Loading...
1g Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 10, 2003 Mayor Furlong eadled the work session to order at S:30 p.m. CQIo-NCII. MEMBERS ~: Mayor Furlong, Coundlman Peterson, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Lundquist c~uNCm M~VmER$ Aik~,NT: Coun¢~,,~ L~tb~ ~ITAFF PRESENT: Todd Gedmrdt, Todd Hoffman, Teresa Burgess, Matt Saam, and Kate Aanenson DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 41 RIVER CROWING, mGHWAY 312~ AND (yI'H s:R MNDQT PROJECTS, I.ISA FREESE, MNDOT. Lisa Freese and Brian Issacson from MnDot were present to updam the City Council on MnDot projects happening in and around the City of Chanhassen. Brian Issacson gave a power point presentation on the Highway 41 River Crossing project Lisa Freese provided some history pertaining to this project Kate Aanenson stated that environmental concerns related to the seminary fen were causing Chas~ to re-evaluate the whole process. The Council then discussed Highway 312 consmmtion and asked about funding and design work. Lisa Freese stated that if funding became available, the earliest timeline would be fiscal year 2005. MnDot would need 16 to 19 months to do final design work. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN FOR 2003. Sheriff Bud Olson provided the history of the sheriff's work plan and Sergeant Jim Olson presented the highlights and changes of the 2003 work plan Councilman Peterson asked how the City could gauge if the amount of police coverage is adequate. Councilman Lundquist asked about water patrol services on city lakes. Sergeant Olson mpomxi on some recent gang activity in southern Chanhassen and how the sheriff department is handling the situation. Councilman Peterson stated he would prefer to have interpretation of data at thg monthly updates as opposed to just a presentation of data. Mayor Furlong stated that overall he appreciated the thoroughness of the 2003 work plan, but he didn't see any information pertaining to ~cy prepaxedness for naumd disasters and homeland defense. Sheriff Olson stated that was a separate county depamn~t and he would arrange to have Scott Gerber make a present'on to the City Council. Todd Gerhardt advised the City Council that the City does have a emergency management plan in place that Greg Hayes oversees. The City ~ouncil Fecessed the work session meeting at 7:00 p.m. It was reeonvened at 9'.30 DISCUSSION OF COMMI.SSION I/qTERyIEWS. Councilman Ayotte stated he would like to see the role of the planning commission becoming more focused on educsting the public. Councilman Peterson suggested that the Planning City Council Work Session- March 10, 2003 Commission have a representative come to City Council meetinG to repc~ on key issues the Planning Commission is dealing with. Mayor Furlong expressed concern about competing presentations between staff, applicants and the _commissions. Councilman ~ suggested that the City Council provide a written summary of council actions on planning issues to the Planning Commission. There was discussion over the term "Chanhassle" pertaining to past planning commission being too detailed and over zeatlous building inspectors and how to address that issue. Mayor Furlong felt it was valuable for the Planning Commission to get into the details of the projects. He felt the public probably feels more comfortable talking in a commission setting as opposed to the City Council. Councilman Lundquist stated he was looking for the commissions to do the checks and balan~ on projects. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANItASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBEI~ PRF_~ENT: Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRF~ENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Developrmat Director, Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLI~: PRE~ENT FOR ALL ITEM~: Janet Paulsen Rob Fuglie 7305 Lm'edo Drive 9370 Fox:ford Road PUBLIC HEARIN~;: CQNSIDER ~ REQUF-,qT FOR SITE ~ APPROVAL FOR A 45b~}0 SOUARE FOQT ADDITIQN WITH VARIANCF~ ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCArl~D AT THE NQR~ CQRNER QF DELL ROAD AND HWY S, OPUS NOR~T LLC~ BANTA DIREC'F MAR~C~ GROUP. Public Present: Nnme Address Chuck Weber Charles Dine Mark Jeffson Kathy Standing Dave Bangasser 3911 Glendale Drive 113597 Blackhawk Road, Pine River, WI 5604 Bimini Drive, Minnetonka Health Parmers, 8100-34a Avenue, Mpls Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Sidney expressed concern over the use of tilt-up concrete panels on the building addition. Commission members Feik and IJllehaug asked for clarification regarding access into the site and the number of parking spaces. Commissioner Slagle requested that the applicant include more than the minimum required landscaping. Chair Blackowiak had concerns over screening of rooftop equipment and asked if the applicant could be required to screen existing rooPa~ equipment as well as equipment on the new addition. Dave Bangasser from Opus spoke as the representative for Banta Direct Marketing Group. He answered the commission members concerns, and stated that they had concerns regarding the following conditions. On condition 6, keeping the drive aisle width at 24 feet as opposed to 26 feet, and asked for clarification on conditions 25 regarding sanitary sewer, and 28 regarding off street parking during construction. Commissioner Sacchet asked the applicant to clarify their intentions for off street parking during construction. Commissioner Claybaugh asked about the parapet screening of the rooftop Planning Commission Summary - March 4, 2003 equipment. Commissioner Slagle asked about if them was a sidewalk from the parking lot into the building. Kathy Standing, from H_ealth Parmers, asked for clarification on the landscaping and elevation on the east side of the building, and asked that an elevation showing the building from Dell Road be provided. Afl6'r discussion, the Planning Commission rrmde the following Llllehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commimion reconunemJs approval of Site Plan Review ~3-1 with a variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface coverage as shown on the site plan dated Received February 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions: . Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in east buffer yard to n~et minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. . Fire Marshal conditions: a. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the new tenant water service coming in to the building. b. Ftre lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Pire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. , Building Official Conditions: a. The 8dditional is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system_ b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Detailed occupancy and building area related code req~ts cannot be reviewed until further information is providecC It is evident that the proposed addition will creau~ exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. d. 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 combine Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition under a single Parcel Identification Number. 5. Submit storm sewer sizing design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 1 A cross access easement agreement is required over the shared portion of the driveway access. , Add the late, st City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 1004, 2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 3101, 5203, 5215, 5301, and 5300. Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. Planning Commission Summary - March 4, 2003 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 26. Show the proposed watermain and sewer pipe, class, slope and length. A Type II silt fence must be used and removed when consUucfion is completed. Any off site grading will require temporary easements. Grades shall not exceed 3:1. Add a benchmark to the plans and a legend. On the sanitary and water plan, revise the existing watermain to proposed. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District and Minnesota l)epaxtm~ of Health permits for the site. Combined with condition #5. Show all existing and ~ easements. Add a storm sewer schedule. Add a note, "Any connection to existing sanitm'y and storm sewer manholes shall be core drilled." The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trtmk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are eollectext prior to the building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Department of Health permit. In the storm sewer plan, revise the proposed manhole No. 2 invert elevation to match the flow direction. The applicant needs to show the sidewalk to the new entrance door at the southeast COllier. If the applicant intends to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermaim are city owned and maintained and are required to be placed within a 20 foot wide public easement. Detailed plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial security to guarantee the inaallafion of the public watermain. The applicant needs to extend their own sanitary service. If they deride not to extend their own service and instead want to combine it, then it must be adequately sized and centered within the easement as a public line. Show proposed grading around the building addition. Planning Commission Summary - March 4, 2003 27. The City will coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. Staff is directed to work with the appliesnt to ensure that the 28. Provide adequate off street lmrking during construction- Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. Asphalt must be installed before Certifi~ of Occupancy will be issued. 29. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 30. All rooftop equipment on the new addition shall be screened from views. 31. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial securities. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calctdafing the required financial guarantees. These 32. The most easterly row of parking and aisle shall be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPRQVAL OF bflNUTF~: Rich Slagle noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 18, 2003 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowiak informed the commission that they would be conducting an interview and city code amendn~nt discussion in open discussion af~ adjourning of the meeting. Kate Aanenson asked that commission me~ e-mail her with topics to be discussed with the City Council during the joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting to be held on March 17t~ at 8:00 p.m. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMLqSION RF~ULAR ME~G VERBATIM MINUTF_~ Chairwoman BlaeXowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBER~ PRE~ENT: Rich Slagle, Steve l.illehaug, Bruce Feik, Alison Blackowiak, Lu~nn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, and Craig Claybaugh ~TAFF PRF_$ENT: Kate Aanenson, Commtmity Development Director, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRF_~ENT FOR ALL ITEM~: Janet Paulsen Rob Fuglie 7305 Laredo Drive 9370 Foxford Road PUBLI(~ i~EARIN0: CONSIDER ~ ItFQUF~T FOR ~ PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 456~.00 SOUARE FOOT ADDITION WITH VARIANCF.,S ON PROPERT~r ZQNED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATK~ AT ~ NQRTItWF. b~ CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HWY 5~ QPU~ NORTHWEST LLC_~ BANTA D~ MAR~TtNG C~ROUP. Public Present: Nnme Address Chuck Weber Charles Dine Mark Jeffson Kathy Standing Dave Bangasser 3911 Glendale Drive 113597 Blackhawk Road, Pine River, WI 5604 Bimini Drive, Minnetonka Health Paxtners, 8100-34~ Avenue, Mpls Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff FepoFt on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commi~ioners, any questions of staff at this point? LuAnn? Sidney: I can start. I'm still having a hard time I guess with tilt up concrete panels. How can we state, I guess maybe what I would like to see in the staff report is more of a justification for that based on how it compares to the design standards as they currently read. Because we're talking about fibbed concrete tilt up panels. AI-Jaff: The portion that faces I--~ghway 5 will be covered with stucco. Sidney: No, I guess I don't see that on the elevations. Is that, am I missing something? So you're saying that on the south elevation that above the windows, I can see that's marked textured stucco. And then above that. AI-Jaff: And then here it is t~xtured stucco on the concret~ block. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sidney: It is? Now that's the portion just above the windows? Sidney: I guess, could you point again. I'm looking at the. A14aff: How about if I highlight it. Sidney: That might be better because I'm looking at what we have here and it shows pre-cast concrete panels to match existing. Stucco, but above that, that's ~ panels. A1-Jaff: And that is set baclc This is it. So what will be visible from Highway 5 is the stucco. Sidney: Well I guess I would argue that I still see that pre-cai.st concrete. But I guess where I'm having trouble is in our design standard in 20-1065, you know it does talk about the following may not be used in any visible exterior application, except where specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view or accent areas. So I guess something to that effect saying that rationalizing that it is limited in view would be good. W'hat I see here, you know it does stand out very clearly to me. A1qaff: It's a combination of the fact that it's set back 50 feet. There is landscaping that will be added to break up that wall, so it's a combination of those things that will minimize the appearance of that wall. Sidney: I hope so. And I guess I would look for some more language in the staff report addressing that, because I guess that was my biggest concern with this application. I have no problem with hard surface coverage variance as it is explained. And you're talking about removing a row of parking? Al-$aff: Correct. Sidney: Yes, okay. And how much of the parking would you remove? I guess I wasn't paying a_n_ention. Al-Jaff: We would go from 306 parking spaces proposed by the applicant, down to 281 spaces, which basically would take out this row of parking. Sidney: Oh, oh, oh, okay. Al4aff: And if you remove this row of parking, then them is no need for thi~ drive aisle Sidney: And that helps out, okay. And then when you're up there, sorry. Al4aff: That's okay. Sidney: Just one more thing. The buffer yards where they need to add mm~ plantings in the easterly portion, where is that please7 Al4aff: It is right within this arem This buffer yard. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sidney: Okay, and that would include then the area that you're now turning into green space. Al-laff: That's c~ Sidney; Okay. Okay, that's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions of staff? Feik: Sure. Back to that parldng. Would you show me where in the staff ~dstions you covered that removal of those parking stalls? I didn't see it. Number 32, thank you. Access to Lot, I guess it's 3, will be primarily from Dell Road? ' Al-Jaff: No. That access is right-in/fight-om only. Feik: Right, correct. And the access for the north side as well then? AI-Jaff: It will be off of West 77~ Street. Feilc Okay. I'm maybe a little ahead of myseff but in the specific recomme~_dations on number 7 1 would want to specifically add the cross easement to Lot 3. AI-Jaff: There is one in place. Feik: Oh, there is existing easement in place? A1-Jaff: As part of, I want to say it was about a year ago. Feik: It was when we looked at the last one? AI-Jaff: The Planning Commission approved a site plan agreement for Health Paxtners. Feilc Okay. So there is adequate access to. Feilc Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Rich? Slagle: I just had a couple questions. One is on the parking again Sharmeen. Just to confirm the applicant is okay with the reduction? AI-Jaff: Yes he is. Slagle: Okay. Because usually we don't hear that. It's usually the other way around. I just want to confirm on the landscape plan, on the eastern wall ff you will of the building there will be a green space running parallel with that easterly wall, is that conect? Not just tree plantings but sod and so forth. AI-Jaff: Yes. ff you look at the landscape plan, all of this is intended to be landscape Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Slagle: Okay. And then the last thing, touching upon that eastern buffer. In the staff notes and conditions it, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted and above that you suggest meeting minimum requirements. I would just ask if we could to the applicant, anything they can do above minimum may be, for those neighbors on the other side of Den would be app~-iat~ That's all. Liilehaug: I want to touch on the parking also. I counted, so plus or minus, it looks like they're deleting 140 spaces. That's what I counted on the i ,reprint of the building. They deleted about 140 spaces. It appears that we're only adding, with your proposal of 72 spaces back. In my mind they're adding floor space so possibly adding employees, but reducing the ammmt of parking that's currently there. If it meets city standards and if the applicant is comfortable with that, I guess that's what we'll go with but I just want to reconfirm that that is the plan. And then I want to touch on the right-in and right-out only. You've indicated that this will be planned in the future with the addition of Lot 3, or the development of Lot 3. Al-Jarl': That's correcL Lillehaug: Can you maybe give just a quick little background on this right-in/right-om only. Is it, and is this a requirement of MnDot and it will be strictly adhered to and limited to this? Al4aff: That's correct. When this application came in for the medical building for Health Partners, one of the requests was a flow curb cut, including an opening within the median. However that did not happen. It was restricted to a right-in/right-out and that evolved through discussions with MnDot, as well as the City of F_Aen Prairie. It is a condition of approval for this building. That it be limited to a right-in/fight-out only. Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowialc Okay. Any other questi~? I just have one question Sharmeen. We're talking about roof top equipment being screened. Condition number 30. Is that for only the new? What about existing roof top? Is there any potential for trade-off here ff we're going to go ahead and authorize some type of a tilt-up concrete to get some more screening? AlJaff: One of the things that's happening with this application is the fact that the applicant is adding a parapet, so the walls will be just a little bit higher, which will help screen some of this roof top equipment. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess I'm more worried about the existing too and I guess the condition wasn't specific in terms of whether it was new roof wp equipment or existing because it says all roof top equipment shall be screened from views. Al4aff: And the staff repart was intended to address the new acldition. Blackowi_ak: Only? So I'm just, I guess my question to you is, can we get just a little bit mom? Aanenson: I would ask them that. Feilc Can you get all? Blackowiak: Or all, yeah. There we go. Okay, and I guess we can ask the applicant when we come to that point. But I guess it wasn't spelled out so might as well ask. ALright, would the Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 applicant or their designee like to make a presentation7 ff so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Dave Bangasser: Hi, I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm a project manager with Opu~ Banta has hired Opus to design and construct this addition. We've worked with Banta on a number of projects over the last 20 years so we're very familiar with their needs. I also have with me three representatives of Banta. Chuck Weber, Charles Dine and Mark Jeffson. They're available for ally questions that we might have that dealing with the operafiolls. I think the staff's covered things pretty well with their report so I really don't intend to make a presentation other than to perhaps address a few of the comments that we just heard, and make a co~ about a couple of the staff reco~ons. And I'll kind of deal with them in the reverse order of what the comments were raised. The last one was rooftop units. Screening new and existing. The new addition is, is that showing up? Oh sorry. The new addition is higher than the existing facihty, and by it's nature it's going to block a lot of that rooRop equipment from the east. So as you drive along Highway 15 out towards Chanhassen, I believe that we're going to g~t a fair amount of screening of that existing rooftop trait just by the nature of the fact that these walls are higher. Relative to the new rooRop screening, we did drop the height of the ~ inside. The clear height of our stmctm~ inside so that we could provide the screening of rooftop equipment with a parapet wall on the pre-cast wall there. Screening rooRop equipment, I guess I'm not sure how we could do screening of the existing rooftop equipment without making it stand out. I think th~ proper way to screen rooiop equipment is the way we're doing it with the new ~_ddition, which is to provide a parapet wall to kind of make it look like part of the overall facility. That's at least one man's opinion. Relative to the parking reduction, over time technology has reduced the number of employees within the facility as the presses have gotten larger and faster. Con~uters have taken a lot of manual tasks away from the pre-press operations and re, duce those work loads so Banta is comfortable with the parking reductions. Mark has, from the be~nning, indicated that there is an excess of parking and over the last 2 weeks he's been out taking digital photographs from the roof that we'd be happy to share if you'd like, but it shows a