 78e~ S/reet
Trappers Pass
Ch~ Road
Stellor Circle
Highway 212 & StoughWn Ave
Galpin Blvd & Brinker Street
Carbon Monoxide Ahrm
Illegal bum
Propane tank on fire
Fire alarm - fal~ alarm, no
Medical - trouble brea/hing
Medical- person cheung
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Fire alarm - f~ls~ ~mn, no tiro
Firo.al~m~ - fiflso ~m'm, no tiro
Medie.~ - nook ~nd Imkle injury
Fire al,,'m - ~ ~ no fire
Arcing power line, unfounded
Smell of zm/xcral gas
Car fire- cancelled enroute
Car aceid~ with injuries
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
Joel J. Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Matthew K. Brokl*
*A[~o l/tensed in ~'bcmm'n
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
(651) 452-5000
Fax (651) 452-5550
September 26, 2001
John F. Kelly
Matthew J. Foil
Soren M. Mattick
Marguerite M. McCarron
Gina M. Brandt
Ms. Kate Aanenson and
Ms. Sharmin AI-Jaff
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: City of Chanhassen v. Nancy and Patrick Blood
Dear Kate and Sharmin:
Please review the enclosed information and call me at'651-234-6233 to
discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
By:
Elliott B. Knetsch
EBK:blk
Enclosure
Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center ° 1380 Corporate Center Curve ° Eagan, MN 55121
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
Case Number: 10-T?-00-006909
Case Title: The State of Minnesota
vs. NANCY BLOOD
ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
317 EAGANDALE OFFICE CENTER
1380 CORPORATE CENTER CURVE
EAGAN MN 55121
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Chaska, MN
NOTICE OF FILING ORDER
--.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ON THIS DATE, AN ORDER WAS DULY FILED.
IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER.
CAROLYN M. PENN
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
BY: CONNIE
COPIES ATTACHED
DEPUTY
PHONE (952) 361-1420
A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED BY MAIL UPON
THE PARTIES HEREIN AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF EACH, PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 77.
COURT ADMINISTRATION
GOVERNMENT CENTER
JUSTICE CENTER
600 E. 4TH STREET
CHASKA, MN 55318-2183
Dated: 09/21/2001
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
The State of Minnesota,
City of Chanhassen,
Plaintiff,
Patrick Blood and
Nancy Blood,
Defendants.
zoot
CARVER COUNTY COURTS
Court File No. T7-00-6909
T2-00-6915
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND ORDER
The above-entitled matter came On for a contested omnibus
hearing before the Honorable Philip T. Kanning, on May 16, 2001
at the Carver County District Court in Chaska, Minnesota. The
matter was submitted for a determination by the Court as to
whether, based upon all of the State's evidence, a jury could
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had
violated the Chanhassen City Code.
Elliot B. Knetsch, Chanhassen City Attorney, appeared on
behalf of the Plaintiff. Mark D. Christopherson, Esq., appeared
on behalf of the Defendants.
.
Based upon the file, testimony, arguments of counsel, and
proceedings herein, the Court does hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On or about September 23, 1996, the City of Chanhassen and
Patrick and Nancy Blood ("Bloods") entered into an agreement for
the construction by the Bloods of a dog kennel within city
limits ("Agreement~).
2. Under the Agreement, the City approved a site plan and
conditional use permit for the dog kennel's construction.
3. The Blood's agreed to abide by the conditions of the
Agreement and t~ose contained in the City's Conditional Use
Permit 96-3 ("CUP"), and to furnish required security.
4. Pursuant to the Agreement and CUP, the Bloods constructed a
12,936 square foot commercial kennel (~Kennel")..
5. The CUP contains several conditions of operation and
maintenance for the Kennel. It is undisputed that the Bloo~s
complied with each of the conditions.
6. On or about October 2, 2000, the Bloods were served with a
criminal complaint, alleging violations of the Chanhassen City
code relating to nuisances.
7. The Order dated December 13, 2000 dismissed both counts of
the charge of Nuisance, in violation of Chanhassen City Code
Section 13-2(18).
