1k Approval of Minutes (2)City Council Work Session - June 24, 2002
C. UPDATE ON SUBDIVISION OF THE ROSEMOUNT PROPERTY,
Todd Gerhardt showed a map of the Rosemount property and the intended subdivision. He asked
council for direction on how they would like to proceed. Councilman Ayotte asked if Rosemount
intended to stay on the property. Councilman Peterson asked what the City gave Rosemount as
incentive to build on this site. Mayor Jansen directed staff to continue with negotiations,
preferring that the tree lot stay the same and exploring other alternatives with the rest of the lot.
Councilman Boyle asked about the tax implications with keeping part of the property as open
space. Mayor Jansen stated the consensus she was hearing from council was to keep negotiating
but that Rosemount would need a really terrific proposal for City Council to consider subdivision.
D. STRATEGIC PLAN - TAXATION.
Todd Gerhardt advised the City Council that he was going to be implementing a plan for future
City Council's to follow that will replace the current budget process. On July 22, 2002 at 5:00
the City Council will have their first of four hour and half meetings with Ehlers and Associates.
Councilman Peterson asked what the cost will be. Todd Gerhardt stated he did not know and
would find out, but even if it was $50,000, it was money well spent.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 24, 2002
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle,
Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Bob Generous, Todd
Hoffman, and Justin Miller
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, good evening. We don't have any public announcements this
evening, though I will mention that we did have something pulled from the agenda. An actual
postponement notice was mailed, but in case there's anyone here anticipating the assessment
hearings for the residential street improvements or the MSA street improvements. Those have
been postponed until July 8t~, and there were notifications that were sent out by, about that
postponement. Is there anyone here that came specifically for those agenda items? Okay, I think
we're alright. We just didn't want anyone to sit through the whole meeting waiting for those to
happen when they're in fact removed. So I'll move onto the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition, Steiner Development:
1)
2)
Final Plat Approval
Approve Construction Plans & Development Contract, Project 00-11.
Resolution #2002-53: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study for Construction of
Sidewalk Along Lake Susan Drive.
d. Approval of Bills.
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Minutes dated June 10, 2002
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 2002
g. Accept Donation to the Chanhassen Fire Department from the Chanhassen Lions Club.
City Council Meeting -June 24, 2002
Resolution ~2002-54: Accept Public Streets and Storm Sewer Improvements, White Oak
Addition, Project 00-10.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0,
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Boyle. l(b).
Councilman Boyle: Teresa, there is concern, a couple inquiries as to the 10 inch pipe and what I
read in here it's an additional 10 inch pipe that's going to be going up from the lift station at the
beachlot where the easement is going in.
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Councilman Boyle: The concern is why was that not brought up sooner, more information on it
by the whole Sunrise Hills Beachlot easement issue was being raised.
Teresa Burgess: The work that's being proposed is something that we were not aware of until we
initiated, until we were about halfway through this study. It was actually started to evaluate Lift
Station number 10. It was not known that we had the scope of problem that we do at the
beachlot. We knew that we had some issues down there but not anything like this. When they
modeled the entire system we discovered that there were intense pressures down there, and that
the lift station is not able to pump against the pressures of Lift Station number 10. That's
something that we did not know until just recently. We already had the discussions on the
easement negotiation by the time this came to the city's attention. The reason that we have
changed the recommendation and are going to go with the beachlot improvement, and I actually
was going to pull this one but you beat me to it. There is a typo on here. We would not be doing
number 2, which is Lift Station number 2. We would be doing the number 3 is the staff
recominendation which is Lift Station Number 1 at the Sunrise Hills Beachlot. The reason we are
doing it is because we had a recent instance where the bolts in some valves down in that area, the
City of Chanhassen has very acidic soils. The bolts had been eaten away by the acidic soils. It's
not related to this project. This project could wait a couple of years. There is nothing wrong with
doing that. It's a jacking project. It can be done with relatively minimal disruption to the
neighborhood. We do have to dig two jac~ng pits. But we had that area open anyway after the
valves gave and so it was decided rather than go back in twice and restore, we might as well just
get it done all at once and get it taken care of. And that's why we are changing the
recon-unendation to do that lift station sooner instead of waiting a couple of years in the CIP.
Councilman Boyle: Thank you. I see Mr. and Mrs. Paulsen's here. Did you have any other
comments? I beg your pardon.
Jerry Paulsen: Remarks now?
Councilman Boyle: Well we could right now, if you have a question.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, if you've got issues with this agenda item, I'm assuming as long as they're
brief we can certainly address them now. Otherwise I end up moving it to the end of the meeting
so it could also do that.
Teresa Burgess: Also Madam Mayor, if I could point out. What you're doing this evening is
receiving the report and calling a public hearing for the next meeting.
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
Mayor Jansen: So that will be the opportunity, okay. Why don't we do that and that would give
you an opportunity then to have a conversation with staff on whatever the concerns are with this
item, since there is going to be a public hearing and it will all then be addressed at the same time.
Jerry Paulsen: You wanted remarks at the end of the meeting or now? Or not at all you're
saying?
Mayor Jansen: At the public hearing. All we're doing here tonight is approving staff calling a
public hearing on this item. So all of the public will then be notified, correct?
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Of the item on the agenda and that will be your opportunity then to provide the
public comment. Otherwise obviously, and I know you've worked with staff previously, if you
can work with them on what your issues are. We won't be addressing this this evening. All
we're doing is calling a public hearing.
Jerry Paulsen: Can I make one comment then?
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. The public hearing is scheduled for July 8th,
which is really a holiday, kind of a holiday week and we would anticipate that it would be
difficult to get a lot of people notified and at the meeting. That's one of our...
Mayor Jansen: Well we'll see if there's major issues with it. Otherwise we can certainly take a
look at the date and take a look at that, but why don't we wait and we'll have a fuller staff report
that, and you can obviously address your issues with staff before that and provide those to us in
the report that we'll be receiving for the public hearing. It's premature for us to take this now I
guess is what I'm saying, if we do the process as specified. All we're doing is receiving this.
Jerry Paulsen: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. And I would encourage you to put your comments in writing and
forward them to us then through the staff report. Okay, so we're okay with l(b)?
Councilman Boyle: All done.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Why don't we go ahead with then l(f) and then we can do one motion.
We had been forwarded an email from one of the Park and Rec Commissioners suggesting, which
I thought was a good suggestion, that we also as part of the RFI for the Community Center,
receive from the applicants their experience with similar projects. So we're receiving a resume
per se. And I thought directing staff to include that point before this goes out I thought would be
a good idea if council' s comfortable doing that. And we can just make the direction to staff to
include that as part of the RFI and then move this forward. Okay.
Councilman Boyle: I have no problem with that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if I could have a motion on l(b) and l(f) please.
Councihnan Labatt: Move approval for l(b) and l(f). With the changes as noted for l(f).
City Council Meeting -June 24, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following consent
agenda items:
b.
Receive Feasibility Report and Call a Public Hearing for Lift Station 10, System Utility
Improvements, Project 01-11.
f. Approval of Final Draft of Community Center Request for Information, as amended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0,
Mayor Jansen: I also wanted to mention that as a part of our consent agenda, Item l(g) was
accepting a donation from the Chanhassen Lions Club and the Lions Club is donating $8,562
towards the Fire Department' s purchase of some materials for our hazardous material response
capabilities so I did want to acknowledge that generous donation and our appreciation to them for
participating with our fire department, which they have historically so I thought that was worth
noting, though we just passed it under consent.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Mark Littfin: Good evening. I'll speak quickly before the next storm comes through our city
here and we get called out again. For the year our calks are down about 60 percent, or 60 calls
fron~t last year, and a lot of that is still attributed to priority medical dispatching and we have had
relatively minor call out this spring with storms. We've only been out once or twice for storm
watch so even though we've had a lot of rain, we haven't had any severe weather which kind of
cuts down on the calls. We have had 2 lightning related calls. One was today. We had a house
fire out on Stone Creek Drive, and we had one about 4 weeks ago and there was still smoke. Call
in by the neighbors and we dealt with them quickly so, but seeing a number of the suburbs around
the city were affected by the same storm. Last Monday evening we had our Black Helmet
Ceremony at the fire station where we had probationary firefighters finish their first year and
during that time they wear yellow helmets and they can't wait to get rid of them and get their so
called real helmets so we had a nice celebration last week at the station and we added 7 new
firefighters to our rank and file. We're happy about that. We're getting busy planning the 4th of
July coming up. We participate with the kiddie parade and the big parade, the 4°~ of July parade
so we're making plans on that and getting a good sign-up for that. Both Greg and myself on the
inspections end of it, we're keeping busy with new construction, with the apartments going up
and the Legion, library, and some remodels that are going on throughout the city so that's keeping
us busy with that. We started some preliminary talk and working on the 2003 budget so that's
taking place. And we've had, issued 2 firework permits in the city since that became law here at
the end of April so we're kind of monitoring that and seeing how that progresses so we'll see if
we get any fireworks related injuries in the next few weeks here so. And that's all that's new
from across the parking lot.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thanks. Council members, any questions for Mark. Councilman Ayotte.
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: If I may. There was some question and concern and interest at the State
level as to what constitutes legal fireworks and what constitutes illegal fireworks. Do you have
any information on that?
Mark Littfin: Right. The ones that are legal. Well let's see, the ones that are illegal, if they
explode or if they fly through the air, those are the illegal ones. If they're put on the ground, you
light them and they spray sparks or snake worms or sparklers, those are the legal type but if they
explode or they fly, right now they're illegal but we'll see what happens at the next session next
year at the State and see if it changes again so. And they're not supposed to be blown off on
public property, streets, parks, so we' 11 kind of watch out for law enforcement as well.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Thanks for the report Mark. Appreciate it.
Councilman Labatt: Thank you Mark.
PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL CENTER.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, Council members. Bruce DeJong, our Finance Director has been
working with Ridgeview on this issue and also has legal opinions from our bonding consultant,
Mary Epple. Bruce, do you want to update the council on this item.
Bruce DeJong: Yes. What' s before you tonight is really just kind of past through financing. In
order to have tax exempt financing provided by Howard Lake, Ridgeview is going to spend some
money in actually 4 different communities and as part of the federal regulations for this financing
we are required to form a joint powers agreement and accept, basically accept the funds. So it's
past through financing. There is no liability on the city's part for the bonds. They will be
payable solely out of Ridgeview revenues. But we have an opinion here from Briggs and Morgan
to that effect, that everything is fine. Tom Mayfield is here representing Ridgeview on this
financing and I think he'd like to have some comments and then you can open the public hearing
and accept the resolution.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Great, thank you.
Tom Mayfield: Bruce has done a wonderful job and in deference to your time and the agenda I'll
keep it short. My name is Tom Mayfield. I'm with a firm called Minnesota Investment Services,
and also here tonight are Tim Gronseth, Ridgeview's Chief Financial Officer, and John
Prondzinski who is responsible for Ridgeview's clinic network. I think most of you, perhaps all
of you are aware that Ridgeview already has a clinic in your community at leased space. Part of
the project, the single largest part is to construct the new facility that they'll be able to own and
remain in long term and as Bruce mentioned, there's a smaller clinic planned for Delano, some
other assets in Waconia, and Howard Lake, and Howard Lake will be issuing so our request again
is only that you conduct the hearing and approve a joint powers agreement that as Bruce pointed
out, does not put you in a position of any liability at all. We're grateful that you're willing to
consider this. If you have any questions beyond that, about the natural of the financing, I'd be
happy to try to answer. If you have questions about the projects, particularly the clinic here in
Chanhassen, I'm sure either John or Tim would be happy to handle that. Thank you.
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you very much. Council, any questions for staff or Mr. Mayfield
.at this time.
Councilman Boyle: I have no questions.
Mayor Jansen: Alright. Then I will open this for the public hearing, if there is anyone here that
would like to address the council on this issue, certainly step forward and state your name and
address for the record. Seeing no one, I'll bring this back to council. Council, comments.
Councilman Labatt: Pretty straight forward. I move approval.
Mayor Jansen: Seems like a wonderful proposal and to be sitting here, not being asked for
something to actually bring an additional clinic of your own. Non lease space into the
community, I' m very excited about this and certainly appreciate your having taken a look at
Chanhassen and building a permanent clinic here with us so, I guess if council wouldn't mind, I
might like to hear a little bit about that plan, just conceptually as to what that clinic would entail.
Since you're here this evening. Thank you.
John Prondzinski: Good evening. My name is John Prondzinski. I'm Vice President with
Ridgeview Medical Center, and we have had a clinic, as you know for a number of years in the
community and we have outgrown the physical plant of that building and it doesn't lend itself to
efficient operations any longer for us. The lease for that building expires July of next year. We
have the option of either renewing it or finding a new home, and we've been studying the
community for some time. Meeting with staff. Looking at various options, and this site on
Powers Boulevard and Highway 5 we think will provide great visibility, easy access, and an
opportunity for taking on our current program as well as future growth. The initial Phase I of the
building will be 20,525 square feet, which will take care of our existing operations, as well as
provide some growth for additional specialists. Potentially pediatric, obstetric. We have
obstetrics and orthopedic specialists today in our clinic, as well as family practice, internal
medicine. We will be providing additional space for our sports medicine program, rehabilitation
medicine, and our occupational health medicine program as well. Treating work injuries and
healthy work place program in the business community. The Phase II of the program is limited to
the surface parking. There is adequate surface parking to add an additional 8,000 square feet on
the second floor, and that would provide for a future medical specialists and health care as
Ridgeview grows and as the community has a need for additional services. We are building in
footings and structural capacity for an entire second floor, which would potentially be Phase III
and would most likely require some deck parking to accommodate the City's requirements for
parking. So we're very excited about that. We've enjoyed our working relationship with staff
and public safety and the council in Chanhassen for a number of years and we look forward to
continuing to grow as your community grows and we intend to meet your needs.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful.
John Prondzinski: Any other questions about the...?
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate your doing that review with us. Council, any questions?
Councilman Boyle: None.
Councilman Ayotte: ??
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
John Prondzinski: I'm sorry, my dad could have answered but I'm not able to. I hope it was
nice.
Councilman Ayotte: We won't know.
Councilman Boyle: We just hope they'll spell it right in the minutes.
Mayor Jansen: With that if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Resolution g2002-55: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve
the Joint Powers Agreement for Ridgeview Medical Center. Ail voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
AWARD OF BIDS: AWARD OF CONTRACT~ 2002 TRAIL CONNECTION PROJECT.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Jansen, members of the council. What I'd like to do is allow
Phil Gravel to go ahead and review the bid opening results with you and some of the findings
from that bid opening that took place last Thursday, and again this is talking about the 2002 trail
connector project which includes 3 segments. The underpass at the Chanhassen Recreation
Center and making that connection. MnDot took the connection to the south driveway line and
then we made the connection between the trail system. The second is at Lake Ann, at the
underpass at Lake Ann. And then the third section is a much longer segment of trail traveling
down 101 south, through the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood to Bandimere Community Park.
Phil Gravel: Okay, thanks Todd. As Todd mentioned, bids were received last Tuesday. A total
of 4 bids were received and the low bidder was Barber Construction out of Hopkins with the base
bid of $323,000 and we took alternate bids for a retaining wall that has to be constructed along
Highway 101. And that's the 3 alternates you see there. The first alternate is for a modular block
retaining wall, and the second alternate is for a boulder retaining wall, and the third alternate is
for a field stone, or a flag stone retaining wall. The low base bid and the low alternate would be
Barber Construction with the modular block retaining wall, and that total amount of $351,080.
This amount is substantially higher than the amount that we estimated in our report for the project
last December.
Mayor Jansen: And that amount was?
Phil Gravel: That amount was $262,000 for the construction portion. In December the total
project cost, when you include engineering, administration and we had some money in there for
easement acquisition and things like that, was estimated to be $348,000. At this time the total
project cost is estimated to be $400,000. So we're still talking about a 15 percent increase there.
And the reason for the increase is an increase in unit prices mostly from what we estimated.
Bituminous in December we estimated at around $35 a ton. The bids came in at $50. We added
a lot more erosion control. That fiber blanket that you see everywhere, and that was at the request
of MnDot but I think it' s a worthwhile thing to do. And the seeding cost went up a little bit as
well. One thing that's comforting is all the bids are close together so we feel it's a competitive
bid and ! know that Barber did a lot of research on the project before submitting the bid so we're
confident in that price. It's just we have to deal with the increase.
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay. One of the comments in the staff report is that part of the reason the bid is
higher than the engineer's estimate was the timing of the bid opening. I'm just curious, I don't
recall what the delay was from our looking at this in December and why it didn't end up being
bid until now.
Todd Hoffman: Part of that delay was review process with the State of Minnesota. MnDot and
just completing the work. Communication with land owners.
Phil Gravel: We're really not behind in schedule yet. That bid climate, because of the rain, a lot
of, you know we would have expected more than 4 bidders on this, and I think you'll see the
same thing with... 101 north bids. There just aren't as many people as hungry for bids than there
normally are.., all we can contribute it to is the rain.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: I'll finish up with a couple of comments. You'll note on the cover page that the
base bid is noted as 329,080. There was a correction in Barber's base bid raising it to 323,080
and that simply is mathematical addition error in their bid. Staff is obviously disappointed that
the cost came in higher than the engineer's estimate, but we had designated $450,000 in the city's
capital improvement program to finish the project and so we're underneath that by some $50,000.
I feel the Barber Construction base bid of 320 and their total bid is a good bid in comparison to
the other 3 bidders. And it's my recommendation that we move forward on the project. I
considered re-bidding the project but I don't see the value in re-bidding the project, when we're
taking a look at 4 bidders which turned in competitive bids and we have what I feel is a good bid
for the city.
Mayor Jansen: Okay council, any questions for staff?
Councilman Boyle: I have just one. I'm a little confused on the total numbers. The total project
cost was $340,000, is that correct? And the new cost is $400,0007
Todd Hoffman: Approximately.
Councihnan Boyle: So the addition is $52,000, is that CO~Tect?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: About t5 percent. Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: A lot of focus on cost. Do you have some vendor performance history that
would reinforce your desires to go with Barber? Is there better performance history on the others
that cools you on the others? I know it's a low bid issue but I'm kind of concerned about just
looking at cost.
Todd Hoffman: Barber has a good reputation in the area of recreation trails. They built the first
trails in the, really in the region in the metropolitan region back some 30 years ago. I had a
conversation with the Director of Anoka County last year prior to bidding this project, and Barber
was doing work there last sun-uner and very good performance record in the field. They do this as
a matter of business.
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: Is that first trail that they built still there?
Todd Hoffman: Still standing.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: They built those first trails in the metropolitan region in the Hennepin Park
system, now Three Rivers Park District. They were the first agency in the metropolitan area to
build recreational trails.
Councilman Ayotte: Thanks.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: What's going to happen when 101 South gets realigned?
Todd Hoffman: This trail for the most part will stay in place as a secondary trail for the new trail
which would go on 101.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then the, when 212 goes through, obviouslythis is going to take
a big swath of that path. What's slated for replacement for an overpass or who pays for that?
Todd Hoffman: At that time I think it would be MnDot's responsibility to go ahead and
incorporate all the pedestrian access points, over or under the new Highway 312.
Mayor Jansen: That is accurate to the discussions that we've had.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, so we'll put the trail down now even though we're crossing their
proposed, we're still not looking at 15 years from now when the other road comes through of
another bill?
Mayor Jansen: No.
Councihnan Peterson: You're going to have some but not a great deal.
Todd Hoffman: Correct, yeah. Takes out a swath and you know you're thinking 10, 12, 20
years. You're going to get a lot of use out of this trail. It' s the connector between the north and
south. It's the connector between our neighborhoods and Bandimere Community Park and the
trail on 101 South this evening, and then 101 North, the City Council can see the construction of
those 2 trails this evening, this is a historic day for the City of Chanhassen. There's no doubt
about it. Those are going to be huge improvements for the City of Chanhassen.
Phil Gravel: It is a no frills trail. It's just...no park benches...
Todd Gerhardt: And this is probably, that section is probably the least expensive portion of the
$350,000 worth of trail too.
Todd Hoffman: Well the others are much shorter but perform... And it's important to make
those connections. People are waiting for that frontage road to open. They're waiting for those
trail and passes to open, and if we are standing aside when that thing opens in the next couple of
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
days, and these connections are made in a timely manner, we're not going to be left in a
predicament.