significant under utilization of the parking so yes, the applicant is comfortable with the reduced parking. I think we have a minor deviation on the count. When we eliminate those 22 stalls to the east, I think that gets us to 288. I think the 281 number is the required number of stalls so I think ever with the elimination of the east parking we're at 288 versus the 281 and again, the applicant is comfortable with that number. We believe that we are ~ the green space overall, both on the existing Lot 1. The green space that we've got along the east here is, the green space along the east is approximately 3 bi feet wider than the existing green space that exists in this area fight here. And the green space down here is approximately 11 to 12 feet wider than the existing green space down there so we have made attempts to do what we can to provide additional green space, particularly green space that would be viewed from Highway 5. Relative to the concern about the buffer on the east, we are intending to relocate existing trees that would be si~mificantly larger than we'd be required to plant otherwise. If we were i ,m!a:yrfing new trees, they would be 2 bi caliper inch or there about's and the trees, many of the trees that we're relocating am significantly larger than that so we think that in fact we are going to be providing more buffer than the code would require. Relative to the tilt up, I guess I believe that we have made an attempt to meet the new design standards that have come in place since the last addition was done there. The original plan when Banta first approached us about this sddition was that this is, this was all to be production space. So the original plan was to have that pm-cast wall fight out on that south faqade where you currently see stucco. In the original plan if it was all just produc~on space, there'd be no windows. It was just pre-cast. As we got into the new ordinances and found out what the requirements were, we worked with Banta to come up with a ~ that we felt met the intent of the ordinance while still keeping the integri~ of the existing design to maim it look like it fits in as opposed to make it look like an addition with foreign materials. The only other Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 comments I've got is there are 3 conditions. We're in agreement I believe with staff on their report and generally in agreenmnt with their conditions of approval. I would cormm~t on 3 items. Item number, or ~mfio~ number 6. Increase the minimum drive aisle width to 26 feec I believe that the aisle that is being discussed is this common drive aisle right here that currently exists, and that drive aisle was part of the 1994 site plan approval process. At that time the Lot number 3 was intended to be sold, I think l~ldercare was looking at that propelS, alld the, that drive was approved at 24 feet and it's currently in place at this time. So I would ask your comideration on, since that is an existing condition, part of a prior approval, that we be allowed to keep the 24 foot width. Another factor that I think may be worth noting is that that drive aisle has no parking on either side of it so there aren't cars that are backing up into that drive aisle. The staff has a note relative to providing our own sanitary sewer line. In the staff report it notes that there is, that the City will be extending a sanitary sewer line adjacem to that common drive, right through this area right here. There is an easerrm~t in place over the Banta property for installing that sanitary sewer. We would like to tie into that sanka~ sewer. It seems for us not to tie into that, and I understand it has something to do with if we tie into it, now you've got 2 different property owners tying into the same pipe and therefore it would need to be, couldn't be a private pipe. It would need to be a public utility. We'd like to ask that the City consider making that a public utility. If we are to comply with this requirm~t we'd basically end up laying another pipe right along side of it and I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense, but we'd like to ask you to at least consider allowing us to tie into that and if that means making it a public utility, then so be it. Blackowiak: So, can I just clarify? That's condition 24 as I read it. Dave Bangasser: Oh, I'm sorry, 25. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. 25. Okay I guess, and I'll ask staffthis in a moment but I need to know what the difference is between 24 and 25. Does it chang~ anything? But we'll let the applicant finish but hold that thought. I'm sorry. So that's number 25. Dave Bangasser. I think 24 is relative to a water line. Blackowiala Just to the water, okay. Dave Bangasser. Right, and 25 is the sewer. There is currently I believe the easement mentioned in condition 24 is in place I believe. Blackowiak: And does that comprise also... Dave Bangassen ...currently an easement for that sanitary sewer. Blackowiak: Okay. Dave Bangassec. Relative to condition number 28, we agree I think with the intent of that condition which is to provide od~uate off street parking during construction. We would like to ask your consideration to give us some flexibility in how we deal with thac We ~y have verbal agreements with two adjacent property owners to provide ~arlcing, temlxra~ parking during construction. The property directly to the north across 77~ Street is currently vacant except for a small portion of it which Banta leases from the~m, and Banta has had discussions and has a verbal agreement to utiliTe their parking during consmicfion, so we'd like to ask your Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 consideration in modifyin~ that to indicate that we'll provid~ adext~ plffkin~, off street parking during consltuction. That's the last of my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Start down, Rich down on your end. Slagle: Not fight now. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Sure I do. Condition number 4. You indicated that there is an in-place watermain easement. Is that what you indicated? Dave Bangasser: Yes, I believe that's ~'ue. Lillehaug: Does staff agree with that? Al4aff: There is a utility agreement. Sweidan: There's a 33 foot easement...offWest 77th Street. Lillehaug: So it is an adequate easement for a watermain there? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: No further watermain easement is required then? Sweidan: Well not for the watermain. For the w~termain there is no easement right now. Yeah, but I'm talking about the easement that's coming off 77~ Street for the sanitary sewer. Lillehaug: Okay, and I guess I'd be specifically talking about the easement coming off from Dell Road for the watermain. Sweidan: There's no easement. Lillehaug: Would there be along that property line, would there be a 10 foot easement on each side of that property line? Dave Bangasser: I've got the, if we can pull this up here. I do believe that there is an easement in place from Dell Road. It says right here drainage and utility easement per Park One 4m Addition, and I'm not, it looks like it is a 10 foot wide easement. I'm guessing. Sweidan: It's 5 feet each side. Dave Bangasser: Yeah. So there is both an easement for drainage and utility that seems to be, the drainage and utility easement is 10 feet wide. There's a driveway easement that's 33 feet I thinic 26 feet, I'm sorry. Lillehaug: So would you agree that staff's recommendation is indicating they would like to see a 20 foot wide public easement so I would assume 10 foot on each side of the ~ line. That there is an additional requirement needed there. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Dave Bangasser: That's acceptable. Lillehaug: Okay. I think that would be all I have at this time too, thank you. Blackowialc Okay. Anything? Feilc Nothing for the applicant, thank you. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: I guess the question for Banta. What is the nature of the work that will be going on in the warehouse and press room? Is that going to have exhaust-equipment or anything that would create noise7 What F m thinking about is concerns for the neighbors off of DeR Road. So I guess what's going on? Mark Jeffson: Hi. I'm Mark Jeffson. I'm the plant engineer for the Banta facility. In that new addition we're going to be installing some press equipment and some binding equipment. It will be similar to the equipment that is already in the building. The same models and manufacturers of that equipment. There's an identical press to it just on the other side of the existing wall that's there now. Sidney: So nothing you need that's going to be creating a lot of noise or whatever?. Mark Jeffson: No. Sidney: Okay, exhaust. Mark Jeffson: No. And the tie in's for that equipment will go into the existing ductwork tl~at's already there. Sidney: Okay, that makes sense. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any more questions? Uli? Sacchet: I just want to confirm this alternative parking that you were talking about on the next door parcel. Is that about the same amount of parking spots that would be in the new parking that's being ~ or can you quantify that a little bit. Mark Jeffson: There again, the building across the street from us is the Ver-Sa-Til building that's vacant fight now and they have about 150 parking spaces available to us if we needed that many, which we won't. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, any questions? Claybaugh: Yeah. Let's see here. It has to do with the roof scheme. I'm just looking at the elevations on A-3 here. What is the parapet wall height? It doesn't necessarily call it out. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Dave Bangasser: The parapet height varies from 5 feet along the east It varies because of the roof slope. C ay u : m t. Dave Bangasser. It varies from 5 feet along the east to approximately 3 ½ feet on the far western edge of the addition. And then our rooftop equi~ is set back from that so we've got the angle of cut-off there. Claybaugh: With respect to the rooi~op mechanical, what are some of the larger components that are going up there with respect to height? Dave Bangasser: I think the biggest units are 7 feet, and those would be the ones that condition for the press itself, so they will be the fucuhest back from that parapet wall. Claybaugh: And then the comment was made relative to condition 28. That the building to the north is currently vacant Do they anticipate that remaining vacant through the eonsmacfion phase? Okay. That's all the questions I have. Blackowiaic Thank you. Rich, do you have one? Go ahead. Slagle: I have one dealing with the parking on the northeast side. And even to an extent to the east of the building. Is there going to be sidewalks, and I'm looking at site plan, I'm looking at the landscaping plan. How would, if you're an employee that parked up in that far northeastern or halfway down that aisle, how would you get to your door? Would you cross over this landscaped island? Or would you go all the way to the south or to the north and go around it? I guess I'm just curious. Dave Bangasser: We are introducing a new employee entrance at this location, and we do have a sidewalk that connects to new islands that we're placing in this area. And we've extended that sidewalk along here for people to get to the parking. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. Before we open the public hearing I just have one question of en~neering I believe. Mak. Can you talk to me a little bit about this sanitary sewer, what changes if indeed there's a public sanitary sewer installed. How does that affec~ what we're seeing? Sweidan: What those plans last year for the prop~ of Lot 3, is to extend the sewer service, which is a 6 inch diameter, with a stub existing from West 77~ Street Now he's proposing and connecting with that which means two lots with one sewer service, which is not adequate. Technically. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: And that's why when we said that you have to provide your own service. Now if we need to look for it as a public sewer which can serve the two lots, it has to be a public sewer and that' s either, you petition the city to extend that, or he could also like a plan or a ~ for it but he has to submit plans and specifications for that. Blackowiak: Okay. So is the size any different? Is the easement any cliff--t? Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sweidan: Yes. Well the easement is sufficient. 33 foot because we always require 20 fool 20 feet minimum so the 33 foot is good enough for the easement, but the size of the sewer of course is going to change from 6, at least to 8 inches. Blackowiak: Okay. And what ha~ to the existing drive aisle? I mean you've got a drive aisle right now tint's at 24 feet. Is the sewer going right besides it? Right on, where is it going to go? I'm kind of, what I'm leading to is, is that going to change any potential constm~on of the drive aisle? Are they going to have to do any digging, trenching beside it and could they add on at that time? Sweidan: Mainly the under sewer line has to be in the center of the easement, so whatever is the drive aisle is going to be, it has to be in the center. Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, does my question make sense to you? Either you or Sharmeen. Aanenson: Engineering had recommended changing it. Planning staff felt comfortable with 24. It was...that way. Is that adequate to cover the easement? I think what Mak's saying is it is. It just needs to be a wider pipe so the easement's not the issue. The driveway still can stay 24 if you're comfortable with that. Blackowiak: Okay, I was just wondering if there's going to be construction in that area, if it would make sense at that point. If people felt strongly about 26, do you do consmmfion and add 2 feet? AI-Jaff: One of the things that we tried to achieve was minimiTe hard surface coverage. Blackowialc So you're comfortable with the 24 feet? Al4aff: Because there's no backing into that area. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's, thank you very much. Oh, do you have anotheaq Claybaugh: Additional question for staff. Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: Coming back to condition 28. That was actually kind of a two part condition. First part that the applicant requested was a little leniency with respect to how they handle that, and we heard him comment on that. The second part states that the asphalt must be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. I just wanted to hear the staff comment on that and possibly if there's any contradiction with condition of the applicant... Sweidan: Usually if there's any proposed parking, it has to be installed before occupancy. And we cannot license occupancy approval before the parking has been done. In thi~ situation that's why we condition that it has to be done. Now, we...if they want to make a ~ parking while doing construction to help the cars to be away from the street, they can do like gravel or sand and rocks parking tempo, rary while they construct the building but later on they cannot have an occupancy certificate before the pm'king's been paved. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Claybaugh: Well specifically just because the requirement was mentioned as part of condition 28, and they're asking for that relief. I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was prepared to obviously put in parking lot prior to getting the CO. That's all I have. Blackowialc ALright. This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would like to spea& on this issue, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Kathy Standing: My name is Kathy Standing. I'm with Health Partners. I'm the Senior Director of Facility Development and Space Planning. And we just receafly learned of the project and we haven't had a chance to learn everything about it so I just have a few questions. The elevations that we saw I believe of both the building and the landscaping was primarily a view from Highway 5. I'd be interested in seeing a little bit more about the east side or the Dell Road side. And in particular the landscape that is between, well it's this fight here. If you could speak to that. What that looks like. Aanenson: I think it pretty much mirrors what was approved with your's. Kathy Standing: Okay. So then my question goes back to the building, the elevation of the building. What will we actually be viewing? I think the view that we saw was the window view from Highway 5. So I'd be interested in just understanding, does that wrap around on the east side as well? Okay. And then the access off of Dell Road, is that particular road that is not yet developed, will be developed when our property is devel~ is that conect? Al4aff: That's Kathy Standing: Okay. And then the proposed time line once there's approval from the time of construction and the length of the construction. I'd be interested in learning about that. Aanenson: We could maybe ask Mr. Bangasser that. Blackowiak: Yeah, I guess Mr. Bangasser, could you come up to the microphone again. Ms. Standing was asking about the time line for construction. If you could speak to that. Dave Bangasser: If we could start next week, we would. Blackowiak: What is your ultimate you know move in date? Dave Bangasser: By the end of the summer, say Septeaxiber 1" we intend to be complete. We'd have things paved and...to be comple~ where our goal is to be installing a press in the new addition by the end of ~Iune, which is why if we start~ next week it'd be just fine, but I know that won't happen. Blackowiak: Okay. Does that answer your question? Kathy Standing: Okay. Alright, thank you. Blackowiak: Is them anybody else who'd like to speak on this issue? Okay seeing no one Fll close the public hearing. Comments on the issue. Rich. Slagle: I can start. Mine is simple. I think any time the City of Chanhassen can have one of it's businesses expand, that's great news so we're glad to lw. ar that and it's good for all. I think they've heard our concerns with respect to buffer and some aesthetics so I think it's fine. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Bl~c~owia~ Okay. Lillehaug: I'd like to make a few continents. And if I could, I would like to reflect what Rich said. And then I would like to get specific on a few of these conditions so the spplicaut gets an understanding of what the staff and we're trying to portray he~. I think we could combine a couple conditions here. One would be combining 17 with number 5. I think they're redundant One other thing is per condition number 20, I would like that to reflect existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes. And then to be clear to the applicant, I would hYIm, if possible, f~r staff to explain number 22. I should have hit on that earlier. I'm not totally clear what that is so I want to ensure that the applicant is clear on that also. And you can go ahead if you want Mak and then 1,Il continue. Sweidan: The storm sewer plan is pmtx~ing manhole number 2 with the invert elevation of 915.5. The existing, the previous manhole existing, the lowest invert elevation is 914.5 which means the flow direction, if it is going from previous manhole to a new proposed manhole has to be high and not lower, so he has to revise that new proposed elevation. Lillehaug: So you haven't figared out how to get Water to flow uphill then. Sweidan: Well it's got to be a fast flow you know. Lillehaug: Okay, that's good enough~ Then 1,d like to go onto ehl:~rate a little on conditions number 25 and 27. Myself looking at the sanitary plan, it appears that that sanitary line is approximately, I'm not scaling it but it's further than plus or minus, it's further than that 33 foot easement, or it's-right on the edge of that easement so I think 1' d like to direct staff to work with the applicant to ensure that that sanitary line is more centered on that existing easement. And then I agree with staff that extending that sanitary line across Lot 2 should go forward as stated in condition number 27, and that the city, that the applicant and the city should coordinate that. And as far as number 25 goes, my assnmption is that stuff is recording extending that from the southerly portion of Lot 2. Would that be correct? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: And I agree with that also. That end my comments, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Feilc It's nice to see one of our corporate residents expanding. I have no problem with the tilt-up that we're going to see a sliver of on the south side above the lower portion of roof. I certainly understand the existing conditions that are there. Of the existing building and I agree with staff I think to do something dramatically would be maybe more of an eyesore than tip up. As for the 24 foot drive lane, which goes between Lot 1 and Lot 2, I have no problems there at all. And my other comments were already addressed. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah, I'm generally in favor of the application. I made my comments knowm I guess I still feel as though more comment about the use of tilt up concrete panels needs to be addressed in the staff report. Also, we heard that Health Partners would like a view from Dell Road as part of the package too. I think that would be a really good thing to include. I agree with sta~s analysis 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 and their variance findings. Here's one case where we have an administrative hardship being created so I think the findings are well laid out and make sense to me. Also, I guess I would be in favor of deleting condition 6 based on our discussion, so whoever makes the motion I'd suggest that And then I would encourage maybe condition 28 to be modified to be less specific, and I guess the applicant has suggested we might have Isn~:s~ like adequate off street parking will be provided by the applicant during consmicfion and leave it to staff and the applicant to work out what that means. And I assume that they understand that they must have the parking lot completed before any Certifica~ of Occupancy would be issued. So maybe cut the verbiage down on that. So I think those are my comments. Blackowialc Thank you. Uti. Sacchet: I don't have too much new to _~_dd- I basically agree pretty much with everything that's been said. It's great to see business grow. I don't have an issue with the drive width. Drive aisle width. It seems like that's pretty much a straight forward thing. The thing about the sanitary sewer, I think that's a work with staff situation- I would recommend that it gets worked out before it goes to council, what exactly ha~ with that. I don't see a major issue from our side, and if there is alternate parking, I think that's wonderful. Should definitely use it. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig. Claybaugh: Like my fellow commissioners I'd like to congram~te Banta on their expansion. I agree with Commissioner Feik that to deviate from existing construction with respect to the panelization would probably be more damaging than to let it move forward. I guess I would like staff, if possible, to comment on condition 25 when appropriate. I'm still a little fuzzy on what the applicant is asking and where that sits with making a motion on this. That's all the comments that I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I agree with my fellow commissioners. I like the plan. It makes sense to me. The variance is fully understandable and it's one of those things where tying Lot 2 to Lot 1 under single PID is the only way to go because we wouldn't want to create a situation in which a large office industrial user would have virtually no parking, so we've got it tied together to make it work out and this is I guess the smartest way to do it in my view. I do agree with LuAnn a little bit about this flit up concrete. I understand the need to be consistent. However, I think there might be some room for trade-off's there so maybe when it goes to City Council, they could look at maybe getting a little more screening on the rooftop or something. I think they can work it out. Parking, sounds good. If there's no reason to odd the extra parking right away then, on Lot 2, then I would say go ahead and use Ver-Sa-Til, if that works out with them. The buffer seems satisfactory. The drive aisle. I would be okay with 24 feet if staff can support that as well. I guess ultimately the council will have to decide whether it's 24 versus 26, but I would suppc~ in going ahead with the 24 foot as currently is located on the ~. And sauitary sewer, just work it out before you go to council I'm sure. It shouldn't be a problem. Rich, do you have anything to add? Slagle: Just a point of clarification. I believe I heard from staff that 24 feet was okay. Aanenson: Yes, that's what she saicL Slagle: So maybe it just needs to be deleted and not even be an issue for the council. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blackowialc But the 26 is, isn't 26 currently our code? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Right. Aanenson: But it's an existing so. Blackowiak: Right, so I'm saying if council warns to go with cturent code you know, that would be, that's up to them- I can support 24 is I guess where I'm corning from and I'm hearing that everyone else... Uli, do you have another comment? Sacchet: Yeah, I have another point of clarification. If you look at condition number 30, all rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. So what staff was irr~. lyinE iS on new. Al-laff: On now addition. Sacchet: New addition. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And what would happen if I would undemtand this as new and existing? Aanenson: They're not agreeable to that condition. Sacchet: They're not agree__able to that? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: There's enough rooftop equipment up there that's creating a hardship for them to deal with that or? Aanenson: That was their interpretation of that. Based on the design of the building. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: So, you can... Blackowiak: That's why I said that maybe council could look at it and, they have a little more wiggle room on that than we do. So anyway, we'll leave it at that and I'll need a motion. 22exe will have to be a couple of deletions and changes hem so who's up to it? Steve? Lillehaug: Sure. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: FII make a motion the Planning Commi~ion records approval of Site Plan Review #03-I with the variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface covexage as shown on the site plan dated February 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 32. Delete numhex 6. Revise number 5 to indicate design and calculations, thexefore deleting numb~ 17. So Fm combining 17 and 5. On number 20, add existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes. And 28, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 revise as such to say provide adequate off street parking during construction. Paving the pal'~ng during the winter months is not an option. Asphalt must be installed before Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. And on number 30, add on the new addition to be ~ And on number 27, work with staff to ensure that the sanitary sewer is centered .within the easement. Blackowiak: Can I have a little help here to get these. Get through these. Lillehaug: If there's any more? Aanenson: Yeah. On number 25, just I think what we want to say is that if it does, if they don't extend their own service, which is a condition. If they do want to combine that it has to be a public line and adequately sized. I think that's, our condition says they have to do their own. They want the ability to do a public one, which would be fine if it's adequately sized and within the easement, centered. Lillehaug: And I would agree with that and I would like to add that to 25. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: Second. Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commiadon recommends approval of Site Plan Review S03-1 with a variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface coverage as shown on the site plan dated Received February 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions: . Applicant shall in~ landscape plantings in east buffer yard to meet ~ requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. . Fire Marshal conditions: a. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the new tenant water service coming in to the building. b. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen l:rlm Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City l%~neer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 1 Building Official Conditions: The additional is required to have an automatic fire extin~mlishing system. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. ¢. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing builrl~g that must be examined. soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. . The applicant shall combine Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition under a single Parcel Identification Number. 5. Submit storm sewer sizing design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 6. Deleted. 7. A cross a__,x~_ss easement agreement is required over the shared portion of the driveway 8. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 1004, 2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 3101, 5203, 5215, 5301, and 5300. 9. Show a minimum rock construction enlxance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 10. Show the proposed watermain and sewer pipe, class, slope and lengtlx 11. A Type H silt fence must be used and removed when construction is completed. 12. Any off site grading will require temporary easements. 13. Grades shall not exceed 3:1. 14. Add a benchmark to the plans and a legend. 15. On the sanitary and water plan, revise the existing watermain to proposed. 16. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District and Minnesota Depamm~t of Health permits for the site. 17. Combined with condition ~5. 18. Show all existing and proposed easements. 19. Add a storm sewer schedule. 20. Add a note, "Any connection to existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes shall be ¢ort~ drilled." 21. The ~ is subject to sanitary sewer and wamr hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for wa~. The 20O3 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are coUect~ ~or to the building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Depa_vtment of Health permit. 22. In the storm sewer plan, revise the proposed manhole No. 2 invert elevation to match the flow direction. 23. The applicant needs to show the sidewalk to the new entrance door at the southeast 24. If the applicant inten~ to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermains are city owned and maintained and are required to be placed within a 20 foot wide public ~t. Detailed 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial security to guarantee the installation of the public watermain. The applicant needs to extend their own sanitary service. If they decide not to exteml their own service and instead want to co_mhine it~ then it must be adequately and centered within the easement ss a public ~ 26. Show proposed grading around the building oddition. The City will coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. Staff is directed to work with the applicant to enmu~ that the sanitary sewer line is centered within the exisgng easemenL Provide adequate off street parking during construction. Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. Asphalt must be installed before Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. 29. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance~ 30. All rooftop equipment on the new addition shall be screened from views. 31. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial securities. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost 32. The most easterly row of parking and aisle shall be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Blackowiak: Motion carries 7-0. It goes to City Council on March 24~'. APPROVAL QF MINI, I'rF~: Rich Slagle noted the ~mutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 18, 2003 as presented. Blackowiak: Before I adjourn there are two items of open discussion that will take place ~er adjournment. First will be to interview a Planning Commission applicant. Approximately 8:00 p.m. Can you believe it? I know. I know. Since I am also going to be an applicant for the open position I will recuse myself. You guys can go at it by yourselves. And then we'll do city code amendments after the applicant interview. Aanenson: And then if I could just add one other thing. I will be emailing you questions for our joint meeting. We can talk about that but if you want to work on that as part of your open discussion. I'll leave you to work on that. Maybe get one person to kind of pull that together. We'll distribute those and those will be the topics for the joint meeting. Blackowialc Okay. And do we have a time yet for thatjo~ meeting? Aanenson: Yes we do. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blackowiak: And it is? Aanenson: Sorry, you're last. But the ,~ood news is you can take as long as yon want. 8:00. Blackowiak: 8:00, Monday, March 1'] . Slagle: Oh, so it's not just us. It's all commissions? Aanenson: All commissions. Blackowiak: So our request to be fira absolutely carried no weight. Aanenson: The Senior Commission is going first. They have, they want to go out to dinner. Blackowiak: Okay. Feilc Can they do that? Aanenson: They don't have the same statutory. You have statutory requirements. Sunshine laws. They don't have sunshine laws as far as meeting so, along with the Environmental Commission. Blackowiak: With that I will adjourn the meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opbeim 18 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2~, 2003 Chairman Franks called the meeting to order at 7:35p.m. MEMBER~ PRE~ENT: Rod Franks, Tom Kelly, Amy O'Shea, Jack Spizale, Patila Atkins, and Glen Stolar. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent_ APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Todd Hoffman added Item 6.c. pertaining to the answering of questions posed by the City Council concerning the operation of the Park and Recreation Commission. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESE~ATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINIJTES: Kelly moved, Spizale seconded to approve the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 2003 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. MODIFICATION TO SKATE PARK PLAN. Following a staff report and Commissioner discussion, Commissioner Stolar moved to direct staff to close the north access to the skate park, and open a west access to the skate park. Further that staff be directed to investigate the viability of purchasing new "tier two" type equipment and charging for access to the park. REVIEW 2003 LAKE ANN BEACH LIFEGUA~ CONTRACT~ MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND SERVICES. Following a staff report and Commissioner discussion, Commissioner O'Shea moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Lake Ann Park Beach Lifeguard contract with Minnetonka Community Education and Services in the amount of $27,555 for the 2003 summer beach season. ADOPTION OF PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION BYLAWS Commissioners recommended some minor modifications to the by-laws. These amendments will be included in the copy of the by-laws to be forwarded to the City Council. PROGRAMS.' Staff reports concerning the 2003 Easter Egg Candy Hunt, Daddy Daughter Date Night and February Festival were presented. Commission members discussed these events and made a variety of suggestions for future events. ' Rod Franks was appointed to serve on the 2005 MUSA area study group. The Commission selected March 25th as the date to conduct Commission applicant interviews. (Upon checking the City Coundl interview schedule it was determined that this date would not work, the Council is interviewing on the 24th). If more than five applications are received the Commission will conduct interviews on March 11. If fewer than five applications are received the applicants will all be interviewed solely by the City Council. The Commission prepared responses to questions posed by the City Council for discussion at a future work session. Stolar moved, O'Shea seconded to adjourn the meeting, All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commi.qsion meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.