8. The criminal complaint alleged that barking dogs'in the
Kennel created nuisance conditions on August 27, 2000 and
September 4, 2000. The complaint stated that unidentified
neighbors of the Kennel were disturbed by unidentified dogs
within the Kennel on each of these dates. ~pecifically, the
Bloods were charged with violating Chanhassen City Code section
13-2(c) (22) (c) .
9. Section 13-2(c) (22) (c) of the Chanhassen City Code sets
forth the ~Impermissible Animal Noise" ordinance. This
ordinance has previously been determined by Judge Davies.to
survive the constitution challenge asserted by the defendants.
It is, in fact very specific as to the activity, which would
constitute a violation.
10. Barb and John Force each testified that on September
4, 2000 they heard barking that sounded like multiple dogs
barking. The Force's also testified that they could not
identify which dogs were barking.
11. Betty O'Shaughnessy testified that on September 4,
2000 she heard barking that sounded like multiple dogs.barking.
Ms. O'Shaughnessy also testified that she rode her bike down to
a bike path that runs parallel to the outdoor dogs runs at the
Kennel. Ms. O'Shaughnessy testified that barking occurred once
the dogs saw the O'Shaughnessy's on t~e bike path.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The State, via the City of Chanhassen, has failed to meet
.
its burden of proof. The Defendants have been charged with a
criminal misdemeanor that is punishable by 'ninety days
incarceration. In all proceedings for violation of a municipal
ordinance that may result in the penalty of incarceration, the
defendant is presumed innocent until the Contrary is proved and,
in the case of reasonable doubt, is entitled to acquittal. City
of St. Paul v. Whidb¥, 203 N.W.2d 823, 832 (Minn. 1972). The
Court in Whidb¥ goes on further to say, "the passage of the
County Court Act demonstrates that the legislature believes it
to be sound policy to require the criminal standard of proof in
certain ordinance violations." Id. at 831.
2. Minnesota Statute §611.02, as promulgated-by the Minnesota
Rules of Criminal Procedure reaffirms the burden of proof
established by Whidb¥.
3. The State has failed to put forth sufficient evidence to
meet the criminal standard of proof. Although the ordinance is
carefully crafted to define the activity, which would support
the charge, the testimony of the State's witness does not
provide the factual basis upon which to satisfy the judicial
standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is thus not
sufficient evidence to proceed to trial before a jury'.
ORDER
1. On the charge of Nuisance, in violation of Ch,anhassen City
Code Section 13-2(22)(c), the charges are hereby dismissed.
BY THE COURT:
Date: September ~__,2001
urt '
P 2, 'Z 7001
A NEWSLETTP. R FOR THE COMMUNITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
School Board Meeting- September 13, 2001
Board Chair Leads Pledge of Allegiance
Board Chair Mary Welch expressed the sympathy and concern of the entire school district
regarding the terrorist attacks on the United States this week. Mrs. Welch noted that our
freedoms are precious and that public education plays an important role in preparing children
to become participating citizens in our country. She led all present in saying the Pledge of
Allegiance and she thanked staff members for their quiet, calm work with students during the
crisis.
"You Make A Difference" Award: Tim Utz
The School Board presented a "You Make A Difference" award to the construction supervisor
of Clover Ridge, Tim Utz. An employee of CM Construction, Tim was a professional,
collaborative presence through the construction phase of the project and a major contributor to
being able to open Clover Ridge this fall.
Opening of School Report
~: Superintendent Bev Stofferahn reported on the opening of Clover Ridge
Elementary School this month. She applauded the efforts of the Clover Ridge staff in creating
a positive learning environment in only five days from the time they were allowed In the
building (Wednesday, September 5) to the time school opened (Monday, September 10). She
was also grateful that parents chipped in to clean and unpack materials in a show of support
for teachers. A community open house will be planned later this fall.
It appears that Distdct 112's enrollment is above projections by about 200 students. Currently
7,437 students are enrolled K-12; the projected enrollment was 7,228. The final count will be
taken October 1 and may be lower than the mid-September count.