Mayor Jansen: I do have one question, and it's kind of jumping the gun on information that
council is going to be reviewing later this evening and Todd and I just had a brief conversation
about the bid opening today on Highway 101 north.
Councilman Peterson: The closing.
Mayor Jansen: Correct, sorry. And what I'm curious about in that we're pleased with where
those bids came in, in that this bid came in high. Is there, and you mentioned potentially re-
bidding. Is there reason enough for us to do that with this 15 percent variance from what was
originally estimated?
Todd Gerhardt: I don't believe so. One of the things that crossed my mind was to compare the
granular, the base unit costs of the two projects and see if you could process those as a change
order to this project. But under state statute we're limited to 20 percent of the contract amount?
Phil Gravel: We did look at, this afternoon we got the bid results of the north and Teresa faxed or
emailed them to us and we checked them over and we're in line, or the projects are in line...some
of the sto~Tn sewer and things like that. They're all real close items so I think the only, the better
explanation for the increase in cost is that I was low on my December estimates.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So the unit cost is what I'm hearing you say are comparable to what we're
looking at on the north.
Phil Gravel: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: It's not as though we're paying more to the south and, okay.
Phil Gravel: No. And that's, everyone else had the same question so that's why Teresa faxed
those...
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I appreciate you're having taken a look at that.
Todd Hofflnan: Made that comparison. One important note is that this is all contingent upon the
receipt of the LUP. Limited Use Permit from MnDot for the southern 101 project. We're in day
to day correspondence with MnDot on that permit and anticipate they'll work out details. They
would like to see a 10 foot trail, and we would like to install an 8 foot trail. There's some water
issues, primarily drainage issues that we're working with them on so continue to do that .... is the
case on the 101 North trail.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. But we did see that, as MnDot got involved on those issues to the north,
how much the project costs escalated so I'm assuming if their comments cause similar escalation
in costs, this will be brought back to us on 101 South.
Phil Gravel: I think right now we're kind of down to just that trail issue so that...
Mayor Jansen: Okay. But if we're going from 8 foot to 10 foot, I would anticipate a rather
significant increase in the cost of the project. So that would be coming back to us.
10
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Todd Hoffman: The quantity increase, yeah. We would come back and discuss that with council
if we needed to see that happen.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Hopefully you'll just get the LUP, but we've had enough experience with
that now. I had to ask. Okay, council if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could make a suggestion. Make it approved subject to receiving the
LUP. So we're clear.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2002-56: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the
City Council award the 2002 Trail Connections Project to Barber Construction, including
the base bid of $323,080 and Alternate #1 in the amount of $28,000, for a total award of
$351,080, contingent upon MnDot approval of the LUP. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
AWARD OF CONTRACT~ MSA STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 01-08.
Teresa Burgess: I'm sorry, I apologize.
Mayor Jansen: That's okay.
Teresa Burgess: Tonight we're asking council to award bids for the 2002 MSA Street
hnprovement Project. We originally had requested the council on the agenda to award this
project, the residential street project and to hold the two assessment hearings for these projects.
However, because of some issues we had to postpone those assessment hearings. The MSA
project, we withheld those bid open 2 weeks beyond the allowed time already by consent of the
two Iow bidders, and therefore we did not feel it was prudent for us to continue to hold them
open. We are starting to butt up against change orders for time. So we do need to take action
tonight on this project. You will see that there is attached a copy of the assessment roll, as they
would be done assuming that this project is awarded and the assessment hearing does not change
those. You'll remember that in most cases the assessment is at, in fact in all cases, the assessment
is at or below the feasibility study amount. In some cases significantly. Saddlebrook Curve is
significantly lower. The bids came in quite well, which is why we were able to do that. The
difference between the two Iow bidders is only $1,761.83, which makes it very difficult for staff.
They are not able to say who the apparent low bidder is at this time. Staff is recommending
award of Bid Schedule A, which is Audubon Road. B, Coulter Boulevard, C, Lake Drive, D,
Lake Drive East, E, Saddlebrook Curve and F, Stellar Court with Add Alternates for curb and
gutter on Stellar Court. Based on that recommendation, Mueller and Sons is the low bidder at
$451,345.03. The City has experience with Mueller and Sons and has also checked their
references and is comfortable with their reputation, as well as their ability to sustain this work.
Also enclosed in the packet was a copy of the bid tabulation showing just how close these bids
are, and you can see that Midwest Asphalt and Mueller, depending on which of the packages are
the schedule the council choose to award, it does flip flop back and forth. But based on the bids
11
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
and the fact that this project does have financing available, staff is recominending award of the
entire project. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff, council?
Councilman Boyle: None.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. This is not a public hearing so if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Boyle: I make a motion to award the construction contract in the amount of
$451,345.03 to Mueller and Sons for Bid Schedules A through F for the 2002 MSA Street
Improvement Project #01-08.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Resolution g2002-57: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to award
the construction contract in the amount of $451,345.03 to Mueller and Sons for Bid
Schedules A through F for the 2002 MSA Street Improvement Project g01-08. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0,
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, just a clarification. I noticed that the motion did not include,
and that's my error, I apologize. Did not include the add alternate, the concrete curb and gutter
on Stellar Court. Does council want to do that? The $451,000 does include that add alternate.
Councihnan Boyle: And that is staff's reconm~endation?
Teresa Burgess: That is staff's recommendation.
Mayor Jansen: Mr. Knutson, do we need a separate motion for that or do we need to amend the
first?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I understood the motion that, and I actually followed that, it is when you
recolnmended, or you approved a bid of $451,345 and some change, to include the alternate.
Otherwise that number doesn't make any sense. So as a point of clarification I think the staff
understood to include that alternate because otherwise you wouldn't have approved that number.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you Teresa.
Teresa Burgess: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: We did announce at the beginning of the meeting that those were postponed and
that notices did go out for July 8th so, and checked and there was no one here for those so we're
okay.
12
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
PRESENTATION OF 2001 AUDIT REPORT~ HLB TAUTGES REDPATH.
Mayor Jansen: We have Dave Mol and Melissa, correct?
Melanie Accola: Melanie
Mayor Jansen: Melanie here this evening. Thanks for joining us. I was close.
Dave Mol: Good evening. We have a brief presentation regarding the audit of 2001. I have a
presentation, and I also have handouts that comes with like a paper...
Mayor Jansen: Sure, thanks.
Dave Mol: We're going to tag team here a little bit.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Dave Mol: On the second page there, there are 4 reports listed. There's 4 reports that we are
associated with when we conduct the audit. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, State
Legal Compliance Report, a report on internal controls and then we prepare a management letter.
We' re going to have some brief comments on each one of those.
Melanie Accola: The first report is the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and I just want
to remind you that this is the City's Financial Statement. It's our role as auditors to form an
opinion on the fair presentation of these financial statements. And for the 2001 Financial
Statements we issued a clean opinion, which in auditor's terms an unqualified opinion. The
City's also participated in the GFOA Certificate for Excellence. The Certificate of Excellence
Program for a number of years. The prior year...received a certificate award and Bruce intends
to submit the 2001 report also into this program. The next report is the State Legal Compliance
Report, and this report is required by State Statutes. An audit guide is established by the Office
of the State Auditor' s that set up 5 areas that we need to be tested during the auditing of it and we
tested a sample basis in these areas, and on the testing that we had, that we tested during the audit
we found no items of non-compliance. The next report is the report on internal control, and this
is required by audit standards and it's based on inquiries and observations. There are 5 items that
we noted in this report where the internal controls of the accounting can be improved, and they
are reconciliation of the general ledger, developing a purchasing policy, additional segregation of
some of the accounting duties, approval of adjustments and changes made to the accounting
records, and some suggestions on changing the utility billing process. And we have more details
of this in our report, and we've also gone through these with Todd and Bruce.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great.
Dave Mol: Next is a summary out of our.
Todd Gerhardt: I didn't want our reporter to miss out so, keep going.
Dave Mol: Okay next is some comments out of the management letter, starting on page 6. This
is an all fund smnmary of all the funds, all city funds. You can see total revenue here, $33
million total expenditures, $25 million. Increase in fund balance city wide of almost $7.5 million.
It's primarily in the tax increment area. If you look under the debt service and capital project
column, also expendable trust, there are some tax increment debt service payments that are
13
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
extended out farther, so this is building up a balance for those payments in the future. Next page,
page 7. Some comments on the general fund. Measuring the fund balance at the end of the fiscal
year, the general fund balance was sufficient to fulfill the cash flow needs that you have
established by city policy. The graph on the page there shows that the line is the required cash
flow reserve. The columns are you fund balance, so you've got a fund balance of about $4.7
million. Cash flow needs of $2.6 million. There is a difference there. That doesn't mean
necessarily you have excess fund balance. The general fund is used to fund temporary deficits
and other funds. Moving ahead to page 9, taking a look at your special revenue funds. You have
2 in this category. Just one comment on the Environmental Protection Management Fund. This
fund has continued to have a decreasing fund balance. In other words the activities aren't funded
by the revenue that's reported there, so recommendation to develop a long term strategy
regarding financing of these activities. Moving ahead to the next page, looking at debt service
funds. You maintain 28 debt service funds. Outstanding debt at the end of 2001 was $33 million.
It's identified there on the page by type of bond issue. Also Mark Ruff from Ehlers and
Associates works with Bruce in preparing cash flow projections to monitor if these bond issues
have sufficient resources. Next page. Capital Project Funds. There's 15 project funds that are
maintained, down from 42 two years ago. Bruce has done a good job in consolidating and
eliminating funds that didn't need to be accounted for separately. You can see the fund balances
there, in total $5,132,000. You have reserves in several funds. Capital project administration of
$1.1 million. Park acquisition and development, $1.7 million. Then moving ahead to page 12,
looking at your enterprise funds, that's your water and sewer utility generated a net income for
2001 of $161,000 and that is consistent, at least the 4 year history has been positive of generating
a net income. You can see that on the graph on that page there. The line is operating revenue.
The columns are expenses. Next page, you maintain one expendable trust fund, that's the
Historic Preservation Fund. That has a fund balance of $5.9 million. That is primarily consists of
TEF grant dollars. You received TIF grant monies over the past 3 years totaling $3.5 million.
Those will be needed in the future to fund debt service requirements on the Tax Increment Bond
issues you do have. Then to wrap it up, on page 14. There's some financial indicators. Property
tax collection rate was 99 percent for 2001. Very good collection rate. Good positive financial
indicator. Also for special assessments collection rate was 98 percent. Assessments are used to
repay certain bond issues so here again a good, positive financial indicator. And then finally, just
another reminder that Bruce doesn't necessarily care to hear. On GASB 34, the new financial
reporting model that will be required for 2003. Some very significant changes will take place.
That's what we have by way of presentation. Are there any questions for us?
Mayor Jansen: Okay very good, thank you. Council, any questions?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Councihnan Ayotte.
Councihnan Ayotte: First off, this I understand, thank you very much. This upset me. So in
terms of these. Page 8. Consider amending general fund balance process to include reserve or
contingencies. To what parameters did you, is there further suggestion to what degree?
Dave Mol: Yes. Again you have one requirement by policy and that's for cash flow. The reason
for the cash flow reserve is again the timing of property taxes and state aid which is a primary
funding source for general fund operations. Other than that, you don't have any formally
designated reserves. Commonly what we see among cities is a contingency reserve of say 10
percent to 15 percent of your budget.
14
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: On page 9. Environmental protection management fund, not fully funded.
You have explained that a strategy would certainly be in line. Is there a template example. Does
the EPA, and I would expect this would be a state level, suggest a certain criteria template to
employ for this sort of thing, or does one not'exist?
Dave Mol: I'm not sure if I'm necessarily qualified to answer that. You do have 3 activities that
are accounted for in that fund. It' s, if you could go back. Or Bruce, do you recall? It's recycling.
Bruce DeJong: Recycling and Lakeshore Management and Reforestation are the 3 activities in
that fund. Now there is not any requirement that we have this as a separate fund. I think what,
I'm sorry. Is that better?
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Bruce DeJong: There is no requirement that this function as a separate fund. This could be
incorporated into the general fund. What Dave and Melanie are really suggesting to you is
something that we pointed out in the past. There really isn't much for income in this fund. There
is primarily two sources of income. One of those is interest earnings. That continues to go down
based on two things. The interest rate climate and the declining fund balance. And the other is
grants from Carver County for some recycling stuff, which has been very modest in the past. So
what they' re saying is, we can continue financing these activities in this manner for several years,
but because the fund balance goes down $60,000 to $70,000 on an annual basis, we will have to
come up with a financing strategy long term.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. One last question. Page 12, and I don't know did Teresa, is she
still here? The introduction of the meters. This is where it' s going to help, fight? With the
enterprise fund.
Teresa Burgess: The introduction of the meters will assist us in proper tracking of our water
system. And will allow us to capture the funds that we are, for every gallon of water that we put
out, we should be getting back the money associated with that.
Councihnan Ayotte: This is where it will show up?
Teresa Burgess: In the Enterprise Fund, correct.
Councihnan Ayotte: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Peterson: One. On page 5 where you talk about the 5 reportable conditions. I don't
whether you can recall from last year the rating of these out of last year' s reportable condition.
Dave Mol: The first one we had in last year's report, but a number of the accounts that we're
referring to had been taken care of. There's still a, just a few additional accounts that we would
like to see taken care of on a more timely basis so, but improvement in the area.
Councihnan Peterson: And the other 4 are new ones then?
15
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Dave Mol: The written policy on purchasing was there last year. The other 3 are new. Nothing
alarming here but again as Melanie had mentioned, these are improvements that we are
suggesting to tighten up some controls in the area.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions councilmen?
Councilman Labatt: None.
Councilman Boyle: I have none.
Mayor Jansen: I'll just follow up on where Craig was going with the 5 reportable conditions on
page 5 and just look to staff to give us an update on the plans to address these issues. And I guess
I'm recalling the first two, and the second one I think we've seen a couple times so if we can
really get those two addressed and taken care of. To your credit, you've had an enormous amount
of other projects that you' ve been working on and we did make these lower priority to those other
projects because you've done such a tremendous job of straightening up our financials and
making them easy to really be able to digest and understand, so I'm not saying that it should have
come sooner but if we can address those, that would be great and then just giving us a time line
on addressing some of those other issues. And then bringing forward to us, again Todd we
should probably work on putting it on a work session, the suggestion of amending .the general
fund balance policy so there's some council conversation about doing that before we get into the
whole budget process so at least we've given some direction on that. I think those were the only
issues that I think we really need to have further discussion and dialogue with staff on. Thank
you. Appreciate the presentation. Why don't I ask if there's anyone here in the audience that has
any questions. We'll put the auditors on the spot and they can certainly address those at this time.
Seeing none, you're out of the hot seat. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good seeing you this
evening.
Dave Mol: Thank you.
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT g2000-02~ REVISING THE
SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND PARKING
AREA; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; MISS ROSIE'S FARM; 7461 HAZELTINE
BOULEVARD; SUSAN MCALLISTER.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. As you stated, this is an
amendment to an existing Interim Use Permit for a petting farm on the northeast comer of West
78th Street and Highway 41. In July of 2000 the plans for the petting farm was approved. It had a
driveway coming directly off of West 78th, north to the building with the parking located on West
78th Street and adjacent to this driveway. The applicant in the interim has requested that we
revise the site plan. Unfortunately the Interim Use Permit was contingent on the site plan and we
need to come back for council approval on this change. What's changing on this is the alignment
of the driveway into this site with the parking area, and there also relocating the summer kitchen
from the east side of the house to the west side of the house due to some Health Department
concerns. The concern with the plan, as stated, the applicant is requesting a variance to permit
either the use of gravel or grass paved system in the parking and driveway area. This is in
response to the national, it's eligible for registration as a historic site and their guidelines are to
maintain or minimize the changes to the property. The use of either gravel or the grass paved
16
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
system would be more in character with the historic farmstead, and staff is recommending
approval of the amendment with some conditions that provide for the maintenance of that system
to support the commercial activity. There were some issues regarding fire access, but one of the
conditions of approval and I provided for the meeting tonight was a change to this condition for
the 20 foot fire access lane over the 10 foot portion of the driveway. The applicant and the Fire
Marshall are working on an alternative that would provide an emergency access from the northern
parking area directly up to the farmstead area. That would be reserved only for fire access. They
believe that they can work out this system and the condition is that you allow the applicant to
either provide the 20 foot fire access, or this alternative with the Fire Marshall. We did also in
discussion with the applicant, we would like to maintain the 10 year timeframe of the interim use
to recoup the costs that will be involved with creating this so we revised condition 16 to make the
termination date of July 24, 2012. Condition 18(a) was the, an acceptable alternative for
emergency access. We did change condition 20 to say accessible parking rather than handicap
parking. Staff believes that the amendment is appropriate and the use of the alternative system
for parking is a valid concern. The second part of this is development within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District requires a condition use permit. While there is no direct impact of this project,
we were trying to cover all the bases and reviewed that conditional use permit. The only issue we
had was the manure area in the northwest comer, there's a compost pit. The applicant is working
with Carver County Environmental Service to develop a plan. Once that plan is complete then
they' 11 submit to us for our review and approval. With that staff is recommending approval of
both the conditional use permit and the amendment to the IUP subject to the revised conditions
submitted tonight. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you Bob. Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: Which environmental agency at the county level again is concerned with
what?
Bob Generous: Environmental Services is concerned with the manure.' The feces that's
generated on this site.
Councilman Ayotte: Now, with respect to the change in allowance for permit for burning
carcasses and so forth, where would that, show me on the overlay where that was occurring.
Bob Generous: I don't know where, she has to provide us with a disposal plan. I'm not aware
that she is doing that on site.
Susan McAllister: There's a little building that should be shown on that...
Councilman Ayotte: And I guess where I'm going with this, I'm wondering with the review by
the County with respect to the manure pile, is there any issue associated with the position that was
where the animals were being, the animal carcasses were being burned. How's that relate to this
layout? I didn't see, nor do I understand if there's any relationship.
Bob Generous: Not to the amendment that she's proposing. They're moving the summer kitchen
away from where the animals are and the only Other alteration from the previous approval was the
driveway road.
17
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: Is it conceivable to believe that the Health Department has to cut on where
the relocation of the outside kitchen is going to be, could that impact this request? If they say no,
it cannot go here, it must go there.
Bob Generous: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. With regard to the sewer hiccup. H}ccup. Sewer hook-up. Was that
a slip? Is that in any way connected in terms of where the sewer hook-up is going to be and?
Bob Generous: No it's not. With the second phase of Arboretum Village, the developer is
extending the sewer line to the property and that was worked out as part of the BC-7, BC-8
project I believe. Or with, in conjunction with that.
Teresa Burgess: The sewer is brought to the property line. It is the property owners
responsibility to bring it from the property line up to the building.
Councilman Ayotte: But is that, is there any, will approval of this request be affected by the
sewer hook-up, or vice versa?
Teresa Burgess: No.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Bob Generous: We're actually requiring the hook-up this time around because the sewer will be
available.
Councilman Labatt: When was tile sewer brought to her property? Approximately xvhat year?
Bob Generous: It will be completed this month I believe.
Teresa Burgess: The original trunk line was constructed last summer. The Arboretum Village
should be in place at the end of this month, and that is the piece that she would be hooking up to
is the piece...
Councilman Labatt: For how many years has the septic system been failing out there?
Teresa Burgess: We don't ~know how long it's been failing.
Councihnan Labatt: How long has the city been aware of it?
Teresa Burgess: The City's been aware of it, I'm not sure when the property owner was notified
but we were aware of it when she came in with her original application because we conditioned
that she would have to correct that problem.
Councihnan Labatt: And that was what year?
Teresa Burgess: That was last year.
Councilman Peterson: I was going to say 2 years ago.
Bob Generous: 2000.
18
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
Teresa Burgess: 2000. We were aware of it at that time because we did condition the approval,
but I don't know when we sent the actual notice.
Councilman Ayotte: You don't know when what?
Teresa Burgess: When we sent the notice of failure. And our typical, just for the council's
information, our typical failure notice does give a property owner a timeframe to address the issue
in, and this property is not in violation of that timeframe at this time.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff?.