Superintendent Stofferahn reported that while approximately 80% of the District's students
were transported safely and on time as school began, the problems generated for the
remainder of our students and families were a major concem. District employees took
hundreds of calls from parents complaining about inadequate service ranging from no bus
coming at all to unsafe bus stops. District administrators worked around the clock to help First
Student sort through the complaints. Often, administrators would be told a problem had been
solved and would then call the parent to give that Information; however the following morning,
nothing would have changed.
Representatives of First Student appeared before the Board taldng full responsibility for the'
poor service and apologizing for the problems. They outlined steps they are taidng to reverse
the situation.
Board members expressed frustration and dismay regarding 'the poor service to date and
asked for a full report. They questioned the representatives from First Student and
underscored the necessity to Improve service immediately. Board members also requested a
proposal from administration to reinstate the position of transportation coordinator.
Following the busing discussion, parents attending the meeting were invited to share their
concerns during an open forum. The Board listened to the experiences of families. The Board
assured the speakers that it was as upset as they were and that the' first priority is to fix the
problems and then the Board will review the contract to define Sanctions it can take in the
wake of inadequate service.
District Scores Continue to Rise on Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments
Dr. Bonnie Menken and Kitty Foord reported the results of last year's MCA testing. District 112
saw significant gains, particularly at the 5"~ grade level. Gains in writing were especially
significant, increasing the number of students scoring at Levels III and IV by 19%. The gains
are attributed to sound teaching and strengthened curriculum.
District 112 Will Not Seek Tax Increase Through Referendum
The School Board will not take a tax increase to voters this November. The majority of metro'-' -
area school districts are seeking nferenda this fall in light of significant budget cuts and limited
increases in state funding. In its discussion of a possible referendum, the Board was reluctant
to go to voters now when additional referenda are likely in the future to build and open
additional schools. The Board said it would not bring a referendum to the taxpayers without a
'compelling need' and noted that local taxpayers are already making a huge effort to support
the school district.
Board Changes Mesting Times
The Board will test a time change for its meetings. Beginning at the work session September
20, all Board meetings will begin at 5:30 p.m. The earlier start will enable Board members to
attend Thursday school activities.
Board Approves the Annual Report on Curriculum, Instruction, & Student Performance
The School Board approved the state-required Annual Report on Curriculum, Instruction, and
Student Performance. The report outlines the activities of the 2000-01 school year in the area
of student achievement and curriculum development. The' report will be mailed to every
resident later this month.
Board Sets Election for November 6
District 112 will hold an election for School Board on general election day, November 6. The
Board approved a resolution calling for the election of four school board members for a term of
four years. Those filing as candidates before the deadline on September 11 are: Gayle
Degler, Chanhassen; Laurie Gauer, Chaska; Michele Helgen, Chaska; Cole D. Kelly,
Chanhassen; Diane Koban, Victoria; Brenda Lewis, Chanhassen; Jennifer Neubarth, Victoria;
Dr. Leo Parvis, Chaska; Steven A. Peterson, Chaska; Barry Strelow, Carver. The League of
Women Voters will sponsor a Candidates Night on October 23.
Board Resolution Shows Structural Balance Required by State
The Board and the Chaska Education Association have reached a tentative agreement on a
new two-year contract. New Minnesota law requires school boards to resolve that any
collective bargaining agreement does not cause financial structural Imbalance. The Board
approved a resolution noting that the District's budget will remain balanced following the
approval of the teachers' contract.
Closed Meeting Sat
The Board set a closed meeting on September 20 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss potential litigation
involving a student educational matter. The work session will begin Immediately following the
closed meeting.
School
District
Office of the Superintendent
Beverly A. Stofferahn
11 Peavey Road
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
(952) 556-6110 Phone
(952) 556-6119 Fax
StofferahnB@chaska.k12.mn.us
September 14. 2001
~Dear Key Communicator.
The 2001-02 school year began with some wonderful highs and some terrible lows. As our Key
Communicators, I want to update you on the first several days of our year.
The Highs:
Clover Ridge Opens
Nothing was more satisfying this fall than soolng the faces of the children entering Clover Ridge
for the first day of school, September 10. Although some trouble with pipes and water pressure
delayed the opening from September 4, the first day was a smooth, positive success. We finally
received permission for occupancy on Wednesday, September 5 and for the first time teachers
and other staff were able to bring their materials Into the building. Opening school Just five short
days later required heroic effort on the part of staff. We even had parents calling to volunteer to
help clean and put things awayl What a great community this ISl The classrooms are In fine
shape for learning; the media center, kitchen and gym will all open within three to 12 weeks. This
is a beautiful school...a great place for kids. We will be scheduling a Commun. ity Open House
later this fall and I hope you will come see for yourself.
The fact that we opened almost on time this fall after a late start, bitter winter and wet spring Is
astounding. Other school construction projects around the area did not fare as well. We believe.
one of the keys to our opening was an agreement the School Board made with local construction
unions agreeing to use union subcontractors. Because of this agreement, Clover Ricige did not
experience a work stoppage this summer when construction unions were on strike. The
agreement was a very Important Insurance policy and I congratulate the Board on its wise
decision.
Mom students than projected
On the first day of school, 7379 students were on our enrollment lists. That's about 100 more than
we anticipated. That number is bound to go down when it becomes clear who, among last years
students, has moved away. October 1 is the day our official count is taken. BUt enrollment
Increases that exceed our projections make it imperative that we look at facilities needs again this
year. The Board will be looking for people who would like to serve on a long-range facllltlas study
this year. If you are Interested, please let me know. Among the Important community decisions
we'll begin addre-__,~.i_ ng Is the size of the high school preferred in the community. At what point
should District 112 consider an additional high school? I expect this will generate a lot of
conversation and we don~t expect that decision neoessadly to be mede this year. But we will
begin the discussion.
The Lows
September tl
The events of September 11 will be forever etched In the hearts of Americans. As news of the
terrorism began to emerge that morning, our schools closed ranks around our students to help
them understand the events of the day without alarming and frightening them. We were
committed to providing calm answers to their questions and to providing a sense of 'normalcy' to
their day. This is hard for adults to do when our own hearts are breaking and I can't say enough
for our staff and its professional approach in talking to students about this horrendous deed.
Serving the communities of eastern Carver County through equal opportunity in employment and education.
Bus Problems
When nearly all members of your District Office senior administrative team are working nearly full
time trying to resolve transportation Issues the first 10 days of school, something Is very wrong.
Something was very wrong with our bus service as school began. We were stunned by the
number of muting errors and the fact that Information provided by the school distdct had not
found it way Into the bus company's computers. While about 80% of the busing went smoothly, It
would be charitable to describe the other 20% as rocky. We were embarrassed by the number of
problems and by the inability of First Student to solve them quickly and completely. I wrote to
parents on the first day of school, apologizing for any Inconvenience and expecting the problems
to be resolved by the end of the first week. While some of the problems did get resolved, many
continued to plague parents and students. My level of frustration and concern grew by the hour.
The School Board has requested a full report. At Its regular meeting September 13, the Board
shared its dismay with representatives of Firs[ Student. Since the second week of school, First
Student has changed personnel and brought In muting experts to solve its problems. I hope that
by the time you read this, 99% of the problems will be solved.
With all new elementary attendance areas, mad construction and new muting software, one
would expect some problems. However, none of those things can account for the depth of the
problems we experlencecl this year. You can be assured that the Board and I are committed to
seeing that this never happens again. We believe First Student Is committed to that goal as well.
Other items of Interest...
, Ten residents have filed as candidates for School Board. The League of Women Voters
is sponsoring a Candidates Night on October 23 and I hope you will take the time to
attend. The community has sent many wonderful leaders to the Distdct as school board
members. I'm sure residents will continue that tradition as they vote November 6.
· Progress continues on construction of the new Pioneer Ridge Freshman Center, the
expansion of Bluff Creek's cafeteria, and the reconflguratlon of the office area at
Chanhassen Elementary. You will also notice new fields being developed on the middle
school campus and west of CHS. All of these proJects are funded through the 1999 bond
referendum.