Councilman Labatt: No, maybe Bob has some more.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte, questions for staff? No? Okay. This isn't a public hearing,
and we don't hold further comment. I do know we have the applicant here in the audience so I'm
not suggesting that we will hold a repeat of the hearing at the Planning Commission, but if there
are any new issues that you would like to address with us. I know we received the one statement
that staff has already made the adjustments for, so I'm just looking for any need to address the
council at this time.
Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister. I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard, but now
it's 2930 West 78th Street, Chanhassen. 55317. I don't know ifI have any new issues per se
except I'd like to clarify what you just asked. The chicken, the summer kitchen, moving that is
not required by the Health Department at this time. I just know that it's probably going to be
coming down the pipeline so I'd prefer to do that. And so they have no problem with that and I
have already worked out a plan with Carver County Environmental Services regarding the
manure area, in reference to the Bluff Creek, and the dead animal compost area and there' s no
issue with that whatsoever. I didn't realize that the City wanted to see the plan or I would have
brought it up. It's a real simple, very simple plan. Just V'ing off, V'ing it with some bricks so it
doesn't run straight down. It just kind of goes off to the side so that's what we've worked out.
Mayor Jansen: Alright.
Susan McAllister: And do you mind if I just, I need to ask Bob something because I don't know
if I have an issue with something yet or not.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, certainly.
Susan McAllister: Okay, I do have an issue that I need to discuss.
Mayor Jansen: We're going to do our best to keep this roped into about 5 minutes.
Susan McAllister: Okay. Number, I believe it was condition number 8 that said, well where is it
about the trees Bob? Help me.
Bob Generous: It's 8. The applicant shall plant a windrow of trees along the south and east
property line around the pasture.
Susan McAllister: Okay. I have a real problem with that, and I'm going to reference the Rose
McAllister farmstead public, what would that be? Historic assessment that was published in
19
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
December of 2000. It says in there that trees were quote, this is page 4 of that historic
assessment. Trees were traditionally planted in rural areas of Minnesota to protect the farmstead
from the prevailing northerly and westerly winds. The area that is mentioned in there for the east
and south property line is, for the tree planting or what they're wanting the trees planted on, is
clearly the south and east so that doesn't apply. It goes on to say, in addition the grove north and
east grove now screens Rose McAllister farmstead from the visual intrusion of modern
development. The only gap currently provides a view of a farm field, very much in character
with the farmstead's historical setting. So therefore it falls very clearly to me that there should
not be any trees planted there. Also, I' ve researched this with some farmers this afternoon so I
don't have a lot of land but what I have I need for pasture. If I plant trees around the pasture it
will shade the pasture, therefore causing the pasture not to grow well. Also the east tree line
would shade me from the morning sun, and the south will shade me from the best sun I could
possibly get for my pasture area. For the best possible growing conditions I could get. And as
the trees mature, if they were planted on those two areas, they would take almost all of the water
out of my pasture from 50 feet or more into my pasture area causing poor growing conditions and
then table that with trampling with animal hooves, it's just, I can't. I can't go for that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, is there anything else?
Susan McAllister: No, not that I know of.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Councilman Labatt: Could she answer a couple questions?
Mayor Jansen: Certainly.
Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Sue, number 13 on the plan here. Dead animal disposal plan
shall be provided to the city for review, but tell me you were not aware, a couple minutes ago,
you did not realize you had to file, or let the city know, is that correct?
Susan McAllister: That I didn't what?
Councilman Labatt: According to what you said a couple minutes ago, you said that number 13,
you were not aware of number 13 was in here. That you're required to submit to the city your
dead animal disposal plan. Con'ect?
Susan McAllister: I didn't realize that I had to submit to the city the manure runoff thing that
we've come up with with the Carver County Environmental Services, that's what I said.
Councilman Boyle: I heard her say that she wasn't aware that we were going to ask for that
tonight.
Councilman Labatt: So do you have a plan for disposing of your dead animals?
Susan McAllister: Composting them. With the, according to the Carver County Environmental
Services protocol.
Councilman Labatt: Have you submitted that plan yet to the city?
Susan McAllister: No.
20
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
Councilman Labatt: I want you to briefly explain what that plan is right now then.
Susan McAllister: Okay. What it, okay. Oh god, alright. Do I have to? I will do that. What it
is is you take the dead animals and you put manure and wood shavings on there or leaves or
whatever, and it breaks it down just like it would compost. Compost dead animal into a little pile
of, like if you were to bum them. And there are sometimes where I have applied for a burning
permit to bum my sheep because you can't bury sheep in Minnesota and you can't dispose of
them by rendering truck won't take them so, either that or composting. And they've approved
both of those.
Councilman Labatt: So, and then that's my point. Some of the neighbors to the north there have
become the victims of the smell of the burning sheep.
Susan McAllister: I only burnt them once and that was I think 5 years ago or more.
Councilman Labatt: Well.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, and if you can just submit that plan to the city so that we have it on file,
that would be appreciated.
Susan McAllister: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: And then a couple more questions. How many, can you tell us briefly how
many animals, what's the population on your petting farm of the animals right now? How many
animals?
Susan McAllister: Not that many because I farmed out some of them for breeding and so on
because I'm not open so I don't, I'm not really feeding them. I mean somebody else has got them
to use and they' re paying me so.
Councilman Labatt: So what do you have there right now?
Susan McAllister: Okay. I have a miniature donkey. I have a miniature horse that is coming on
the property like, I was supposed to get it last week. He's been in Cologne for a while. I have
goats.
Councilman Labatt: How many?
Susan McAllister: 4. And 2 sheep. Let's see. I think 10 geese. 2 ducks. 2 feeder pigs. No wait,
3 feeder pigs. A potbelly pig. 2 rabbits. Let's see, a chinchilla. 2 cats. And 2 dogs. I think. I
think that's all it is. I'm trying to think if there are any more. I'm going around in my head. I
believe that's it.
Mayor Jansen: We do have the listing of animals within the original request.
Councilman Labatt: I'm just seeing how they relate to what it is today.
21
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Susan McAllister: Do you mind if I ask why you asked that if there is a list that says what I
planned on having and I did have that until last year when I farmed them out. Because I was
waiting to open and, actually if there's no point in feeding it if I don't...
Councilman Labatt: I'm just curious, you know.
Mayor Jansen: ...just ask and answered, thank you.
Councilman Labatt: And what is your plan, so within a month here the City will have to
Arboretum Park, sewer and water up to your property line. What's your plan as far as executing
ground breakage on?
Susan McAllister: I'm planning on hooking up to the sanitary sewer. With the water, I have a
working well and I plan on keeping that.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, well what's your timeframe?
Susan McAllister: In the next, I don't know. 3 or 4 months to hook up to that. Well before
winter sets in I can assure you.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Susan McAllister: Until then I'm, a pump. They pump it when I call them so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Teresa, is there any requirement for that to be done within a specific
timeframe as to when the sewer's available?
Teresa Burgess: Susan is on an approved plan through our inspections department and as tong as
she works with Steve Terrell to keep that up to date there's not a problem.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Susan McAllister: And I've been working with him to keep it up.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Anything else?
Councilman Labatt: I think that's it.
Susan McAllister: Let's try to keep it out of the gutter as much as possible.
Mayor Jansen: No, thank you for answering questions. Appreciate it Susan.
Susan McAllister: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for Susan at this time? Okay. Then I'm going to bring this
back to council. Discussion. Comments?
Councilman Ayotte: I'm not comfortable with it.
Mayor Jansen: Be specific.
22
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: There's been too much staff time interaction and too many things that
appear to be on again and off again. And I'm simply not comfortable with it. I don't have a
comfortable feeling that it is environment, that is healthful, bedause of all the loose strings that
are still associated with other activities. And for that reason I just can't bring myself to say aye to
this. I just don't feel comfortable with it.
Mayor Jansen: So in order to be more comfortable with the healthful issues, we've addressed the
sanitary sewer. Addressed the manure from drainage.
Councilman Ayotte: I would like to see the specifics associated with the plan for positioning of
the kitchen A, B. I also would feel more comfortable in knowing more specifics with the
structural integrity issues on some of the buildings or on site. C. I still feel uncomfortable with
respect to the hook-up of the sewer. I hear what staff has to say but I am not certain that there' s
going to be compliance on the part of the petitioner with getting the sewer hooked up, and where
you have the situation where it's going to be a public events activity for the public to visit this
place, and to not have those sorts of things done, I feel uncomfortable with that. I still feel
somewhat, possibly because of ignorance of the disposal of animal carcass. I heard the
explanation by Ms. McAllister, but I simply don't feel comfortable in terms of it being a positive,
healthful environment for the city of Chanhassen. So for that reason I don't feel compelled to
vote yes on this thing.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Why don't we go on with comments, and I can come back to those.
Councilman Peterson: I guess I am more comfortable than Councilman Ayotte is. I think the
only issue that, all the ones I think that Bob addressed can be put in as conditions, or are already
as conditions and if they're not met, we can revoke the permit. So the only way I have a question
is the trees around the pasture, and perhaps I should have asked this before. How big is that
pasture? Is it an acre? 2 acres? Okay. That's the only one that I can empathize with the points
but it's a screening issue more than, you know it will change the character of the pasture because
of the shade and because of the water but having grown up on a farm, it' s not going to be a
tremendous amount but I think the screening would probably more than compensate for the
benefit of the loss of that grass.
Mayor Jansen: And I actually wondered, since you brought that point up, if since it was SHPO
that noted in one of their memos that it might help to preserve the integrity of the farmstead, if we -
don't make that part of that condition. That the applicant would work with staff and SHPO and
the Historic Preservation Society to make sure that that is in fact the right thing to do on this
property. And how to execute it was I guess one of my thoughts to that point.
Councilman Peterson: I would agree.
Councilman Boyle: I agree with that comment.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Boyle: I really, other than what's been brought up, I feel quite a bit more
comfortable than Bob does also. And the tree issue was one that I had noted, but if that can be
compromised or worked out someplace, I think it' s, I have no problem with this plan.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
23
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Councilman Labatt: Well I'm more along the lines with Bob. I'm, you know with number 17.
All buildings must meet code requirements as required for new buildings. All buildings and the
areas intended for use by the public must be accessible. I'm more, you know some of these older
buildings that you've got 3 of the buildings that used to belong to the farm at Lake Ann that were
moved, have sat there on stilts for a year and a half or so. It seems like, before I go in there and
feel comfortable voting yes on this, I need to see some of the action that, some of the plans that
have been asked for back when this was originally approved have not been submitted to the city
and some of the requirements so, until I see some action from the petitioner.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Appreciate that. I certainly can relate and see the issues that are being
raised by Councilman Ayotte and now being addressed by Councilman Labatt, and I'm just
wondering if there's a way for us to address those issues in a condition. For one, a lot of the
issues that Councilman Ayotte brought up are conditions that do have to occur prior to the public
having access to this property and this project, and maybe what we need is to be confident that
we've put a condition in here that allows staff to stay on top of that enforcement, since there is a
concern that I'm hearing on council's part that we maybe need to help provide that ability for
them to go in and get these things executed and to that point, On the sanitary sewer, if in fact she's
following the guidelines and was comfortable saying here this evening that you know hooking up
in the next 3 to 4 months is something that would be feasible, potentially you make that a
condition versus a denial since it has come this far.
Councilman Ayotte: Well here's, Madam Mayor.
Mayor Jansen: Certainly, please do Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: Where I have a problem is the part that requires that our staff become more
embedded and involved with regard to the effort. The staff has done...task in assisting Ms.
McAllister through the process. And I' m thinking of the balance of the community with respect
to staff's time. The requirement for Ms. McAllister to submit plans and proposals should not
necessarily be hinged upon the staff' s involvement as it has been in the past. I think Ms.
McAllister has a responsibility to incur her expenses to further her business along, and to provide
the submittals that the city requires without so much involvement on the part of staff. So with
that caveat, if we could ensure that as a part of the condition that staff, and certainly supports the
citizens as they would any other citizen, but to a reasonable point.
Mayor Jansen: I certainly understand the points that you're making, and the only point I would
make here, maybe on behalf of the applicant and staff having to spend a tremendous amount of
time on this project is, it is somewhat unique. And there are other issues that I know that you are
expressing these opinions towards and I think certainly encouraging the applicant to be
expeditious in taking care of some of these issues is maybe coming across loud and clear. A
conditional use permit is contingent upon all of these conditions being made, correct? I mean the
council has the ability to yank this conditional use permit if these conditions are not fulfilled, is
that correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: That's correct...
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if we get to a point where the sanitary sewer is not hooked up in 3 to 4
months, this can be called back in and the CLIP could be denied.
Roger Knutson: For exarnple on that condition if you wanted to put a time line on it, you could
say it must be completed by, and you fill in the date.
24
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: I guess that's my point. To include, as example the structural concerns of
those buildings. It seems to me that we should someway put a line in the sand with what the
resolution is going to be for those structures. Is that a reasonable thing to request?
Mayor Jansen: As referring to the structures that are still sitting on pillars and not on foundations
currently. Okay. When would the inspections department typically take a look at those
structures? While they're still sitting in their temporary locations or once they are placed on
foundations?
Todd Gerhardt: I mean we'd like to see it when they put the foundation down. When they start
pulling a building permit.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, if I could point out. That condition does require that it be
reviewed by a structural engineer, which we do not have on staff. That would have to be a
consultant service that would be brought in by Ms. McAllister to evaluate those facilities. That
would not be done by our staff.
Councilman Ayotte: By when though? Is it reasonable to put a time line on that?
Teresa Burgess: What it states is prior to public use.
Mayor Jansen: You're making sure that your healthful issues are addressed prior to the public
being exposed to those potential issues.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there a safety issue now potentially? And do we as a city have any
responsibility with the enforcement of the safety issue before it's open to the public?
Teresa Burgess: There are concerns if we were to have public nuisance issues. And those fall
under our existing ordinance with public nuisance. At this point we have not had complaints of
trespassers in the area or safety concerns. We have had properties other than this one that have
had buildings that were probably not safe, and they were not occupied and those did not result in
any problem. This one because it's come through the process does fall under, we can now
condition it with the approval, but the only other option would be to talk with our attorney if we
felt that it was a public nuisance and pursue it in that manner.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm more concerned with respect to safety. A kid going on the property and
having an unsafe environment. Do we have a responsibility from that standpoint?
Mayor Jansen: That would be as it pertains to the structures that are sitting in their temporary
locations?
Councilman Ayotte: As an example, yes.
Mayor Jansen: Just to try and give you.
Roger Knutson: I can't address the degree of hazards. I haven't seen these buildings. I have no
knowledge of that subject. If we know something is hazardous, we should try to eliminate the
hazard as quickly as we can. Putting a time limit on it? Are they unsafe if unused? The question
is, and if the public isn't using these buildings or these structures, are they, do they still create a
danger? Again I can't answer that question. I don't know about the structures. If that is a
25
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
concern you can say, you have to have these buildings meet this condition or be removed from
the property by, and you can fill in a date if you wish to. Otherwise you can say as it is here, they
can't be put to use.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Again, just a reminder, as you all know. They already have their interim use
permit. They're already, she's already there. It's the amendments we're really addressing now.
Councilman Ayotte: One mistake though does not begat another.
Roger Knutson: No, but she can stay in business...no matter what.
Mayor Jansen: So I think what is being suggested is that because we have the ability to put
conditions on this, because it exists, it would be prudent to put the conditions on because you
can't deny the permit currently. I mean it's there. They're not operating.
Councilman Labatt: The question is, these buildings I think were brought on after the permit was
given, so now we can address them with this permit.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Sure, and put a sunset date on there as to when you would like to see those on
foundations. Certainly. I think that's what Roger was suggesting. Now's the ability to do that so
that's great, if you want to do that. Okay. Who wants to take a stab at making the changes that
we have just been kicking around?
Councih-nan Ayotte: I'd like to introduce the condition that we, based on staff recommendation,
establish a sunset date for ensuring that the buildings that are on temporary footings, is that an
acceptable term? Be planned out for an inspection to assure that they are safe before they're put
on foundations.
Mayor Jansen: Would that become part of condition 177
Councilman Ayotte: I would suspect so.
Roger Knutson: 17 or 17(a), whatever you want to call it.
Bob Generous: 17(g).
Roger Knutson: You might want to consider putting an absolute time limit on that as well.
Councilman Ayotte: Well.
Councilman Labatt: November 1.
Mayor Jansen: Because then it's done for winter?
Councilman Labatt: Well.
Mayor Jansen: During this construction period.
26
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Yeah, I mean. That gives her 4 months. 4 ½ months.
Councilman Boyle: It's all public buildings must meet code requirements as required because of
the change of occupancy, blah, blah, blah. All buildings and areas intended for use by the public
must be an accessible route. I mean, structures intended for public use must be evaluated by a
structural engineer to determine the building is safe for occupancy. Aren't we covered?
Mayor Jansen: I'm hearing the concern being that they've been sitting on temporary footings and
it's more wanting to get them into a stable position in a more timely manner is what I'm not
hearing the issue potentially is.
Councilman Ayotte: With an effect date of 1 November.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So that will be an addition to 17 (g) as a sunset of the November 1st as Bob
just defined the terms.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor?
Mayor Jansen: Yes.
Teresa Burgess: Just, I really don't have a preference but just as a cleaner way to do it, as an
alternative would be just to condition that all of the conditions must be met by November 1 and
then you've addressed all of them and given them all a sunset date.
Councilman Ayotte: Well can we do that because, we can do that? Okay, because I thought
because of the fact that the buildings were brought on the property after...
Mayor Jansen: No, I think we're being clear as to what we're requesting and then you also have
your sanitary sewer hook-up addressed by November 1st and all of the site plans that need to be
submitted to the City will be done by November 1st. Just everything needs to be cleaned up and
done by November 1st
Councilman Ayotte: I feel good with that then.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay. So if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: I make a motion that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit
#2000-2, subject to 1 through 6.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, if I could have a second please.
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approves
Conditional Use Permit #2000-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District, subject to the following conditions:
1. No alterations or construction shall be permitted in the Primary Zone.
2. A 50 foot building setback shall be required from the northeast property line.
27
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
Any trail development must be coordinated with the City's Parks & Recreation
Department.
,
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within
two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook.
.
The storm water runoff from the manure/compost area shall be buffered prior to
discharge into the Bluff Creek Overlay District to protect water quality. The applicant
shall work with city staff to develop and appropriate buffer plan.
.
For safety purposes, the duck pond shall have a 10 foot wide safety bench at the normal
water level. The slope of the safety bench shall not be steeper than 10:1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a second motion please.
Councilman Peterson: I'd recommend that City Council approve the amendment to the Interim
Use Permit #2000-2 as noted with conditions 1 through 30 with 31 being an addition that states
that all these conditions must be met by November 1st of 2002.
Mayor Jansen: And is that with the revision to the language on number 8 as far as the tree line?
Councilman Peterson: That would be affirmative.
Mayor Jansen: Will work with staff and the... Okay. Can I have a second please?
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approves
the amendment to Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan
with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system, based on plans dated
February 22, 2000, as revised 12/27/01, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan shall comply with Sec. 20-267. Petting Farms.
.
Accumulation of feces shall be located at least 200 feet from any well. Accumulation of
feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable
odors exist. The premise shall not be allowed to become unsightly.
3. Parking shall be limited to 10 stalls with the provision for one (1) bus.
.
An eight-foot accessible parking space with an eight foot wide access must be provided.
This space must be located as close to the business entrance as possible. Signage must be
provided in accordance with the Minnesota Building Code.
28
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
.
.
.
.
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Handicap parking may not be located adjacent to the house unless the driveway from the
southern parking area to the parking stalls and the parking stalls themselves are improved
to commercial standards (26 foot wide drive aisles with seven ton roadway design).
If the handicap parking is located in the southerly parking area, then an accessible trail
must be provided from the parking area to the petting farm area.
The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the proposed development. The applicant
shall show the location, size and species of proposed trees and shrubs.
The applicant will be required to plant a windrow of trees along the south and east
property lines around the pasture if it is deemed appropriate by SHPO and the Historic
Preservation Society.
Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading and shall be installed prior
to construction.
Landscaping shall be added to the area between the parking lot and West 78th Street to
provide a buffer. Included in the plantings shall be 2 overstory trees, 6 understory trees,
and 6 shrubs. Installation of buffer yard plantings or a landscaped escrow is required
prior to beginning operation of the petting farm.
Landscaping may be required for the parking lot if it exceeds 6,000 square feet.
The site shall only have access from West 78th Street. The northerly access on Highway
41 shall not be used for public access.