That's all for now. I want to thank you for.your continued Interest In our school district. We need
your support as we begin another year of preparing students to achieve their.personal best,
Please don't hesitate to call me If you have comments or questions about any of the Items In this
letter: 952-556-6110. I look forward to visiting with you,
s] re y, . .
Superintendent
~eptember ~001
~anhassen Fi~
Znside this Issue:
Z~-e~ 2
~ Mg_~h~l 2
Fire I~speetor 2
Calendar 4
Csll Pictm~ 5
OPEN HOUSE Sunday Oct 14, 2001
Tngnin~ Pictures
Special points of in-
, www.~eocom
* www~.com
* www.~org
, www~a.o~
* www.lnni_or~
Chanhassen Fire Dept. Mission Statement
The mission of the Ch_unh_useen ~ Departtmmt is to minlmi~ loss of
life and property in the City of ~h_u_nh~usen ~z'om fires, natural dlaas-
cies. G_PD Standard 01oeraZi~ G~ See~n 1.1.
Fire Chief- ohn Wolff
It's been a little while sinoe we have published our last '~eriodic" newsletter. I guess we can blame busy schedules
and the summer months.., or we can just blaum Mark and Greg...
Ai~r a very successful 35~h anniversary banquet on May 5~ 2001 where we honored our retired and active mem-
bers, call activity spike& Of particular note, 2 drownings and recoveries at Lake Ann Park in June, 8 structure
fires in Chsnhassen over the sunmmr months: Powers Blvd. (garage fire), Rosemount (d-mpsterAnterior/reef fire),
Arberet~;m (vehicle storage shed fire), and a healthy dose of Mutual Aid calls to Chaska, Eden Prairie, St Boni-
fa_~_ous, Excelsior come to mind .... We are on pace to hit 900 cans this year up ahv~st 15% from last year.
While the spring/summer storm season was relatively mild, the lack of rain may lead to a dangerously dry autumn.
We will keep au eye on the DNR fire danger reports as head through the fall and until the snow flies.
Highway 5 construction through the heart of our city has created some activity for us with travelers trying to navi-
gate an ever changing roadbed. But the good weather has the project ahead of schedule. No predictions from the
chief on when we can expect this job to be completed, but fast on the heals of this work will be the Highway 212 job
Five Marshal/Asst. Chief- Mark Littfin
If I would have wrote this newsletter article last week I would have been getting the dept. pumped up on fire ed
week, the open house, our annual fun night (the snnual ability test), instead, the topics of discussion at the lounge
tables, the back of fire truck are the events that happened in New York and Washington DC. It seems like were
t~lked about the crash until we were physically and emotionally exhausted. The problems we had last week, or
last month seem very insignificant in light of what New Yorkers are experiencing. As of writing this article I was
only able to observe a mere 10 minutes of the fundraising activities, from what I observed and heard from the peo-
ple that were there are truly unbelievable stories. Stories from our neighbors who were there, stories from people
who knew people that were injured or killed, stories from people who just wanted to meet a firefighter. As Chief
Wolff said at the meeting on Monday, today's heroes are firefighters. Whether there from New York, Chicago, Min-
neapolis, or Chanhassen, our citizens are pouring their hearts out through us. The firefighters who have par~_'__~_-
pated in this fundraiser can attest to this first hand. I think all of us are holding our heads up a little higher.
Even though we are not physically in New York, mentally and emotionally we are. We are proudly waving the
American flag, we are proudly wearing our uniforms, we are representing the most respected profession in America
Fire Znspector/Asst. Chief-Greg Hayes
Training. September is the Certifi-
cation testing for the Engineer. C~ood
luck to all taking the test. Loolclag
at the m,mm~rs Firefighter Skills
training, all was a success. We
learned some new things but most
importantly refreshed on some oM
Inspection: More new building
are being proposed for winter and
spring construction. These include
a senior 4 story apartment, more
warehouses at § & 41, service ga-
rage at 41 & 82nd st., and a large
apar~xnent com~ off'of Lake Dr.
W. and Powers.
We will be working with more Fire-
fighter skilla thronEh 2001.
l/yon would like to see any of these
buildings during construction please
let me know.