A dead animal disposal plan shall be submitted to the city for review.
The permit shall be reviewed annually to determine compliance.
The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such
as Carver County, DNR, USDA, etc.
The interim use shall terminate in ten (i0) years (by July 24, 2012).
The Building Officials conditions are as follows:
bo
Co
All public buildings must meet code requirements as required for new buildings
because of the change in occupancy classification.
All buildings and areas intended for use by the public must be on an accessible
route and accessible to people with disabilities.
One accessible parking space must be provided.
Accessible sanitation facilities must be provided. Portable facilities may be allowed
with a seasonal use, (defined as a use of six months or less per year), if permitted by
the building code.
1. The use proposed requires that permanent sanitation facilities be provided,
two restrooms, one male and one female.
2. The property must connect to city sanitary sewer service.
3. The existing septic system, which is failing, must be abandoned.
29
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
so
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
The food preparation facilities require approval from the Minnesota Department of
Health.
f. Structures intended for public use must be evaluated by a structural engineer to
determine if the building is safe for occupancy.
The Fire Marshal's conditions are as follows:
a. A 20 foot wide fire lane shall be provided, or an alternate acceptable to the Fire
Marshal.
b. The Fire Marshal shall review the existing buildings to be utilized for the petting
farm to determine code compliance.
c. Smoking is prohibited in any building used in conjunction with the business.
d. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on the fire lane.
e. Any new driveway must be designed to support the weight of a fire truck year
round.
f. Any new driveway must be installed prior to the removal of the existing driveway.
g. The amount of combustible material (i.e. hay, straw, etc) on the floors of any
buildings used in the business must meet fire code requirements.
h. All electrical wiring must meet code.
Revise the driveway width to 26 foot at the parking entrance and not the whole driveway,
and a maximum 10% grade is allowed.
The accessible parking must be off the commercial portion of the driveway with
appropriate signage.
Add City Detail Plate No. 5300.
Re-sod or re-seed any disturbed area.
Add a benchmark to the plan.
The applicant must get MnDot permit for right-of-way grading.
Show parking stall width and length.
Revise the driveway side slope to a maximum 3:1 along the west side.
All plan sheets must be signed by a Registered Engineer.
The applicant needs to submit:
a. A maintenance schedule for the gravel drive for review by the City.
b. A letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 125% of the cost of the annual
maintenance.
In addition, the applicant will be required to sign an agreement that:
a. The property owner will submit an annual inspection report confirming that the
driveway has been properly maintained to ensure the 7-ton design remains viable.
That inspection to be performed by someone mutually agreeable to the property
owner and the City of Chanhassen.
30
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
bo
If the maintenance schedule is not met, the City reserves the right to perform the
maintenance and bill the property owner for actual cost plus 30% for administrative
costs.
Should it become apparent that the property owner is incapable or unwilling to
maintain the 7 ton gravel road appropriately, the drive related parking areas would
be closed for commercial use until such time as they are reconstructed to meet the
then current city standards for commercial drives.
30. The State Historic Preservation Office shall review and approve any alterations to the site.
31. All conditions of the Interim Use Permit shall be met by November 1, 2002.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Sue, I think you heard some concerns expressed here this evening and I hope it's
all taken very constructively. We're not saying don't do your business. I think we're just
wanting to see it done properly in the public's best interest. So we appreciate all your efforts and
just encourage that you move along on a few of those things, but you're certainly set with your
driveway now and the shape that you wanted it in and we appreciate your working with staff, so
thank you. And staff, we appreciate all of your work and effort on this particular project, and
certainly the Planning Commission who went through it as well so thank you.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SOUTHWEST METRO
TRANSIT COMMISSION.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Labatt has a scheduling conflict now for that position and I believe
Councilman Peterson has volunteered to take on the assignment.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Councihnan Labatt: I move we appoint Craig.
Councihnan Boyle: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to appoint Councilman Peterson as
the council representative to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Craig, thank you for taking that on for us. We certainly appreciate it.
(The quality of the tape at this point was very poor for the rest of the meeting.)
COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATES.
Councilman Ayotte provided the City Council with an update on the Environmental Commission
meeting and the Water Treatment meetings.
Mayor Jansen: Okay great. Any other reports from Council? I had a scheduling conflict with the
last Planning Commission meeting so I was not in attendance, though we did discuss some of the
issues that did come up during our work session earlier this evening with the Planning
Commission in our joint meeting so nothing further to report there. And I don't think there's
31
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
been any other. It's been a little quiet for meetings. You can tell we're in summer mode. I
should mention that on Wednesday evening this week, what is the name of their program? It' s
the Ridgeview Medical in conjunction with the Carver County leadership group. They hold a 3
month meeting that is in fact being hosted by Chanhassen Wednesday night. It's to tour projects
that have been done in partnership and they had worked with staff to arrange to be able to start
the tour at our Rec Center. There will be District 112 representative as well as our staff
representative there to give them an overview of the project and how that was pulled together in
partnership so I certainly appreciated staff' s efforts in working on that. Plus that leadership
forum that we had received invitations for at the beginning of the year so they are concentrating
on the partnership projects and there will be a bus tour then of some additional projects
throughout the county on Wednesday evening. So that is happening and I just wanted to mention
to staff' s credit that they have been working with those representatives to get that coordinated.
Todd Gerhardt: ...hour of that bus time for that tour also.
Mayor Jansen: I think Chaska used all of their's. There's another partnership for you. Get that
all taken care of...
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE OF BIDS FOR TH 101 TRAIL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT No. 97-12-3.
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. I do have some handouts for you here.
Mayor Jansen: It's somewhat last minute in that the bids werejust opened this morning, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So all of this is fresh off the press from Teresa working on it today.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor and Council. I apologize. I have been up, down and all over the
place tonight during the council meeting. The only thing I can claim is I'm still on an adrenalin
rush from having opened these bids this morning.., but this came in very well. If you turn to the
last page there's a summary sheet in the packet that you received, and I do have a couple more for
those people that are in the rest of the room, if you want to grab one. The very last page, I'll put
it up on the overhead. The project had two bids, two alternates to the original bid. The original
bid was the 6 foot wide trail. You can see here the numbers you see on the board, we received 2
bids. This one right here is the engineer's estimate, and it is $791,921.00 for the 6 foot trail. Our
low bidder was Rosti Construction of $768,756.20. Bid Alternate #1 was the 8 foot trail in here.
Engineer's estimate was $864,671.00. You can see the 8 foot trail, $798,366.20 .... $30,000
difference between the 6 foot and the 8 foot trail with Rosti's bid. Now we do have another
bidder...move it over a little bit so people at home can see it. We did have a second bidder
telling us that we do have a good project bid. Substantially higher though. Rosti is the apparent
low bidder. We have checked all the numbers. We are currently checking their references but we
do have a good feeling about Rosti because of past work, but we will still check their references
just as a matter of course.
Councilman Ayotte: Past work with us?
Teresa Burgess: Past work with our consultant. And so based on that, at this point staff is
comfortable with the bids. However, there is some information the council should be aware of
and take into account. I have a call into the DNR. They have returned my call and said they
32
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
don't know but will find out for me by next week when I have to write my staff report for the
council meeting on the 8m. The matching grant from the DNR, we are not sure what the matching
ratio is. Our assumption, based on the information that we've received both written and verbal,
was that it's a 50/50 construction cost only matching grant. However, when I called DNR today
and said can you confirm that for me please, they don't know. There may be a different matching
ratio for this. The City may not have to put up the 50/50. Or we may be able to count some of
the engineering. We don't know. We won't know for at least a week. So that is still something
that' s out there. On top of these costs that you see in here, we do have some additional costs that
are not in the construction, that is engineering that is also part of this project. Direct cost for this
project include approximately $280,000 in engineering... We had a little bit of cost over run
because we went back and re-designed the trail for the 6 foot. We had originally designed the 8
foot. We .don't have those totals yet. They're still tallying that. We also have some in-house
costs but we will absorb those costs within our existing budgets. When you see the final tally
sheet for this project when we're all done, we will show them but they are not financed out of the
funding for this project. So council just needs to be aware of that as we're talking about the
project. One of the things that we did want to do tonight is, if there are any portions of the project
that council is interested in how much would it save us to not do. I cannot answer that tonight,
but I will go back and calculate that because we have to go back and look at the plans. The
retaining walls are a huge part of the cost and it depends if there' s a retaining wall in that area or
not that makes the biggest difference. The other issues is wetland mitigation, and so I did bring
the large scale map and I brought the plans and if council can just give me some ideas of what
areas, if any, you' re interested in us looking at for attrition to the plan, while still providing
service to the neighborhoods. We will calculate that in time for the July 8th council meeting with
the actual award and provide you that information in our next staff report.
Mayor Jansen: There had been some conversation that on some of the northerly properties, that's
where you have the easement issues as far as acquisition, that we could stop the project a little
short and the neighborhood would still have that connection up to Pleasant View. If you could
maybe point out that segment for us.
Teresa Burgess: Sure. And again this is going to be really tiny and I apologize. We are still in
the process right now, the attorney is working on offers to the property owners. We should have
the appraisal and we did a mass appraisal which means we went out and we had the appraiser
look at all of the properties at once and he' s providing a letter response to each property, and not
doing a full blown appraisal on each property. It saves the city a substantial amount of money
and based on the type of easements we're taking, it's not necessary to do a full appraisal. So that
information is still out. Until we have those numbers we really can't make offers but there are
some parcels that it is obvious we don't need to acquire if there is not an ability to negotiate. The
3 northern parcels, are ones that we could possibly eliminate from the project. This is Pleasant
View Road up to the north. This right here is Fox Hollow Drive, and if you look, although it's a
little round about, Fox Hollow Drive connects up to Pleasant View Road, which means we would
have 3 properties that would not have direct access, and actually 2 of those still would. So we
actually have 1 property that does not have access onto the trail and we would still be able to
provide service into the trail system. They would just have to take Fox Hollow instead of this
section of trail right here. So that is an obvious place if we wanted to look at it as a place to
eliminate cost would be to drop off this section of the trail, and not have to deal with those 3
property owners. These are the 3 that we have a substantial amount of easement to acquire from
because right now the road right-of-way ends at the asphalt.
Councihnan Labatt: So how, the folks up there in Near Mountain. I mean how would they
access north of Pleasant View up by Cascade and?
33
City Council Meeting - June 24, 2002
Teresa Burgess: Our trail ended at Pleasant View.
Councilman Labatt: Right, but I mean they can come down.
Teresa Burgess: They would come down through the neighborhood. Here's Near Mountain.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, so they would come down.
Teresa Burgess: They would have to come down and pick up.
Councilman Labatt: Right. But with acquiring those 3 properties, they could just shoot down.
Teresa Burgess: They could shoot this way instead.
Councilman Ayotte: In all honesty, the traffic activity on Pleasant View, I mean it's a game to go
there. If you go out for a jog...go all over anyways. But that's not a bad idea and I think it
certainly is an option we ought to consider.
Teresa Burgess: And keep in mind the council's not making a determination this evening, unless
you choose to. I'm just asking, where do you want me to investigate for cost savings. The other
piece that we could take out, if we so chose, Choctaw Circle does not have access into another
neighborhood unless we pick them up either from the north or from the south. We could
theoretically eliminate either this piece or this piece. We would not eliminate both. I would not
recommend eliminating both but we could eliminate one of these 2 pieces. If we eliminate the
southern piece, we do not have any direct impact. However then Choctaw has to go north to get
out. And I know that when we were in the public hearings previously, a lot of people were saying
what they really wanted was access into downtown, and we're forcing them to go north instead.
They won't have direct access into the downtown area. It's much more round about to get to the
library, which was the big push. But we could eliminate this leg. Serve Choctaw to the north and
not have to build this piece, which does go through some wetland type property. The other piece
that could be eliminated that would be viable and still provide service to the neighborhood is this
piece between Choctaw and Fox Hollow. Then we are forcing this neighborhood to the north, but
Choctaw then comes south. This area is wetland. The problem with doing this, just so the
council's aware of it, is we have 2 parcels, actually one parcel that then would not have access
onto the trail directly and they would have to come, would not have direct into it. They would be
cut off from the trail. Those are the two that we could eliminate one of either one. This one can
be eliminated and still provide service except to the one parcel. These 2, one of them could be
eliminated but not both if the council wants to explore that possibility. The remainder of the trail
to provide service into the neighborhood and get them connected up with the rest of the city is not
viable for this connection. We could take out some little pieces but it's just not worth the effort.
Councilman Labatt: So Teresa, by taking a section out here, a section out there, that's going to
interrupt the straight passage from Pleasant View all the way down to...from Pleasant View or
Fox Hollow all the way down to downtown...City Council meetings.
Teresa Burgess: If we do an interruption like this, then they cannot do that. They would not be
able to come straight down.
Councilman Peterson: This is ridiculous to be talking about. We're under budget so why are we
talking about it?
34
City Council Meeting- June 24, 2002
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, that's my point.
Teresa Burgess: It also becomes.
Councilman Labatt: ...under budget so why do we, I hate to. I mean I hate to do a piece here and
a piece there. Let's do the whole swath.
Councilman Ayotte: The only place where I see, if we have difficulty in coming to an agreement
with those homeowners with respect to easement, that's the only part that I think we need to
address.
Todd Gerhardt: I think the reason Teresa's giving you these options is if you remember the last
set of plans that we had in front of you, it was bid out in segments. Council directed staff to look
at segments and I suggested that we go with the linear foot set of specifications. So what
Teresa's trying to do is to lay out options based on the linear foot, but your point is is that our
bids have come under budget. There's still the question regarding the $100,000 dollar question.
If it's going to be covered under the DNR grant or not, and we'll get you an answer to that
hopefully before our next meeting.
Teresa Burgess: And just to clarify. StafFs recommendation based on the bid opening this
morning, and on maintenance issues, to take these pieces out makes it harder to maintain because
now we're going to have to jump across where we can just hit it and go. Our recommendation
would be the 8 foot trail and that we build the entire thing, with the only exception possibly being
these 3 parcels based on our negotiations with those property owners. If they are difficult to
acquire, we would not, we would just walk away from that and stop at Fox Hollow instead of
Pleasant View.
Mayor Jansen: Agreed.
Teresa Burgess: But staff recommendation would be the 8 foot.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, because it looks like they're the only ones that would have an alternative to
be able to use, if that segment was not built. And cut off access the way we do with the other 2.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. And those 3 property owners also have direct impact on whether that
piece gets built or not because if they choose to cooperate with the easement negotiation, they get
a trail in front of their house. And if they choose not to, they don't get a trail where some of the
other property owners have no, they don't have the option of cooperating or not cooperating. It's
either we got it or we didn't, and so those 3 are easy decisions. The remainder staff would
recommend approval.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then you'll just get us an update on what the DNR in fact expresses to
US.
Teresa Burgess: We are hoping to hear back soon, and we have some other issues we need to
work out with the DNR like how do we get the check. The important things.
Councilman Labatt: You mean Tom doesn't deliver it?
Teresa Burgess: Tom has volunteered to personally, to courier the check.
35
City Council Meeting -June 24, 2002
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't think we trust him though.
Mayor Jansen: So at this point it's on our agenda to just get an update on the bids. Roger, Todd?
I'm assuming at this point, even though the agenda says update of bids, can we move for approval
or are you more comfortable with us waiting until we get the DNR information and it's on our
July 8th calendar.
Todd Gerhardt: Well you definitely can approve it tonight but I think we should do some
verifications. Two weeks isn't going to gain a lot for us here.
Roger Knutson: The only thing I heard, they haven't finished checking out the contractor yet...
Mayor Jansen: That sounds like good diligence so we will wait until July 8th. Thank you for the
update and running through all this. Appreciate it.
Teresa Burgess: We would also like to publish the information so that people are aware that can
catch it on cable TV that night. We'd encourage them to watch it from home so the council is
going to take the action they're hoping for.
Mayor Jansen: They've been here for every other one of our votes. I would hope they would
drag themselves down for this approval, right.
Councilman Ayotte: Mr. Mendez, are you listening?
Mayor Jansen: Shall we be direct? That will be a good meeting.
Teresa Burgess: Actually the next council meeting are those assessment hearings so we really
don't need to pack the house.
Mayor Jansen: Maybe with positive, right? Okay. I believe that was our last agenda item. Mr.
Gerhardt, do you have anything additional?
Todd Gerhardt: No I don't. We're moving dirt on the library.
Councihnan Peterson: Looking at the dirt coming out of there, I can't believe how black it is.
That's a good sign isn't it? For soil conditions.
Todd Gerhardt: Black? No.
Teresa Burgess: Black are organics.
Todd Gerhardt: Can't build on organic.
Councilman Peterson: I ~ow but right now the topsoil was remarkably black.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, we're going to have good material to lay back down once we establish
final grade out there. A lot of that material came from when we put the third addition onto City
Hall and.
36
City Council Meeting -June 24, 2002
Councilman Peterson: Oh, we did spread it around didn't we. Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. If you remember that site used to be substantially lower than the
foundation of the old bank building and we used to pond water every once in a while.
Councilman Peterson: So what they've found right now is good, bad or indifferent, or don't you
really know?
Todd Gerhardt: It's bad. And whenever you've got to pull something out it's bad, and then you
have to truck in good will be sand. We did, you will see a change order on soil corrections.
There was a typo on the bid specifications. Somebody typed in 6 inches versus 6 feet so the bids
were based on 6 inches versus 6 feet so that will be another change order that will come before
you but, it was a mistake and you live through those so. That's what contingencies are for.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thanks for the update.
Councilman Peterson: Where are we at with the Roundhouse Park? I haven't heard much about
that.
Todd Hoffman: I talked or communicated with via email with Deanna on a bi-monthly basis and
she is looking forward to coming back and talking with the council probably either on the 8th of
July or the following meeting. They continue to work through a variety of alternatives. Going
non-profit. Not going non-profit. And so they've got a lot of work under their belt, but I don't
think they're...exactly how they're going to tackle the round house so, work has not started and I
do not believe that the project could be done by the council's deadline which was this November.
Deanna would like to see that completion date be next fall, but I was very specific with her that
council does not have that expectation. They have an expectation of this fall so, you'll be seeing
her shortly.
Mayor Jansen: Thanks for the update. Anything else? As scheduled we are going to adjourn this
meeting and move back to our work session items to get that completed this evening so we will
be going back up to the courtyard conference room. So if I could have a motion to adjourn.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45
p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 18, 2002
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, LuAnn Sidney, Uli
Sacchet, and Rich Slagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff,
Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
EXPANSION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3920 LESLEE CURVE (PAUL & LIBBY
SCHEELE)~ KNIGHT CONSTRUCTION.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of staff? Uli, go ahead.
Sacchet: One quick question. The staff report says that the applicant did propose some changes,
and that there is a little bit of a reduction with the eave going in. But then it also makes a
statement that the applicant did not consider, or discuss on the other side of the garage a stand
alone or attach on the other side. Now there is enough room on the other side to have a stand
alone? Is a stand alone unacceptable or?
Aanenson: You're talking about on this side of the lot?
Sacchet: On the opposite side, yes where there's room.
Aanenson: On this side of the lot doing a stand alone. I'll let the applicant address whether or
not that met their needs.
Sacchet: But city wise, ordinance wise that would be acceptable?
Aanenson: Yes, if they can the setbacks of 30 foot and 10 on the sides, correct.
Sacchet: Thank you. That's my question.
Blackowiak: Okay. Questions anyone?
Lillehaug: I do have a question. You also reduced, or the eave was reduced from 18 inches to 12
inches. Does that meet, is that a reasonable overhang? Does it meet the current standard
construction practices for that?
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Aanenson: Right. The reason we are concerned about that is we found in the past, the ordinance
does allow for encroachment into the setback for certain architectural features such as eaves, bay
windows and the like but what we found through our experiences when we granted variances,
sometimes they have taken, you know the expectation of the neighbors that maybe we gave a 3
foot variance and then they added onto that, the bay window, so even took it to the next level so
we amended the ordinance to say that with the variance that is the fine line. You can't encroach
into it further so through the roof line, which they need to change the pitch of the roof. We
wanted that as minimal as possible so you're causing a runoff onto the neighbor's property so
they brought it back as far as they could make it work.
Lillehaug: Okay, but is 12 inches, is that acceptable?
Aanenson: It's still, it's part of that variance. It'd still be part of that. I mean that's the best that
they can do.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Blackowiak: Thank you. At this time would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? If so, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Paul Scheele: Thank you. I'm Paul Scheele, the owner of the property at 3920 Lestee Curve. I'd
like to bring a couple of points to your attention in this project. Yes, we did look at the other side
of the property to see if that was a possible use and it really, without demolishing the home in the
process of attaching it. We did show that to Mr. Generous as one of the possible plans and what
we're requesting is for the variance, in order to maintain the aesthetic of the home and more
consistency with the neighborhood. The thing which really got me thinking based on our
previous.meeting was what exactly the whole thing about variance was. It was an education for
me so I really dug into it with some relish and I really do appreciate what you're doing. More so
I look back to 1957 to understand how this neighborhood was constructed originally and I was
really impressed about Mr. Les Anderson, who developed this property back then was a very
forward thinking man. In fact he designed this neighborhood with a minimum of 20 to 30 feet
between each home for the very purposes that you' re attempting to enforce by maintaining the
codes at this time, so he was way ahead of his time before the incorporation of the city in fact.
He was planning not only for his retirement but for the aesthetic of the community. I spoke with
both his spouse. He's passed on but I spoke with his spouse and also with his son who was
involved in the construction at the time and what he said to me was fascinating. He said that yes,
in fact his father was concerned about houses were piling on top of each other in Minneapolis and
he wanted to create a community where there's minimum distance between homes and something
very interesting about this property, and I don't ~know that it meets the condition of a hardship,
but I would like to read this note from Mrs. Anderson. At the time the house was staked, the
house was placed too close to the lot line on the east side. This was not discovered until the
house was con-tpleted in the fall of 1957 when the owner of that property wanted to create a fence
between the two, so this was an unusual circumstance. It was not in the original plan of the
community. Nevertheless, the distance between the existing structure and the other home, the
adjacent home is over 40 feet right now which, 46 feet and with the proposed change to the plan
that you had seen earlier with the angling away from the property lot line, there would be close to
54 feet between the two properties. And we've spoken with our neighbor and not only is Mr.
Anderson delighted that something is happening to this house to change the look of the front of
the home, but our neighbor is as well. He's very excited about the fact that this is going in. He
just invested in the future of his home with the expectation, eye on the future of future property
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
owners. He' s put quite an addition onto the side, the opposite east side of his home and the only
thing on the west side of his property at this time is a garage and there is no intent to make any
changes at that time. So looking into this, I feel that if you take a look at the aesthetic and I know
you have come out and looked at the property. That it's a good plan. It's not cheap. It's also not
a vain product. It's a product which is intended to enhance the look of the property, but also
maintain the aesthetic of the community as Mr. Anderson had originally proposed. One final
item if I could show this. Maybe it' s this way. This blue line here represents the original design
of the plan, modified as we are proposing it to you now as you've asked us to come back with an
additional plan. We've brought the new structure absolutely up to the limit that we can before we
begin impinging on a lot of construction that' s already been done to the front of the house. Very
expensive, custom built Marvin window there and so we have squeezed it in as far as we can.
And what we've got left, what we're asking you for is approximately a 3 foot request for you to
consider granting us for a variance. Are there any other questions of me?
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, questions of the applicant?
Slagle: I've got a couple.
Blackowiak: Sure.
Slagle: So ifI can ask. The gentleman who's house this would be is not here, fight? Okay. I'd
like to hear from him in just a minute. And so the blue lines that you just had, the one to the
window is the new further, western most edge of your, versus the one before.
Paul Scheele: Correct.
Slagle: And in talking with staff, did they, did Mr. Generous or anybody give you feedback that
that was more conducive to perhaps what we're looking for?
Paul Scheele: Exactly, yes. He said the effort to pull back the existing eave on the side of the
house, reducing the eave on the new addition, sloping the addition away from the property line.
All of this he said is a very nice attempt to meet what you're all asking for.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. So anyone liking to come
up, step up to the microphone please, and I guess we want to hear from the neighbor. And your
name and address for the record.
Brad Vonruden: My name's Brad Vonruden. I'm 3910 Leslee Curve. The property directly
adjacent to the east of the Scheele's, and our property, like you said is, it was a one bedroom
rambler when we purchased it 6 years ago. Last year we invested about $100,000 into an
addition and expanded it away on the opposite side, well within all the specs and we actually
were going to go through a variance to try to put a grand entrance on the front, which would have
been 2 feet encroaching towards the road, and with the expense of that and everything else it just
didn't seem possible. So, in this whole aspect of things, with the 40 plus feet from our property
line currently to my existing garage, there is a natural swale in the terrain between the two for
runoff so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm more than, I'm ecstatic that they're doing an addition
on the house. As far as a hardship to my property, I can't see it. I'm in the construction trade and
I see zero lot line projects across the metropolitan area. Lots that are 5 feet apart, and these are
600 and 700,000 dollar homes going up on them so I just, as far as being a hardship for me, my
wife and I personally don't feel as though it is and we are more than in favor of allowing them to
do the project as originally planned or as you see fit.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, did you have a question of the neighbor?
Slagle: No.
Blackowiak: I have just a quick question. You have a 2 car garage right now?
Brad Vonruden: Two car garage currently.
Blackowiak: Okay. That was, I couldn't tell and I couldn't remember either so. Okay, thank
you. Okay, is there anybody else that would like to speak on this issue? Seeing no one I will
close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments please.
Lillehaug: I guess I'll start here. I have a few comments. Staff indicates that there will be a 6.5
foot variance which would give a 3.5 foot setback. Now this would be for a minimal area right
where we're connecting into the existing garage. I think for the majority of the area the variance
would really only be 2 1/2 foot. That's the way I see it because the edge of the, the majority of the
garage would be set back 7 ¥2 foot from the property line. And my comments on having a
separate garage to the west, I think the property would be limited to one driveway so that may not
be feasible without moving the entire garage. I think that's how I understand a new code,
correct? The applicant's willingness to lessen the existing non-conformity on the existing roof I
think is a good trade-off to reducing the negative impact on the adjacent property also. Meeting
with the applicants, their home, it definitely does need improvement in these areas that we're
looking at. And I think that this home improvement does revitalize the house greatly and I think
it'd be a good addition to the neighborhood there. The previous plan was just too close to the
property line. It had too much of a negative impact. I think this is a good compromise. For these
reason I feel that this is an area of latitude that should be given and I support the variance as
resubmitted.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce.
Feik: I very much like the design, the style, all the improvements that are being made to the
house. However, I do not see how I can support the hardship issue on this. I don't see where the
necessity of adding a mud room or additional car stalls is necessarily a hardship and based upon
that I cannot support it.
Blackowiak: Okay thanks. LuAnn.
Sidney: I agree with staff's analysis, although the non-confornfity is decreased. The applicant
does have reasonable use of the property. I think from last Planning Commission, at least my
feeling was that we were looking for substantial changes and in this case I don't believe we've
seen it in this'revision. There could be other locations or configurations for the laundry room and
mud room, so I think like I said, the applicant does have reasonable use of the property. And
similar to Commissioner Feik, I just don't see a hardship here so I cannot support the variance.
Blackowiak: Okay thanks. Uli, anything to add?
Sacchet: Yes. Couple things. First of all I have another question of staff. Is this the only house
in that neighborhood that has this distance to a lot line problem? Because I think that's a
significant question considering what the applicant just presented.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Aanenson: If you go to page 2 of the staff report. Bob says he reviewed the case files for
variances within 500 feet. I'm under analysis on page 2. There's no side yard setback variances
have been approved in this area.
Sacchet: So nobody came and asked for them?
Aanenson: Yeah, then he goes on to say on July 14th a 10 foot variance was approved for a twin
home lot on Linden Circle. So that was what he found in his research.
Sacchet: Okay. So for certain there isn't too many other cases where they staked them and
they're...
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking this is because I was struggling with this and basically, I
still feel the same as last time. Our task is to give a variance as an exception. And yeah, I mean
we'd like to have everybody do what they'd like to do but then we wouldn't need rules and the
issue is, I asked this question about the stand alone garage. I think, the aspect with the drive is
not necessarily prohibited. I mean you could have a garage kind of sideways and go through the
same driveway. I don't think it's totally out of reach. However, I mean what your presentation
was very impressive, I have to admit. My initial position on this was to send this on to council
because it's a border line case and I feel that the latitude to grant this sort of a variance is more
within the scope of the City Council rather than Planning Commission because our task is to look,
does it fit with the rules. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to fit with the rules. However, based on
your presentation, I actually swung a little bit the other way. It's still 40 feet away from the
neighbor's garage. I mean the setback required is 10. It could be 20 feet away and be within
ordinance if it happens to be 10 feet each way but in this case it's 4 feet one way and 36 the other.
The fact that it was mistakenly staked when, it was actually not put where it was planned, I think
that could be considered a hardship. Where the house is placed is something that, I mean we look
at some other type of variances in town. Say well it' s a hardship because the lot has a certain
shape and stuff like that. Well, the way the house is placed, there is a hardship in view of trying
to expand this garage, and it doesn't fit. I mean you don't want to have your door in the garage
from the bedroom. I mean that's a hardship. I would think that qualifies as a hardship. Now in
terms of, is this unique? I mean that's another question. Another criteria to look at and that's
why I ask this question. Are there other buildings in that neighborhood that have this type of
situation? If it's unique, then it's not applicable to that neighborhood if we give a variance here.
So I think that's a significant question. So frankly I'm a little bit in the balance where to go with
this. In either way, if it doesn't go through I would very much encourage the applicant to bring it
to City Council.
Blackowiak: Okay Rich, comments?
Slagle: Quick comment. Since this is, has been presented to us the last time, my concerns if you
remember were, were there options in the back of the house I think where you studio is just from
an aesthetics standpoint. Trying to enlarge the garage that way. And as Commissioner Sacchet
said, with the idea that if indeed it was built inadvertently too close to the property line, that could
be a hardship. I have to say the most visible graphic I saw was the moving of the line, if you will.
Quite honestly I think that's, that doesn't look good. I would almost, I'm going to vote to
approve this, but also encourage you to check with City Council on the original plan, or some
variation of the original plan because I saw that next to that window and I think that's going to be
an awkward looking front view if you will. So I've sort of taken a full circle but the reason I'm
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
doing it lastly is when you look at this image and see this, the bushes, the foliage, and the distance
to the other house, I mean literally these folks could extend this garage and it will not have any
impact on this neighborhood. And then the only issue for me is, are we going against what we
would call our ordinances but I think in this situation, given the uniqueness of this house, I'm
going to have to tell my fellow commissioners that I would vote for the compromise that the
applicant is looking for, and also recommend they go back more towards the original plan.
Blackowiak: And I did miss the last meeting where this was initially discussed but I read the very
entertaining minutes from that meeting. Yeah again, we always struggle with the hardship issue.
We struggle with you know, what makes sense? How do we apply the rules fairly to everybody?
At this point we're talking about the distance between the neighbor immediately, as you look at
the house, to the left. My only question is, let's say that this neighbor says he doesn't plan on
adding a garage stall but the next owner of the house or it potentially could happen so I think that
we've got to consider that too. Not just what the conditions are existing at this point in time, but
also what could happen and that neighbor could add another garage stall or two, and still be well
within the setbacks for that house. That's what I'm worried about is not only what's happening
now but what could happen in the future. So based on that, I don't believe that I could support
the variance. The hardship requirement has to do with the land, not the building itself. It's not
what is, that something was wrong with the building. The hardship is the building itself. It's
more the topography of the land and that's kind of what I need to keep coming back to I guess in
my analysis so I will need a motion. I don't know who's going to make it but.
Slagle: Can I throw one comment out though?
Blackowiak: Sure.
Slagle: If you look at the photo that we have of these two parcels, again from an aesthetics'
viewpoint. If the home to the east, this gentleman here or a future owner was to add an addition
to that garage, I mean just from a common sense citizen standpoint, I do not think that that would
be an unusual or a non-conforming, adding to a non-conforming situation. I mean he would be
definitely building within.
Blackowiak: Oh totally.
Slagle: I think it would look normal.
Blackowiak: I agree totally with you but what I'm saying is we're hearing the argument tonight
that they're 40 feet, and there might not always be 40 feet.
Stagle: Yeah the 40 feet to me isn't as much of a play into this.
Btackowiak: Alright. I would appreciate a motion so.
Feik: I'I1 make one. I'm not sure I'll be supported all the way around but I'll make one. I move
that the Planning Commission deny the requested 6 V2 foot side yard setback for the expansion of
a garage based on the negative variance findings (a) and (b) of the staff report.
Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission deny the requested 6 V2 foot
side yard setback variance (3 V2 foot side yard setback) for the expansion of a garage based
on the negative variance findings (a and b) of the staff report. AH voted in favor, except
Lillehaug and Slagle who opposed, Sacchet abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3-
2-1.
Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 3-2 with 1 abstention. Nay votes, any additional
comments to make other than what you stated?
Lillehaug: Based on previous comments.
Slagle: Same.
Blackowiak: Alright. And Uli, why are you abstaining?
Sacchet: I'm happy that it goes to council. I could have gone either way so abstaining's right in
the middle.
Blackowiak: Okay, this item. Any aggrieved party may file with the planning department within
4 business days. Kate, is this correct? I'm sorry Kate. I always have to ask you.
Aanenson: I'm sorry, the motion to deny did not pass.
Blackowiak: The motion to deny passed 3 to 2 with 1 abstention. Okay, so that would be
passing, correct?
Aanenson: Correct. To approve you'd need a 4/5.
Blackowiak: Correct. But the motion to deny passed. Alright. Now, the next step for them.
Within 4 business days, is that correct? Or 3 business days? 4 business days?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: You need to file written notice with the planning department if you wish to pursue
this and have it go to City Council. So that's the next step, and I would certainly encourage you
to do that, if you'd like to continue along this route. Alright, thank you.
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD
ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT 3628 HICKORY ROAD,
STEVEN GUNTHER.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Sure.
Slagle: Just a quick one Sharmin. I don't know if I understood completely your description of
the conversation with the neighbor to the west and how did the 17 feet front, how did that come
about? Something about parking.
AI-Jaff: Maybe you can ask the applicant.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Slagle: I can wait, yeah. I can wait.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question too of staff. There is one point, I think it's in our forester's
passage. It says the elevation of the garage wall closest to the trees must be at grade. This means
that the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or foundation wall. I'm not sure exactly I
fully understand what that means. Do you?
A1-Jaff: I had the same question to Jill Sinclair who is our City Forester. Basically a retaining
wall would be required in this area to ensure that no impact to the root system is caused in this
area.
Sacchet: So in other words it would be at grade on the north side. And then would be filled and
then have a retaining wall?
Steve Gunther: At grade on the tree side and then I can show you a picture of that.
Sacchet: If you want to explain it when you come up, that'd be fine yeah. Okay, I'll wait for you
to explain it. I was...it the other way too. That it would be at grade on the tree side.
Steve Gunther: Grade tree side. Say no going upward...
Sacchet: So you cut into the hill?
Steve Gunther: ...retaining wall is...so part of the garage wall on the neighbor's side would be
block walls.
Sacchet: So the retaining wall would be.
Blackowiak: Excuse me Uli, let's just save this for the applicant when he gets up, okay. We
have questions of staff right now. Any other questions?
Sidney: Well a comment. I guess I'd like to applaud your efforts on this variance. I've never
seen so much work put into one and I really appreciate it.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions?
Feik: What are the dimensions of the existing garage?
Steve Gunther: 13 feet by.
Aanenson: He's asking the staff.
Blackowiak: Yeah. Right now it's staff questions, or questions of staff right now.
Al-Jarl: The total area is 276, which is 12 feet by.
Blackowiak: 12 by 13 maybe.
A1-Jaff: 12 by 13.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Feik: Thank you. That's it.
Blackowiak: Roughly.
Lillehaug: I have one quick question. I asked this before but everyone's, I think everyone's
struggling with this tree and I just want to ensure that there are no current guidelines or
ordinances that would mandate that the owner cannot cut this tree down. You did answer yes,
right?
Aanenson: Yes. I'm sorry, yes.
Blackowiak: Oh I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. So there is no current ordinance is what you're
saying.
Aanenson: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, if there are any more questions of staff we'll move on to the
applicant's presentation. So please come to the microphone and state your name and address.
Steve Gunther: Good evening. I'm Steve Gunther, 3628 Hickory Road in Excelsior, or
Chanhassen. I think Sharmin' s done a nice job of recapping the situation from last meeting. Just
one or two more reminders I guess. Here's the existing structure, the shed or garage I' ve got right
now which I believe is about 12 feet wide by about 30 feet long. It's about 276 square feet. Here
is Hickory Road coming down and here is Red Cedar Road in the other direction. Here's a recap
of the lot structure that Sharmin shared with you. So here' s the neighbor to the west of me.
Again here's Hickory Road in this area. Here's where the existing structure is. You can see the
existing size of the structure, and what I've drawn on the map, or on the survey here is
dimensions allowed to me by ordinance of any structure I would like to build on the lot. So you
can see that the 30 foot setback from the road, 10 foot from the side and 30 feet from Red Cedar
Point really gives me a very constrained building size on that piece of property. In fact I couldn't
even replace the structure that I have today if I followed exactly the rules of the ordinance, and
that's why I'm here to request a variance. Okay. So what I've requested, we look back at the,
consider the comments made by staff last week about the variance and the key feedback I got was
that the size of the pad was larger than what you felt comfortable approving. There was also
feedback that there was great interest on your part, as well as mine, to preserve the oak tree as
best as we could. Give a chance for a 100 year old tree to survive, and then we got additional
feedback from the town forester on how best to give the oak tree an opportunity to survive, and
that was specifically, recommendations were specifically detailed in the staff report so what we're
proposing at this point is to reduce the pad size of the structure by about 15 percent, so instead of
a 24 foot wide by 28 foot wide structure, make it at 24 by 24 structure. Protect the tree as
outlined by the forester, so accepting that recommendation of, and there were a number of items
in the report that you can read through on that. And then conform to all the other staff
recommendations on the report. The one thing that I got additional input on. Actually I'll answer
a couple questions for you here that you raised earlier. One was on the feedback on the retaining
wall. Here' s an artistically drawn schematic of the property. The neighbor' s garage is up in this
area. It's coming down a hill basically, down Hickory Road. Here's the oak tree. Here's the
separation between the oak tree and the foundation and basically I would build the garage at
grade to where the oak tree grade is. In order to build that I'd have to cut into the hill and I would
put a retaining wall. Really a concrete block in the construction of the garage, and then frame on
top of that to prevent the, to support the structure properly. I may have not drawn it perfectly but
that's the general concept that the garage would actually sit at grade to where the tree is graded
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
and the tree would be mulched all around obviously to provide water for the tree. Does that
answer the question that was raised earlier? What that would look like and?
Sacchet: Yeah. So the retaining wall was in the garage essentially? Sort of.
Steve Gunther: The retaining wall is part of the garage.
Sacchet: Yeah, part of what the garage.
Steve Gunther: So it's part of the wall of the garage.
Sacchet: That was my question indeed.
Steve Gunther: And the other comment we had, I did speak with my neighbor and unfortunately
they could not attend tonight but they were extremely supportive of the proposal I had. They
wrote a letter for me, which I'll leave a copy with Sharmin for, but basically saying they feel this
is a good use of the land. It does get rid of a pretty ugly looking structure that is a safety hazard
on the lot. I mean the ancient garage I currently got that blocks the triangular sight line. And
they are in agreement to the 5 foot setback from the property line. They feel they're happy or
comfortable with that. The one comment that they made was, although they're supportive of the
13 foot setback from Hickory Road, they suggested I reconsider and actually push the garage
further, deeper into the lot as Sharmin described and I think the picture kind of describes it.
Here's, if you can focus a little bit deeper here. Here's their garage with a car parked on it, and
that's 13 feet from, again they're, the road is 13 feet from their garage and you can see that if you
park the car in that driveway there, you'd be running into some obvious problems. That car is
actually sitting in the road. So the suggestion was that I reduce the size of the garage, but push it
4 feet deeper into the lot so that I have at least 4 feet of extra leeway to put a reasonable sized car
on that driveway, if you will. The intent of the, so that was their comment and I would
wholeheartedly support that. In fact I would strongly request that that be the variance I request
today. We did look, as Sharmin described, this is the original ordinance that allows a !,000 foot
square foot structure. The existing structure at 276. The original proposal 2 weeks ago was a 672
foot structure. We did look at actually two options and a third option is what Sharmin and I are
recormnending today which is build a 24 by 24, set back from Hickory Road of 17 feet. Setback
from Red Cedar Point, I think she did the geometry on it better than I did. It was probably 27
feet. And the other indications stay the same so it fixes the sight triangle problem and hard cover,
hard surface coverage is about 10 percent and does our best to preserve the oak trees so I think
we've done a pretty good job of responding to your comments from 2 weeks ago and again I
would respectfully request your support of this request for variance.
Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicants?
Lillehaug: I have a couple questions. One, if you push that garage southerly, do you see the need
of a retaining wall because the slope drops off significantly?
Steve Gunther: Yeah, I think if you push it southerly and keep at the 24 feet, it doesn't require a
retaining wall on the back side of the property. Again right now I'm apply for a variance. I have
to get the actual building bid in to tell me that but it still sits on the fiat part of the lot as far as I
can tell with my limited measuring capability.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Lillehaug: Okay. And then if you'd put your hand sketch draft up there again. On the northwest
comer of your garage, if that was maintained at 13 feet, do you see a feasible driveway that you
could actually get to work in there? I just, I don't see a feasible driveway that would work.
Steve Gunther: Actually I tried, this is my car that I tried to pull into their driveway and I
straggled just to get it to park head on like that.
Lillehaug: And I'm not talking lengthwise. I'm talking slope wise.
Steve Gunther: Slope wise definitely because looking. They have a retaining wall on their side
as well. On their north, western comer. Northwest comer of their garage.
Lillehaug: It just seems that the elevation would be too much of a difference there. And I'm just
not sure if it' s feasible or not.
Steve Gunther: You may be able to see it here but, see that? They have a retaining wall on that,
right by that can there. About the same height of what I think I would probably need as well. I
guess the last comment I'd make is, and one suggestion from last time was to build a one car
garage with a pad next to it. And while that might meet my needs of storing boats, etc. I'm just
looking at what kind of property, what kind of property beauty am I going to have with that kind
of structure. If you walk through around the neighborhood and taking pictures of some of the
other people who have limited storage for their stuff, and the neighborhood is filled with broken
down snowmobiles and SUV's and motorhomes and you name it, and it's not my desire
obviously to have a junk yard, but having additional inside storage I think would give me the
opportunity to at least preserve the visual quality of the neighborhood, and I would like to work
with my neighbors and see what I can do to help them clean up their mess frankly.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any more questions of the applicant before we open the public
hearing? Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Mayor, I have two quick questions.
Blackowiak: Madam Mayor.
Sacchet: Back to Madam Mayor. Sometime in the future. Understand the setback, sliding back
would help for parking but I mean this is not your main garage. You have a sizeable driveway in
your main garage. So do you really need that space there?
Steve Gunther: To me it's more of a, there's no question that a visitor who would see a garage
that belongs to me would try to park in that space. And I don't see any reason why not to push it
back 5 feet.
Sacchet: Right, and considering it's not going to create a'problem...
Steve Gunther: It's not going to create a problem in the back there.
Sacchet: Now, and drainage wise you think?
Steve Gunther: It should be no problem because the lot does slope from the neighbor's western
side down so, I don't see that as a problem at all.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, any questions at all?
Slagle: No.
Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like
to speak on this item, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any quick comments before we
vote on this?
Sacchet: Not much new from last time. I think it's great that the applicant is willing to make an
effort to preserve that tree because there's really nothing that prevents him from cutting that tree
right down as far as I see it. I think the positives of giving the variance to save the tree outweigh
the negatives. I would recommend that we put a, be a little more explicit what the forester asks in
terms of slab on and also that it would be in fall or winter I think. There was a timing issue that
the forester outlined. That's my comments.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: Good analysis by staff and excellent presentation by the.applicant. So I do think we're
at a point where, you know, we should approve this variance. I would like to say for the record
that in this case we do have a hardship issue and I believe that has to do with the configuration of
the lot, that it's unique and very problematic because it's triangular and his double frontage, so in
this case variances are needed for the construction of a garage.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Additional comments?
Feik: Yes. My thoughts haven't changed from a couple weeks ago. I cannot support the
variance for a variety of reasons. I do believe that it's fair and equitable that the applicant should
assume that he can maintain and build, replace the structure that's on there. The tree is really a
non-starter as far as I' m concerned. I believe it falls outside of the official building triangle
anyway. If they were to build something that was fully conforming, the tree would not be inside
of that. He's doubling the size of the garage. It strikes me a little bit different as well, now we
want to push the garage back so now we're going for storage for 2 cars inside, 2 cars outside.
Significant additional hard cover compared to where we were at. The applicant does have a full 2
car garage across the street. I can assume that when he bought the house, and he bought this lot,
he bought this lot with the knowledge that he had a 1 car stall and that certainly wanted to keep
that, so that's xvhy I'm saying I don't think we would want to, even want to deny him the ability
to rebuild what he's got but I cannot support the variance to build the size of the structure. The
amount of variances and really for ultimately what comes down to the reason, and don't mean
this with any disrespect sir. I got stuff too, but my stuff is stacked and I've kind of got to make
do. And having stuff to me isn't the reason for hardship.
Blackowiak: Okay, Steven.
Lillehaug: I do have a couple comments. I struggle with this tree. I mean I wish there was a
perfect balance to preserve this tree and I just don't see one. I think regardless of what option we
would look at, this tree would have a good chance of likely dying and I stick with my original
position that I wouldn't want to reposition the non-conformance from one side of the lot to the
other side of the lot where there's an adjacent property owner.
12
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I guess I don't have too many comments. I like the tree. It's a
gorgeous tree but again, you know at what cost are we, you know we have to think ahead a little
bit. You know what is, ultimately what's going to happen and is this the best position for the
garage'?. I'm not sure. I call this the neighbor option. I think we need now 3 variances, am I
correct?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Blackowiak: So we need a front yard and 2 side yard.
A1-Jaff: No. One side yard, 2 front yard.
Blackowiak: Okay. One side and 2 front. Okay. 2 front and 1 side. Okay, so we're looking at 3
variances. I don't know. I certainly can see the hardship. It's lot configuration. It's
topographical. It's not, I mean that's fairly clear to me. The current 276 versus 576, I guess I'm
not, I don't have a strong opinion either way on that but I understand where you're coming from
Bruce so I would just ask for a motion and we'll see what happens.
Sacchet: Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission approves the
Variance Request 2002-5 for a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 5 foot side yard setback
for the construction of a 24 by 24 garage on Lot 41 of Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta as
shown on plans dated received May 7, 2002, with the following conditions, 1 through 9 plus
condition 10. Mentioning that it's slab on. And condition 11. Mentioning the timing should be
worked in accordance with the recommendation from the City Forester, which I understand it
would have to happen in fall or winter. Not during the growing season. And yes, I did not
misspeak. I stick with the 30 foot setback from Hickory Road because that creates only 2
variances instead of 3 variances and I think that' s a reasonable balance in view of saving the tree
to get this garage off of covering 50 percent of the tree. I don't know what the percentage is.
Less than 50 percent. It's in excellent condition so it has a chance to live. Whether it lives, I
don't know that for a fact either but at least we give it the best chance we can.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. There's been a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I withdraw my motion because there is no second.
Blackowiak: There's no second, alright. Then let's try it again. Someone else.
Feik: I'll make a motion.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Feik: I make a motion the Planning Commission deny the variance requested 2002-5 for a 13
foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 5 foot setback for the construction of a 24 by 24 garage on
Lot 41 of Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta as shown on plans dated received May 7, 2002.
Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Okay, this is going to be a long
evening. I got a feeling. Will you withdraw your motion? There's no second.
Feik: I'll withdraw my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sidney: I'll make a motion.
Blackowiak: Alright LuAnn, you give it a shot.
Sidney: Okay. Go down the row here. I make a motion the Planning Commission approves
Variance Request #2002-5 for a 17 foot setback from Hickory Lane, and a 5 foot side yard
setback for the construction of a 24 by 24 foot garage on Lot 41 of Red Cedar Point, Lake
Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated, actually which will be revised with the following
conditions. We have 1 through 9 and I guess a couple of other possible conditions. I'll leave it at
that. 1 through 9.
Slagle: I don't think I can vote on possible conditions.
Sidney: Yeah, 1 through 9.
Sacchet: Open to friendly amendments.
Sidney: Yep.
Blackowiak: Okay. Before we move on, Kate wouldn't the motion have to be for 3 variances?
Aanenson: Right, that's what I was just asking. So it's for 2 variances.
Blackowiak: Right, for 3. So it would be a 17 foot setback from Hickory. 5 yard side, 5 foot
side yard.
Sidney: And then a 27 foot setback from.
Blackowiak: Red Cedar Point. So we've got those 3. So did you revise that, or accept that?
Sidney: Yes. And 1 through 9 are the conditions.
Blackowiak: Okay. So there's our motion. Is there a second to that motion?
Slagle: Second.
Sacchet: Friendly amendment.
Sidney: Oh yes, please.
Sacchet: Condition number 10. Slab on. Condition number 11. Fall and winter construction.
Sidney: I accept it.
Btackowiak: Okay. Moved and seconded.
Sidney moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance Request
#2002-5 for a 17 foot setback from Hickory Lane, a 27 foot setback from Red Cedar Point,
and a 5 foot side yard setback, for the construction of a 24 x 24 garage on Lot 41 of Red
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta, as shown on plans dated received May 7, 2002, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall apply for a demolition permit.
2. The variance must be recorded with Carver County.
3. The applicant shall submit grading and drainage plans demonstrating no runoff/drainage
impact on the property to the west.
4. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the construction and
extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done
prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is
completed.
5. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, woodchip mulch must be applied to a
depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area.
6. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or
tearing of the roots.
7. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the
opposing wall will either need a retailing wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the
slope necessary to create a level floor.
8. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area.
9. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods.
10. The garage shall be slab on grade construction.
11. Construction work shall be conducted during the fall and winter months as
recommended by the City Forester.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug and Feik who opposed. The motion failed with a vote of
4to2.
Blackowiak: Motion carries 4-2. Kate, is that the percentage?
Aanenson: You would need 5.
Blackowiak: We need 5. Okay. Although the carded we needed 5-1 on this so the variance is
denied. You have the right to go to the planning department within 4 business days to file an
appeal and that would mean that City Council will look at this and ultimately decides what
happens. Thank you very much.
Steve Gunther: Does it make any difference if I leave...in anybody's opinion? Make it back to
10 foot?
Blackowiak: Yeah, I guess that's.
15
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
Steve Gunther: I offered 3 options. You voted on 1. There are other options.
Blackowiak: Right, I understand that. I think your best bet is just to go to City Council with
what you want to do and they can decide. As I stated earlier item number 3 was removed from
the agenda tonight at the applicant's request so we're moving onto item number 4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REVOKE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING
A WALKING EASEMENT TO LAKE MINNEWASHTA FOR OUTLOT A OF
KELLYNNE~ LOCATED WEST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND EAST OF
HAWTHORNE CIRCLEt ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ DAVID PETER.JOHN.
Sharnfin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff.
Feik: I just have a really quick one. The owner of Lot 4, Block 1, have they been consulted at
all?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Feik: And the response?
A1-Jaff: They have no issue with it. In fact, and this is a fairly minor issue that can be handled
administratively. If you look at the shape of that 20 by 20. 5 feet of this kind of flares out and
one of the things that the owner of Lot 4 has discussed with Lot 3 was potentially extending this
line straight so you don't have this jog, and of course staff prefers that option. And again this is
something that we can handle administratively.
Feik: Okay. And technically you said that the sole owner of that outlot was Lot 1, Block 1.
Does the City also not, due to the forfeiture of the 2 lots, do we not also have parcel title to that?
Aanenson: Yes we do.
Sacchet: It's a city beach.
Feik: In that we own the other two lots. Not we, the city owns the other two lots which this is
attached to as a beachlot.
A1-Jaff: There's an easement in favor of those two lots.
Feik: I'm just point of clarification.
Aanenson: Yes we do have an interest but we don't see any...
Feik: I'm not disputing that a bit. It was just a statement made that the only interested party was
Lot i, Block 1 and I guess I just want a clarification of that.
Aanenson: Yes.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Feik: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Uli.
Sacchet: Real quick. The Peterjohn's are just interested in that strip of land or are they actually
the ones acquiring the Lot 1 I think that was, in Block 17 Do we know? Are the Peterjohn's
actually acquiring Lot 1, Block 1 or are they just interested in that strip? Just for clarification
because that wasn't clear in the report.
A1-Jaff: They are, they're actually taking both the house as well as the outlot and then selling off
the house separately.
Sacchet: Okay, so Lot 1, Block 1 as well. Got it. Just want to clarify. Okay, that's it.
Blackowiak: Okay Rich.
Slagle: Say that again. I mean I just want to be clear.
A1-Jaff: They are buying the outlot as well as Lot 1, Block 1. They intend to combine the outlot
with their property, meaning the Peterjohn's Lot 3, Block 2. And then selling offLot 1, Block 1
without Outlot A.
Slagle: If I can ask, with all due respect. You in essence have two lots the city owns, whether,
however we use them currently. We use them.
A1-Jaff: Storm pond purposes.
Slagle: Okay. We have a, in essence a partial right to a beachlot, however small it may be.
We're interested, at least the way the presentation is going, of giving title away to them to an
owner who's then going to buy the other property that has in essence title to this. Sell it and then
in essence own a larger lakefront lot.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Slagle: And is there any, I mean I don't know if we've talked to the attorney or what now. Is
there any financial dealings here? I mean is the city, because and the only reason I ask this is
Kate, the only reason I ask this is because in the past we've had discussions on other situations,
especially Lotus with that path and there's been a, what's the word I want to say. An opinion that
at least that's been presented that the city really take seriously any easements, any land that. they
own around lakes, water property because of it's value.
Aanenson: Let me separate the two issues. That's a good question. And Sharmin said this but
let me just clarify it again. The City's interest is the storm water pipe and the outlet. We, as a
condition of approval are maintaining our interest in that. They will still have to dedicate
easements so we have a right to go over it. It's a non-conforming access. It doesn't meet any of
the beachlot standards. So in that respect we think we're reducing a non-conforming situation.
We still have our interest to access our pipe to maintain it, which is the only thing we use it for,
and we're just eliminating a non-conforming situation that only is providing access to one lot. So
we're putting it on the tax roll by combining it with this other lot. So that's the balance that we
went through to look at that.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. My question is going to piggy back on Rich's. So the lot that we're looking
at, Lot 3, Block 2 is now basically going to be a beachlot? Correct?
A1-Jaff: No.
Blackowiak: I mean they're not going to have direct access. Aren't they going to have access to
the lake at all? I mean they're talking, I was looking, reading some of the old letters that there
had been boats moored, etc.
A1-Jaff: Okay. This is the Peterjohn's property.
Blackowiak: Right. Show me where the water is.
A1-Jaff: Here's the water.
Blackowiak: So that's all water.
A1-Jaff: They have access to the lake. There has been confusion regarding the use of this outlot.
What they're doing right now is fee title to the outlot is with Lot 1, Block 1.
Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, that I understand but I mean, I guess that was my question. Do they
currently have access to the lake? Is there a dock?
A1-Jaff: Yes they do.
Blackowiak: We're not going to be adding anything more intensive?
Aanenson: No.
Blackowiak: So, and then the second question I would have is, what value is, you know when we
were talking about prices, etc. What value is added to Pete~john's property when they acquire the
outlot and I think where Rich was getting at is, should the city be saying you ~know, there should
be a price.
Al-Jaff: Now remember that the city became a party to this because of tax forfeiture.
Blackowiak: Right.
A1-Jaff: I mean from the get go we had.
Aanenson: Sharmin. The bottom line is, we made a decision no. We wanted the easement which
we'd have to acquire anyway so it's a win for us by acquiring an easement which we don't have
now so there's...
Blackowiak: Okay, we don't have the easement. Okay, that's I mean so then.
Aanenson: ...beachlot. Reducing it and putting it on the tax rolls so that's where we...
Blackowiak: So you're figuring that there's a wash?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: That basically we'd have to acquire an easement and by doing that, okay. Okay,
that sounds better to me. I was just kind of worded about what the city was getting out of it but if
you're comfortable I'm feeling better. Okay. Everybody. Okay, would the applicant or their
designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name
and address for the record.
Dave Peterjohn: My name is Dave Peterjohn. Excuse me, could I just get you to, move that.
You' re a little bit taller than our last speaker.
Dave Peterjohn: My name is Dave Peterjohn. I own, my wife and I own Lot 3, Block 2. We've
lived at this property for 13 years and Lot 1, Block 1 which has the fee title for the outlot, since
we' ve been there, 5 people have owned that house. 3 of the 5 never saw the covenants on the
property. It was sold as lakeshore property and we were the wonderful recipients to be able to
provide people the covenants, which in essence say no boat. No permanent property and in
essence you can walk down here and swim over a pipe. So for the last, the final owners, which
are the Meyers here. The Meyers are transferring and they've been good neighbors for 3 years.
They were 1 of the 3 that never saw the covenants prior to purchasing the property. We asked
them would they be interested in selling the outlot so I can merge it into my property, in essence
to take out an uncomfortable situation for the city. They said that they didn't want to really sell
the property without selling the house. My goal is not to buy several houses. My goal is to buy a
house, take this property and merge it in to mine with a corrected fee, resell the lot. Or resell the
house. So I approached Sharmin and said, how can they do this? Gave her a set of the covenants.
Both the original background of this was this lot, all 3 of these lots were owned by the owner here
and he traded a couple of these lots to a builder to help him build his house. And when the
builder dug a hole in this lot here, it filled with water. So he let it go back taxes. That's how the
city became part of it. So in essence what we're trying to do is clear up a non-conforming
situation. By having Mrs. Meyers here who can kind of attest to the situation and if you'd like to
hear from her as well.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions of the applicant while we've got you up here?
Feik: I have a quick one. We've now heard that the property owner to the north side would like
that 5 foot bump on the north side. Are you amenable to that?
Dave Peterjohn: Oh yeah.
Feik: Would you be really amenable to adding that as a condition?
Dave Peterjohn: I don't see a problem with, my goal is not to get more lakeshore. My.goal is.
Feik: I understand that. My thought is, is I want to treat the neighbor's reasonably equitably if
we can. The city does have some interest, albeit not very valuable, but we would like to make
sure that you and your neighbor are treated equitably in this process given that the city does have
some interest in this parcel.
Dave Peterjohn: Right. I think, by purchasing this property. Taking it and merging it into mine,
it's going to cost me a fair amount of money. It's going to cost me more than it's going to
increase the value of my property. I know that. But what I'm trying to do is just, for neighbor 5,
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
6 and '7 not have to go up and say here's some covenants. Did you know about these? So that's
in essence what I'm trying to do. So to answer your question would I be willing to give 5 feet to
get a straight line, I'm the one that's putting out all the money and going through the process.
I'm not sure I'd want to do that. That's the first time I've even heard that. But if it would make
the deal, I don't think I'd have a problem.
Feik: Okay, thank you. Very much, thank you.
Blackowiak: Rich, question.
Slagle: Madam Chair, if I can. I would suggest Mr. Peterjohn if you could do that, that would be
advantageous. The only reason I say that is because if you do eliminate that beachlot the way it's
configured now, that others can use it, I would probably throw out for consideration that your
property will really increase in value when that becomes just your's and folks can't walk down,
literally your yard, and camp or whatever. Who knows what they do down there, so I would
encourage you to consider that.
Sidney: Do we have the, question Madam Chair. Do we have the owner of Lot 4, Block 1 here?
I guess I would prefer to let staff handle any adjustment of the lot line administratively because I
think that's a function we need the neighbor there to discuss it.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Did you want Mrs. Meyers to come up? Sure.
Linda Meyers: My name's Linda Meyers and I reside at 3980 Hawthorne Circle.
Blackoxviak: Okay. Conmaents at all or, you're comfortable with it?
Linda Meyers: Fm con~ortable with the letter that I wrote that I think you've got in your packet.
Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Commissioners any questions of Mrs. Meyers.
Lillehaug: No questions.
Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Ah'ighty, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody
would like to speak on this issue, please come to the n-ficrophone and state your name and address
for the record. Seeing no one I will close public hearing. Conn-nissioners, any final comments
before we vote?