Other. Congrats to an who have
completed the various classes this
summer. We have completed EMT,
Basic and Advanced Dive, and are
currently worMng on Hazardous
Materials Technician. A new group
of Firefighter I rookies are cur-
lng in November. (Hopefully)
~ Fire Department Page 3
Fi e Chief- ,Tohn Wolff Cont.
~m~ for 90~ of the residents in the city as a result of this n~ve schednled f~r early 8ep__feml~r 2001.
p~'11 d~elop~t at the ]~ ni~oht fire depot drill.. M~rlntsrinin! stnmg oI~ ~ contin-
ues to be the emphasis ofaur in-house trninin_~ program C)t/mr accompli~h~ t:hi~ :year inchule:
· Firefighter 1 & 2 state cm'~fieafions
· ~ tec-hni_mi~m training
· Basic and advanced dive mrtif~gions
· EMT and first responder training
· Enginesr ~r~f~mion
. .
While our training budget has been hit hard ~hi~ year, it's time and resources well spent as we bring our y~,-~ or-
~m, nlzs~nn up to speed in this increasingly more compl_~w public 8afe~ environm~nL ' --
It continues to be my pleasure to serve this org, mi=_,,_~inn as ~ Chief. As you
know, the term f~r my position expires at the end of g001. I intend to run for
Chief again this fall and look forward to discussing m~ commi~r~t and intan-
any questions, commits or sugge~.
Fire Marshal/Asst. Chief- Mark Littfin, Cont.
In the upco,~-! week's, month~ and pomn31y years., our citizens, neighbor's friends and fm~ily will be
loolrlnE up to us even nmm. Up until now the only oontact that nmst resident~ have had with us are the ones that
have called 911, or m~y have viaitz~d us at the fire stat/on. Now you can't turn on a TV st, a~ or watch a new pro-
~ that doesn't show New York Fire. S, or have a story about fire~htera.
I 'm predicting fhla year we could see record n,,mhers of people attending our open houz~ This will be a
~m~ we can mary ~h~ne and abew what a great organ_ ~=_,~i~u we are. 8h~nn your beotz.., iron your ~hi~ts...wear a
Chanhassen Fire Department Page 4
Schedule of Events
* 1Al,- Business Meetln~
* 4th- Ciu-ver Cx)uri~ ~n~at ~nin-
~- ~mh~
* 7-1~~ ~~W~kll
, 14~- FD O~N HOUS~
, lff~- ~~ ~~ Test
* ~- ~ s~t cl~s
* 19~- ~~ ~~
October 200 !
I 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 1~
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Schedule of Events
· 6th- Business Meetin~
· lgth- ~ing/Thermal Imaging/
FF Skills
· 14th- Dive Trnlnln? AGA class
· 19th- Training/Therma! Imaging/
FF gkills
· gist- Dive Training- AGA class
· ~th- Officers Meeting
November 2001
I 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 lg 17
18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24
25 2g 27 28 2P 30
Stntien 1
7610 L~redo Dr.
Oum~n.en. MN 55317
(952) 934-9191
~. (952) 937-o349
Statim 2
6400 Minnewa~ta Parkway
Excelsier, MN 55331
(952) 474-7094
F: (952) 474-7o94
Call Pictur~.s
Pullyinvolved gnragefire, Wehndthefireund~ccntrolin2Omintmts nndlhe
total ch-scene time w~s nrcund I hour.
Training Pictures
Training at M'mn~ ~ 1Rm:nma~e liquid fue~ ~
involving a mil cnr.
NYFII Survt~r's llegel fund
Lra~r~ Iai IILI hi lira m
NYFO Sorvfvor'& llle41el FI:IRi:I
c/o Jlaneflclma Ogmmunlq Blink
P,O. BoI790
(~hamhisseo, lil15531'1
~ i-'~ ,ti --t I'l tl ·· ?.. {.g i.p i~Fi. i i · I.. , ir-ia -III .
Active and retired members of the Ch~nhn,sen Fire Department are donating
their time to raise money for the fallen New York F~ and other Emer-
gency Service workem from the tragic terrorist event So far they h~ve raised
over $20,000.00.