Slagle: I just had one. I just want to be clear that the comment that was made about the neighbor
and the 5 foot bump that Cormnissioner Feik and I are trying to get our hands around, that was, if
I can ask, from them as'king to have that straighten if you will. Is that correct?
A1-Jaff: That was the conversation we had with Mr. Peterjohn and one of the issues that were
discussed were creating a straight line and again yes, we can handle this administratively.
Slagle: I understand, but I mean was Mr. Peterjohn in essence forwarding on a conversation that
he had had with that neighbor?
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Slagle: Okay, so it wasn't the neighbor calling you and saying hey I'd like to have this 5 foot.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
A1-Jaff: No it wasn't.
Slagle: Okay. I guess I was confused.
Sacchet: Just a quick comment, because I don't want to make it in a condition but I want to make
a comment. I certainly think it' s very desirable if that would be a straight line, but considering
that the applicant bears all the burden of creating this, I think that' s to be worked out between him
and the neighbor.
Blackowiak: So not necessarily a condition of approval is what you're saying.
Sacchet: Yes, I would not make it a condition of approval.
Blackowiak: Just a recommendation.
Sacchet: But I want to have it on the record that that would be very desirable and encourage you
to pursue that but that's between you and the neighbor and I don't think it shOUld come in our
conditions.
Slagle: See I don't know if I agree with that but.
Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, any comments?
Sidney: Looks straight forward to me.
Blackowiak: Yeah, okay. Bruce, any other comments?
Feik: I think Rich and I are kind of in tune with the same concern in that the city does have an
interest in this, from a title perspective by inheriting the 2 lots and I would just like to make sure
that the owner of Lot 4, Block 1, I would have liked to have him or her here tonight to speak for
themselves to say what interest they did have in this lot, or what interest they didn't have in the
lot. That certainly would have made things a lot easier for me. So my concern is treating them
fairly and equitably and they're not here.
Blackowiak: Sharmin, they don't have any interest in the outlot do they?
Aanenson: No.
Feik: Have we contacted them though?
Aanenson: They were notified of the hearing.
A1-Jaff: People within 500 feet.
Blackowiak: Yeah, they have no interest and they've never been involved in that.
Slagle: But let me, if I can Madam Chair, let me throw out. The 500 feet mailing, and I'm sorry
but I' ve got to say Sharmin, I'm seeing seed names on this list, okay and there is the potential for
the applicants who send the mailings out to people within 500 feet, there are times Where people
come and say I never got a mailing. So what we've done is implemented a seeding process where
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
certain people within staff and maybe perhaps in the future certain ones of us will get mailings to
ensure at least that people have gotten it. And that's not to say it doesn't go out, the mail is crazy.
Aanenson: Just to be clear, we did speak to some of the people in Troll's Glen subdivision which
is just south of this. They also have a beachlot. If you go to the site plan their beachlot is
adjacent to this one. We did speak to some of those neighbors so.
Slagle: I'm just saying, and I think Bruce is saying that the neighbor who's affected by this is not
here, okay. And I think the city in trying to balance between the two lots, and I'm not saying that
we won't approve it with direction to staff to say hey, work it out between these two. I just don't
want to vote on something that ends up not being beneficial to the neighbor to the north at least
fairness, and then having someone come back and say gosh. I'm sorry, it wasn't fair to you. You
really didn't want that curve.
Aanenson: Okay, well in deference to the neighbor, the curve's going to be there whether we
vacate it or not...going to happen to him that we're going to vacate it and he would get some
additional land so it's only going to be a win/win.
Slagle: Only if we approve it.
Aanenson: Right. But if you don't approve it, it would still be the same.
Feik: Understood, but point of clarification. There's a note that I heard that the notice went out
6/10. It didn't go out 30 days ago. It hasn't been in their mailbox. If they've been at the cabin or
who knows where, they certainly might not have gotten it. It's not that much notice.
Sacchet: If I may Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay, I think we're splitting hairs here but let's go.
Sacchet: Basically the position we have to take if they're not here, they're not interested in it
ultimately. On the other hand, if we have a strong feeling that we want that line straighten we can
make a condition that says we encourage that.
Blackowiak: Right, and at this point it's really not before us tonight. That's not the issue so let's
kind of focus on what the issue is. The issue is, do we vacate, do revoke the conditional use
permit. That's the question. Lot line changes, separate issue. So I think we just need to take, I
mean certainly we could recommend but let's just not make it a condition of approval because it
doesn't affect what we're seeing before us tonight.
Feik: Can I ask a quick question? Totally different from where I was before. If we revoke the
conditional use permit tonight, what happens to the city's interest in that lot legally? Because I
mean we do have one.
Aanenson:
We're
re-securing our interest by requiring as a condition of approval that we have an
easement over.
Feik: Utility easement.
Aanenson: Correct.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: So we still would have access to the pipe and access to...
Feik: In exchange for.
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: Okay.
Blackowiak: Steve.
Lillehaug: I support revoking the conditional use permit and the owners of that Outlot A is the
city and the Meyers, correct?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, I don't even know where we are. We've made comments. I need a motion.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
revoking the conditional use permit attached to Outlot A, Kellynne. How do you say that?
Kellynne?
Blackowiak: I said Kellynne like Kelly and Lynn or something.
Sacchet: With the following conditions 1 through 2 with the addition, I'd like to be specific with,
I guess that's condition number 2 that we specify that the adjacent property is Lot 3, Block 2.
That's my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: I second.
Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends revoking
the Conditional Use Permit attached to Outlot A, Kellynne Addition, with the following
conditions:
1. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over Outlot A in favor of the city for
maintenance purposes.
2. Outlot A shall be combined with the adjacent property, Lot 3, Block 2, under a single
Parcel Identification Number.
All voted in favor, except Feik and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 2.
Blackowiak: Kate, does that carry for revoking a conditional use we don't need.
A1-Jaff: This goes to City Council.
Blackowiak: It still goes to City Council. Okay, July 8th meeting for City Council.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A ONE-STORY~ 10~434
SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE CENTER WITH AN EXTERIOR PLAY AREA ON 1.81
ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 3~ BLOCK 1,
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4TM ADDITION~ KINDERCARE LEARNING
CENTER.
Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff.
Lillehaug: I have a couple quick ones. In site furnishing section, you indicated that you need to
add a bicycle parking facility. Is there any specifics to that?
A1-Jaff: That is a requirement of the site design.
Lillehaug: So that'd be one of the conditions that that should be attached? Okay. You indicate
that a sidewalk and ped ramp needs to be added to the parking lot landscape island. Which exact
one are we talking about? Are we talking about the small island on the southerly end of the
building?
A1-Jaff: Right here. To connect with this future sidewalk.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then you also addressed access on Century Boulevard.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Lillehaug: Go ahead.
A1-Jaff: Maybe Mack can expand on that.
Sweidan: The whole development...has been approved with the access from Century Boulevard.
And in the northeastern property is actually the US Bank which is going to be also conditioned
with that access.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Feik: I have nothing.
Blackowiak: Nothing at this time?
Sidney: Just a quick question. Again the site furnishings, I guess I don't understand community
features. This stuff is accessible by the public or I guess I'm not quite sure why it's called
community features such as landscaping, lighting, benches and tables.
A1-Jaff: Under the site design, for any building within commercial or industrial zoning, buildings
are required to provide public furniture, be it benches or bike racks or.
Sidney: So there will be public?
Al-Jarl: Yes.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Uli, any questions?
Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. I had my questions were very similar to Commissioner Lillehaug. I'd
like a little more clarification about this right-in/right-out. In the staff report it says the access
from Century Boulevard may be limited to right-in/right-out if the level of service standards for
the access becomes unacceptable or if excessive accidents occurs. This sounds like it may be
limited, but it's my recollection that when we looked at this subdivision originally that it was the
other way around. That it must be right-in/right-out and that the applicant was trying to make a
case that they would like a full access. Has it become a full access in the meantime?
Sweidan: When this report came actual of the application with the traffic study, and they show
that it will not affect much as it is like a full access. And we are recommending to keep it right-
in/right-out. And when we say like may, it may go to a full access but if there's something in the
future that happens like increasing accidents or cause more panic in that area, so I think we are
going to put an island.
Sacchet: See that's what I'm confused about. Right now you said it may be a full access or it
may be right-in/right-out.
Aanenson: Can I comment on that?
Sacchet: Please.
Aanenson: When this went to the City Council, you had a condition in that you did not want a
full access. But you left it open for the applicant to prepare the traffic study.
Sacchet: Exactly.
Aanenson: At that point, the traffic study said that it could be a full access. If conditions
warranted, it could be closed so we wanted to apprise Kindercare that if the city chose to
ultimately we could restrict that to right-in/right-out only so we wanted that condition in here so
they're on notice in the records of conditions that it could be closed and restricted to right-
in/right-out only. That's why that condition was put in.
Sacchet: So it could be either at this point?
Aanenson: Correct. Right now it's being approved as a full.
Sacchet: That's all, okay...
Aanenson: But we may restrict it in the future as traffic warrants so we want to put that in there
so they can't come back and say you can't close it on us. We're saying that the underlying
subdivision has that condition and we just wanted to carry it forward with all the site plans so
there are none.
Sacchet: So as of right now it's being approved to be full, that was what I was asking.
Aanenson: That's what the traffic study said at the City Council.
Sacchet: Thank you.
25
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay, questions.
Slagle: If we can put up that diagram again. There we go. So that's going to be a full in and out.
I've got a sidewalk going on the north end of the future development to the south of US Bank. If
we can focus in a little bit more. Okay. And so basically I'm assuming that extends to the east.
Now we're a little bit too far. Go to Century. It's going to hit that island and it's going to cross
over and there's going to be a crosswalk.
Aanenson: On Century there is a, not a crosswalk.
Slagle: The sidewalk is going to be on the east side of Century, if I remember right.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: So there will be a crosswalk or not?
Aanenson: I don't know of one.
Slagle: I'm just trying to understand how we take parcels at a time that we apply and approve...
so you've got a sidewalk going on the east side of Century north and south. No, no. North and
south. There you go. So it's on the other side and I'm assuming it connects over the crosswalk to
that, and then carries over into Kindercare. Now you're getting to Kindercare and if I understood
your point where that tree is, is there will be an island extending out with a sidewalk that they will
then cross over to get to the sidewalk on that, okay.
Aanenson' Correct.
Slagle: Then you'll go down and then it continues over, okay. Again I'mjust going out for
consideration for.
Blackowiak: Do we need a crosswalk is your question.
Slagle: Yeah, exactly. And in nay view that has nothing to do with this application.
Blackowiak: Which is very true. Very true but it's a good point. Okay. Alright. I just have a
quick question. Condition number 2 for the site plan. 23.16 feet. I'm assuming you mean square
feet of windows and/or doors. And then it says the south elevation add one additional window.
Is there a size specification on that?
A1-Jaff: As long as they meet the 50 percent.
Blackowiak: I just thought you were so exact in the first one that you maybe had a number that
we were looking for in the second.
Sacchet: At least 2 decimals.
Blackowiak: Yeah, at least to 2 decimal places, exactly. No, that's okay. As long as we'll meet
the 50 percent we're okay. Alright, would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation?
Lillehaug' I have one more quick question.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Oh, I'm sorry. Come on up and we'll.
Lillehaug: Should the note be changed from a sanitary sewer, SDR 35 to SDR 26? Or materials
for sanitary sewer. Isn't it a city standard that the services should be SDR 26 so that should
probably be changed as a condition. Say again? Sheet 6. It's one of the notes.
Sweidan: You are right.
Blackowiak: SDR 26 you said?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, would the applicant, state your name and address for the record
please.
Gary Brown: My name is Gary Brown. I'm with RLK Kussisto. We're a consulting engineering
and landscape firm and we are from Minnetonka, Minnesota and we're representing Kindercare
who is also here. Mr. Curtis is here representing Kindercare. We really don't have anything to
say. We agree with the staff. All of the conditions. The 21 conditions we fully intend to meet
and it's a little scary when a planning commission member asks a question like he just did.
Blackowiak: We aim to please, right. And does anybody have questions of the applicant at all?
Sacchet: Yes. Yeah actually I have a question. Really not pertinent and I probably get beat up
for it, but the bell tower, is that a real bell? Are you planning to ring it?
Mr. Curtis: No we don't ring it. It's glass on the inside. It's only for show.
Slagle: Nothing to do with lunches or supper.
Lillehaug: And I have one quick question. The HVAC equipment on the top of the roof, do your
pictures correctly show that all of the HVAC equipment will be hidden by the roof?.
Gary Brown: Yes. Actually there's a recessed pocket down from the peak. What you see under
the extra peak there's a pocket in the center of the roof... So this is a very accurate portrayal.
Lillehaug: Thanks.
Sidney: Is this a standard design that, for Kindercare?
Mr. Curtis: Well, standard the last 2 years, yes.
Sidney: Okay, so you've built these.
Mr. Curtis: Our standard building before we would put just a standard peak on it and then we put
the air conditioning out in the parking lot. Right on the playground rather. Now we've just taken
and put everything at the top...but it is a standard.
Sidney: Okay, and the windows are okay? Additional windows okay. Very good.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Mr. Curtis: I believe they're already drawn in.
Sidney: Very good.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. At this point we'll open this item for public hearing. If anyone
has comments on this, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioner comments on this item please.
Lillehaug: None.
Feik: None.
Sidney: Straight forward again.
Sacchet: I'm glad the staff made the comment about the windows. That's certainly the only
thing.
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich anything? Alright. I'd like a motion please.
Slagle: I'll recormnend the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Planning
Cormnission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-5, shown on plans prepared by RLK dated
May 17, 2002, subject to the following conditions. How do you want to throw the windows in?
Sacchet: They're in already.
Feik: Number 2.
Slagle: Okay, so nothing else. That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: Second and friendly amendment to make sure you say square feet instead of feet of
windows.
Slagle: I'll accept that.
Feik: Additional friendly amendment to the same, and then on the second sentence. That the,
shall add one window to meet the 50 percent guideline.
Sacchet: Is it 50?
Feik: Yes.
Slagle: I'll accept.
Lillehaug: Another friendly amendment? Change note from SDR 35 to SDR 26.
Slagle: I'll really accept that.
Sacchet: You'll have to explain afterwards what that is.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Slagle moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan g2002-5 as shown on plans prepared by RLK, dated May 17, 2002, subject to the
following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, and landscaping.
.
The northern elevation of the building shall add 23.16 square feet of windows and/or
doors. The south elevation of the building shall add one additional window to meet the
50% guidelines.
o
A sidewalk and pedestrian ramp shall be added at the parking lot landscape island to
access a future sidewalk to the east.
4. A separate sign permit is required for all site signage.
.
Wall mounted lighting units must be directed to the ground and may not be directly
visible off-site. All lighting shall have a 90 degree cutoff angle.
.
Tile lot must be final platted into a Lot and Block prior to the issuance of the building
permit.
.
The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of
berms.
.
Tile applicant shall increase landscape plantings in west buffer yard to meet minimum
requirements.
.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
City of Chanhassen Ordinance #9-1.
10. Fire Marshal conditions:
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for
fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and
made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997
Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
Oil the utility plan, a wall mounted PIV is noted. The Chanhassen Fire
Department uses yard PIV's in lieu of wall mounted PIV' s.
Please refer to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 1208-Gates and Barriers for
requirements for the playground fence to be installed around the building. Gates
shall be installed in the fence to allow for evacuation from and around the
building.
d.
Comply with the water service installation policy for commercial and industrial
buildings. Pursuant to Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy
#34-1993.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding
maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water sprinkler
supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
Policy #36-1994.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding
notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991.
Building Official conditions:
a.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed
in the State of Minnesota.
b. The building is required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system.
Polyethylene pipe cannot be used for the storm sewer as indicated on the plans;
use a material approved by the Minnesota State Plumbing Code.
A complete code review of the building cannot be done until complete plans are
submitted.
The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24
hour storm event.
Type II silt fence be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections ttn'ough
the City's Building Department.
Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1004, 2110, 3102, 3106, 5203, 5300 and 5302.
The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The
2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per
unit for water.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies nmst be obtained, including but not
limited to the Watershed District.
On the plan sheets revise the 20 foot public drainage and utility easement to a private
drainage and utility easement.
On the utility plan'
a. Show all the existing and proposed utility sewer type, size and class.
b. Revise the existing sewer flow direction.
a. Add CBMH 4 rim elevation.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Revise construction entrance note from 50 feet to 75 feet minimum.
21.
Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the lots. Access onto Century Boulevard shall be governed by the conditions of
the development contract for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition.
22. On Sheet 6 of the plans change the note SDR 35 to SDR 26.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: Item carries 6-0 and this item goes to City Council on July 8th. Thank you. At this
point in the evening we are going to take about a 5 minute break before we move onto item
number 6. So give people a chance to stretch their legs. Get something to drink, so 5 minute
recess. We'll be back.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO REZONE 68.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ RSF~
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND R-2~ RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE~
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 46 SINGLE FMAILY HOMES~ 38 TWINHOMES
AND 1.94 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL; A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO
ALTER A WETLAND~ AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION IN
THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HWY 5 AND NORTHEAST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD~ VASSERMAN RIDGE,
LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve & Susan Cohoon
Cindy Weber
Mike Burton
Marc Anderson
Ken Adolf
7525 Bent Bow Trail
935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata
935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata
935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata
10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Madam Chair. I'm wondering Kate why this was, has this been before the Planning
Commission as a concept plan?
Aanenson: No.
Sidney: Why?
Aanenson: It's not a PUD. A PUD we generally do a concept. This is, we haven't done a lot.
We've done twin homes but we haven't done on mixed R-4, but it's a straight subdivision.
Except for that little piece that you're giving a different zoning to, so it's really a straight
subdivision.
31
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
Sidney: Yeah, I can see where the commission may have lots of comments about trees and mix
of single family homes, twin homes and road alignments.
Blackowiak: Questions of staff. Steve, would you like to start?
Lillehaug: Well, wow. This is a pretty good report. There's quite a bit of information here.
Page 10 of the report. Since we were talking about, let's go to the compliance table first. Page 8.
You had a couple of properties there where your front yard width, you had them circled.
Shouldn't those properties also be in this, shouldn't they have the letter B on the compliance table
because there are about, I mean I counted. There's probably about 10 more.
Aanenson: What the literal interpretation of the ordinance said if you're on a curve or an elbow,
you have to meet the 50 foot at the 30 foot setback line. They're pretty close. We just noted it to
have them go back and just double check that. It's pretty close.
Lillehaug: So that applies to the ones.
Aanenson: These don't. These aren't on a curve or anything. It would be this lot, Lot 13.
Lillehaug: How about 5, 6 and 7 of Block 2? The front yard. Aren't they also, they don't meet
the minimum correct?
Aanenson: I measured them at the setback line. I think they can make them work, sure. If you
want to put that on there, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Lillehaug: Okay. How about on Lot 1, Block 2, that first property or parcel when you first enter
into the subdivision there. Are we comfortable with noise abatement for that?
Aanenson: Well the issue there was, we were trying to taper the sight line and MnDot had a
comment on that too. This was attached. You have the access point going into the commercial
piece here. You need a minimum of 300 feet which we have, but that was one of the comments
when we met and this got tabled is we wanted to make sure we had clear sight lines based on the
fact that this will be carrying quite a bit of traffic so Matt requested that that be tapered.
Lillehaug: So we're sacrificing noise in trade-off for safety then, correct?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. Alright, how about the, I've got to find my correct page here. It's on the
northwest comer it shows clearing limits or construction limits I guess. And it really almost goes
all the way out to the wetland and I'm seeing basically all them trees being wiped out.
Aanenson: Are you up on Lots 24 and 25 where we asked for conservation? Yes, we asked for a
conservation easement on the back of those. Again, going back to our project.
Lillehaug: So I'm looking on Sheet 5. Lot 24 and Lot 25. Basically I see they're setting limits
of clearing for future custom graded lots. The limits go all the way out to the wetland. Is that
indicating that it's basically clear cutting?
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Aanenson: What this tree survey doesn't show either is that our project took those trees out. We
have replanted along through there and 137 through here, but we still are recommending that a
conservation easement be placed on the back of those lots.
Lillehaug: ...construction limits also and it appears that they're just putting a trail in that area.
Aanenson: Well the easement's already there for our sewer project. I'm not sure there's any
grading through there except for our, to put our trail in.
Lillehaug: I'm looking on 5.
Saam: Yeah, I'm not following you. Those construction limits go, I mean those are all no grade
lots up there so the construction limits end basically at the right-of-way line. I don't know which
line you're looking at.
Lillehaug: Well I'm looking on Sheet 5, and they have, in the legend they have the assumed
limits of clearing for future custom graded lots and then I look on Outlot F and it has that line
symbology around that entire outlot. And the only thing that's going in there is a trail.
Aanenson: Right. Well I think if you wanted to add that as a condition, because that should be a
no touch, and the only thing that'd be in there would be the trail on our easement.
Saam: They'll have to submit a separate grading plan for each of those lots so we'll get a chance
to comment on it, but you're right. It shouldn't be way out there.
Aanenson: And that is a condition of approval, custom grading on those lots so if you want to
modify that or make it stronger, that's fine, but that is a condition.
Lillehaug: You addressed the high water level on a couple of the lots, and just fumbling through
the pages here looking for that, but on that southerly pond, there's an emergency overflow
through the bermed areas and it appears that it' s, there's a half a foot difference from what I
would see on the high water level to that emergency overflow and I would think that they would
be at the same elevations possibly. So we're only talking like half a foot but I would think that
should match, unless some modeling maybe.
Aanenson: Right, I think what we just talked about is moving the outlot over to between here.
Between the berms, and then there was a condition that we raise the...pad has to be 3 feet above
that pond level, and there's a condition in the report. Somebody else asked me that too. But there
was a condition that Matt put in the report that those have to be raised to make sure all homes are
above that, so that is a condition.
Saam: I'ln not following your issue with that Steve. What is your issue with that overflow?
Lillehaug: Well.
Saam: You want us to match the high water level elevation, is that?
Lillehaug: With the absence of modeling I guess. I mean I would assume that that high water
level would match that emergency overflow elevation.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Saam: Not necessarily. The high water level is determined by, there is an outlet structure.
Another pipe that will outlet the water. So using a 100 year storm, the amount of rain. The
applicant has shown that the pond will reach an elevation of 962. So for storms above and
beyond that, then it can get out on that emergency overflow of 62 V2 so. You don't always see the
emergency overflows at the high water elevation.
Aanenson: I was just going to make clarification on 23 then, Matt did have a condition in there
regarding the house pads be bumped up. There was a couple that, yep.
Lillehaug: Maybe you can come back to me...
Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce.
Feik: I'd like to follow up on a couple questions I had. I spoke with planning department earlier
today. The park, the private park that would go in. When that goes in, would that necessarily
come back between, come back to the planning department?
Aanenson: We haven't in the past. We disclose what it's going to enclose. We still would check
it. Engineering reviews them. So does planning for setbacks and they do, are required to get a
building permit but as a general we haven't taken them back. We disclose to you what's going in,
a swimming, a changing house and the like but.
Feik: My concern with that is parking. We have parking both sides of the street with kids and
strollers and things like that, I' vea pretty strong concern about where that could go.
Additionally, I guess where the flavor of this is more of a private community versus a public
development or more general development. Would you please discuss, you talked briefly about it
during your presentation, the difference between having them private streets versus public streets.
Would you go into that a little bit deeper?
Aanenson: Sure. Again, we have a number of subdivisions that have private pools,
neighborhood parks. Longacres doesn't have a pool but they have a private park. Ashling
Meadows, which you just recently approved is public streets with a pool that's under
construction. Private park. Springfield has a pool, private park. Public streets. And on Kurvers
Point also has a swimming pool. All those are abutting public streets. The ordinance that the
council and you most recently made recon-unendations to change is that you can only have on a
single family zone, now this doesn't apply to multi-family but in a single family zone, low
density, that it has to be public streets. You can only have 4 homes off of a private street and that
is only through a variance. That means there's some reason that it has to be, so this has to be
based on the low density, has to be public streets. Unless you wanted to notice it and kind of, you
~know throw that on it's head but that's kind of the direction we've been going under the last year
and frankly we don't have of this scale except for Hesse Farms, this larger subdivision with
private streets.
Saam: Kate if I could just add something to that. Even before last year, even before that
ordinance was changed to make a private street a variance, even then if you want to go with a
private street and single family homes.
Aanenson: It's 4 homes.
Saam: Yeah, well it's still limited to 4.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Aanenson: 4 homes, right. That's what, yeah. That's what I said, yep.
Feik: You spoke about Outlot F that is going over to the park.
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: Would you please discuss a little bit more in detail what the planning with that.
Aanenson: Well I think in the early meetings with the applicant we discussed the transition with
the trail back in here. There is a creek, water movement between the connection of those two
wetlands, and as we move, the city took through dedication that property immediately to the west.
To the Pulte, the city's going to have ultimately the control of that property and the development
through a natural, so we wanted to make that transition. It wasn't connected to any lot so we
recommended that it be preserved, just as open space.
Feik: That's it for now, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay thanks. LuAnn.
Sidney: Okay. I guess, well one question and this leads into I'm sure Uli's discussion. I guess
my greatest concern, and I understand that the subdivision we have few tools at our disposal to
really make a lot of modifications as long as the subdivision meets ordinances. However, you do
mention in the report that there is a significant stand of trees, and the mentioning that Lots 29
through 34 in Block 1. Do you have any advice or guidance on how to save more of those trees?
Aanenson: Right. I did mention a couple options. Again, if you look at what the low density,
what this is guided and working with the applicants, looking at what they want to do to the north,
which is the more traditional PUD. That only gives you as small as 11,000 square foot lots so
you're not accomplishing anything. What we looked at with this type of home, when you have a
twin home, typically you have a little bit different buyer. The lots are a little bit smaller. They're
not as inclined to make as many, maybe modifications to the rear yard such as swing sets and the
like so the only option that we saw is one, if the city chose to acquisition to say we'd like to buy 2
or 3 of the lots through the park fees, or if you were to look at taking the density in there and try
to make some of these as twin homes so they wouldn't lose as many total units but it'd be a
different type of product. Now I' m not sure how receptive the applicants are to that but there
isn't the flexibility of a density transfer in this, in the low density. And again we pointed that out
as the fatal flaw of the overlay district. Now again, they've got some approaches to raising the
street to try to preserve some more of those trees but it's, I'm sure it's still...
Sidney: So your suggestion is potentially increasing the number of twin homes?
Aanenson: Well, that'd be one way to do it, right. But you'd have to, to really to preserve that
you'd have to not.
Sidney: Not do anything on the lot.
Aanenson: Right. I mean they're going to do their best to try to work around the trees, but the
best stewardship of that, because once you get a homeowner and not unless there's a conservation
easement, their needs change over time. Whether they want to add on or put a swing set or put
something else in there. There's a little bit of control.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sidney: No road alignment that could be changed to help that? It doesn't seem to be the case
necessarily.
Aanenson: Well I think, you need the looping street to cut, to move through here. They are
going to, they are looking at raising the street so, I'll leave that up to them.
Sidney: Okay, that's it for now.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright, my turn.
Blackowiak: You're timing yourself? I like that.
Sacchet: I have a lot of questions...department earlier today to not take excessive amount of
time. Can you show us again clearly where the primary and the secondary Bluff Creek Overlay
lies please?
Aanenson: This is the subject property in the black and it runs through, what I'm not showing is
all the property owners because the property lines on the Longacres go out into, abutting that so it
runs through the middle of lot lines. So for the most part where the rub is, is in this, in the treed
area.
Sacchet: That's primary? So actually the whole property is either prirnary or secondary?
Aanenson: No, no, no, no, no. No, this is the majority of the property. We're down here on the
edge of that wetland, so what we said, now again as part of the overlay district, when this comes
through, our job is to look at the delineation which Mr. Svoboda did with this project and we
looked at that again and re-evaluated that line as looking at the fact that we've also put the
interceptor through and looking at that so we designated the primary line as the wetland edge.
Now some of those trees fall within that and the secondary zone is that buffer, but having said
that.
Sacchet: The wetland buffer,
Aarlellsorl: CoiTeCt.
Sacchet: Which is going to be the defined based on where the builder actually puts the buffer.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: And it's variable between 10 and 30...
Aanenson: Absolutely, right. Absolutely. And then, but also in the Bluff Creek Overlay District
the goal is to preserve those stands of trees in that primary zone.
Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that. Now, in the staff report you make reference to the Bluff
Creek plan ma~ng recommendations of the storm...and restoring the big woods. Can you give
us a little bit of an idea what that actually means and how that could possibly apply to this?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Aanenson: Sure. That was a discussion point that came up at the Pulte project. We had in the
past tried to approach that. The problem with these, when this got approved, don't do that. This
was done over 10 years ago. Put the lot lines out into the middle of the wetland. This subject
property was done, the Longacres was done that way. We had approached the neighborhood
about increasing the quality of that wetland. It was met with resistance so that was one of the
recommendations of the creek. That we have moved away from that but the other one that we did
feel strongly about that was recommended was the preservation of the trees, and we worked on
that one with the Pulte project. How we did the density transfer from on the other side of 41, and
we preserved the woods along, the wetland and we also preserved some of the trees down here
because that was again one of the recommendations.
Sacchet: So in the Pulte project we actually implemented that to some extent?
Aanenson: Through density transfer, correct.
Sacchet: While here, since we don't have the density transfer, we don't have a way to apply this
transfer conclusion?
Aanenson: The only other way you can is through acquisition. That's correct.
Sacchet: The only way is through acquisition. Well that leads to my next question. When, in
your discussion you talk about the wooded area. Concern about that it's desire to preserve them
and you list 3 possibilities. You say, I'm talking specifically where we're talking about the lots
27 through 34 in Block 1 where we have...the staff report about 25 or so significant trees other
than...oaks and basswood and I think there's some ash in there, between 30 and 40 inches. I
mean they're huge. They're definitely a city treasure I would say. Now you say there are
basically 3 options. Eliminate the lots. Basically does that mean we would declare that they
can't build there?
Aanenson: Well again, you'd have to either transfer the density or acquire them.
Sacchet: We have a hard time doing something within this framework.
Aanenson: Correct. Or, what we had suggested, and you know whether the applicants willing to
do that is, if they were to make other twin homes in order to preserve...
Sacchet: ...elsewhere but you say elsewhere. Where would they...
Aanenson: Well, in another area where's there's not as many trees.
Sacchet: But basically in the same area but maybe shift them a little bit?
Aanenson: Right. So they're not losing so many.
Sacchet: ...totally somewhere else.
Aanenson: Within the project so they're not losing units but they're getting a different, more of a
different type.
37
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
Sacchet: And convert these units to twin, that's basically saying that because elsewhere it doesn't
really exist. Now, we heard from Commissioner Sidney about possibly swapping the park, the
pool park over into the trees area.., staff doesn't think that's really feasible?
Aanenson: Well my concern is, in the ones we have in place, if you were to go look at them,
they're highly manicured. I think the expectation in those areas is that, you get sun and they're
not. I think if you want a natural area, and even if you're just trying to grade to get a pool in
there, you're not going to accomplish what you want to accomplish. I think you need to leave it
natural. That's the goal. Not to try to get something in. Over time the homeowners association
is going to want to make changes too, then it's a constant.
Sacchet: Now since the framework doesn't really lend itself to shifting densities and all that, has
there been any discussion or consideration to make it a different framework?
Aanenson: Yeah, certainly. You could up zone it. I spent 2 years on the piece next door. I'm
not sure I was willing to take that on. If you want to give me that direction, I'd be willing to take
that.
Sacchet: Can you explain...
Aanenson: You'd have to re-guide it to a medium density to get the different types.
Sacchet: You'd have to guide it medium density basically in order to have the flexibility you
don't have.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Alright. A couple other quick questions. You mentioned a couple lots that don't have
the right size. They're a little too small. Some are a little too narrow. In your conditions, you
have conditions that say, just to clarify. It says all lots meet the standards of the R-4 zoning
district, that takes care of all that?
Aanenson: That should cover it. They have to meet all the requirements.
Sacchet: Then interesting thing that peaks my interest is Outlot C. When you said...did you
point to Outlot C?
Aanenson: Yes. I believe that's where they're also going to put a monument in this outlot.
Sacchet: I will probably ask the applicant what that monument will say. Just for reference,
coming back to the trees once more briefly. In the Pulte project we manage to end up saving
about how much percentage of the significant trees? 50? 60?
Aanenson: In acreage it's probably closer to 15-20 acres as far as trees. You've got 12 across the
street. On the north side of the wetlands. It's probably closer to 15 to 20 acres of trees.
Sacchet: 15 to 20 acres of trees.
Aanenson: Right, but even in that scenario, not all the density was achieved. They still were
under, it was compressed down.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sacchet: If my memory serves me right we had about close to 10 real significant trees and we
were saving.
Aanenson: Yeah, actually the significant trees on that one were actually just on the other side of
this wetland. There were some right along the back side of this.
Sacchet: Alright, that was the biggest one...
Aanenson: We had to actually field check that trail. That went in. There were a couple of very
nice trees right there.
Sacchet: So there's certainly discrepancy here we say 10 percent and Pulte say...
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: Real quick, yes I have a few more minutes. So you said there is no impact to the
wetlands to the north and west basically.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: ...basically eliminates that small impact...
Aanenson: Yeah...where the one wetland.
Sacchet: ... square feet of wetland, that' s eliminated by putting that bridge in there. The staff
report...
Aanenson: This is the one wetland that will be impacted.
Sacchet: That's the only impact? Nothing up on the north.
Aanenson: Correct. That one is our intent to bridge that one and it should be impacted, and this is
just over 2,000 square feet. If it was under, it would meet, the diminimus wouldn't require any
mitigation but it's just over 2,100.
Sacchet: ...mitigation plan is we have enough through there...they bring the plan in eventually
we'll be fine.
Aanenson: Right, because it's so small. Correct. But there is wetland that they're managing
around the total perimeter which adds the complexity to that when we talk about moving things
around, following that correct.
Sacchet: And another area I want to briefly touch on is the noise abatement. In the MnDot letter
it makes a very strong statement I believe that the municipality, us in that case is responsible for
that. And one recommendation is that the berm is a little wider or higher or something. Does the
plan in front of us includes that?
Aanenson: Yeah. The plan that went to MnDot was the original drawing that had the pond on
the other side. If you look at this berm, when it originally came in, this was another...got tabled.
This pond was actually on this side of the berm.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Oh tabled by you, okay.
Aanenson: I'm sorry. We didn't bring it forward to you, excuse me. That we would, we held it
back. We asked them to make some modifications. The berm was actually on the other, I mean
the pond was actually on the other side of the berm which we recommended against. We wanted
the pond on their property. Through that we talk about how to transition the berm to get it
effective in the mitigation of the noise plus provide sight lines and through the landscaping and
the like, and Mr. Braslow who also has done work for the city, in reading his recommendations,
and the construction techniques and that was also the recommendation the same EA that Pulte did
regarding types of construction. The air conditioning units and the like, the construction
techniques that are used today in a newer product can be built to mitigate that so.
Sacchet: So I assume also the concern of MnDot about the access of the road has been taken care
of also?
Aanenson: Yeah. Actually they were concerned about the distance between this driveway and
the access point over here. Matt and I did speak about that. Our requirements is a 300 foot
minimum which that should meet.
Sacchet: That is taken care of. And then the concern about the drainage on the commercial lot,
that's something to be addressed when the commercial lot comes in?
Aanenson: Yeah. What their goal is, is it can provide drainage into this lot. They'll have to
provide calc's. When that comes back in through site plan review, those two lots, hopefully
combining together will come in. If they can't use that, they'll have to manage it on site. There
will be a process that goes through site plan review. You will see the project. They'll have to
show us how they're going to manage it. If MnDot does not give them approval, they'll have to
manage it on site and we'll deal with it at that time.
Sacchet: The wetland...connects with existing trail which terminates at Lot 13 of the Meadows
at Longacres. Could you just point out where that Lot 13 or trail to Longacres is so we know...
Aanenson: Sure. Actually. That comes up through this lot right here and that trail goes around
the back side so it comes up, if that makes sense. I'll go back to the plat and show you how that
works but it doesn't show Lot 13 on... This is Lot 13 on the Longacres lot so it ties into the Pulte
project, and then it ties back up to the other subdivision.
Sacchet: It goes across there, right?
Aanenson: It goes across, correct. Yep. There's a trail right there.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Running out of time I gave myself, however real quick. I mean, and
I' 11 comment about that in comments more but I do have some fundamental question from your
findings in the rezoning it says there's an elevation of site characteristics including mature trees.
Do you think we're saving enough trees right now?
Aanenson: It would certainly be desirable to save more. I'm not sure exactly how we can
accomplish that. Again, the applicant does have suggestions to try to, you know we
recon*nnended another one. A couple more lots be custom graded and that would address that.
Their response to that because they did see our report.
40
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
Sacchet: In the findings, you're not causing environmental damage. Another finding, it will not
change or a condition that we have to look at, it will not change the essential character of the area.
It will not result in the destruction of natural features. Help me out.
Aanenson: Well, there is significant trees here. We're not impacting any'wetland except for that
one finger. Our project did come through and take these trees out.
Sacchet: So if you look at wetland...I totally disagree with the trees.
Aanenson: You're right. There is a component that we're having some difficulty trying to
manage but in the overall scheme of, it is bordered on all sides by wetland and the highway that
you're trying to mitigate the highway and push up against the wetlands so, is there some things
that we can try to do a better job that we're working with them on, yes. But for the most part in
the other wetland part they've done a good job on.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate.
Blackowiak: Rich.
Slagle: Just a couple. As I listen to Commissioner Sacchet's comments Kate, and you've done a
wonderful job on this, it strikes me as I see a project of this magnitude, how should I say this?
Go back to other developments, I won't name them, that we have seen before us and typically
there's questions about number of homes. The impact on trees. Wetlands, what not, and in some
ways we start to question whether or not you should have this number of homes. And it ends up
being a give and take over the timeframe of this project so I first of all see this and I say gosh,
maybe we don't need this many home sites. I'm going to throw that out first. But my question to
you is, I was, and I guess I'm surprised and maybe you can share with me, but what I've seen up
until now, when I saw this Thursday was that the trail, and I don't know if you can put the trail
lnap up again, but the trail went from 41 all the way to.
Aanenson: No, she's just going to run up and get a trail map, that's fine.
Slagle: Okay. Even if you have the overhead map, I'm sorry. That you have a trail going from
41, which would be north of Pulte. In talking with the Park Director that 41 trail would actually
connect northward on the east side of 41 by Mr. Olson's property, and connect to the Longacres
trail system. It would then proceed going east to the north of Puke, which we see and it would
connect up along this north western edge. Go down. Connect up north to Longacres and then
continue along the wetland to where it would enter or approach Galpin along the creek. In fact
we planted all those trees and my belief is that along those trees you're going to have a beautiful
path that would go and provide our citizens with wetlands and what not to view. And now I see
in this plan, not that path but instead of going down the middle of a neighborhood, joining a
sidewalk in front of people's homes, passing a private park, and then continuing on to West 78th.
So literally the entire northeastern section of what I considered to be a trail system has now been
removed and so do you, can you help me why that's happened?
Aanenson: The Park and Rec Commission, or the Park and Rec Director makes recommendations
on this. He did meet with the applicant and that was his recommendations. I guess what I would
suggest, if you feel strongly about a different direction to that, that you'd make that a condition
that the council consider that. They're going to have the Park and Rec Director's
recommendation but if you feel strongly about some other alignment that you just pass that
forward for the council to consider. But as far as why.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Slagle: Or possibly not vote for it. I mean it's an option that I as a commissioner.
Aanenson: Well I'm not sure that we can usurp what, you know his recommendation is going to
carry forward. I'm not sure you know.
Slagle: But I mean, let me be clear with this. We receive a packet, and to the commissioners I
address this, full of, I mean it's a huge project. And then to have some days to look at it and then
not have the Park and Rec Director here to ask. I'll ask the applicant as to why this was
redefined, but not have the ability to sort of further investigate and research why this was done
and what could be done to change it, I don't know if I feel comfortable and there's a couple other
things I'll address later that I don't know that I'm comfortable with to vote yes and say, send it to
council and have council go over it. I guess I'd be interested in looking into that, but I want to
hear what happened in that conversation as to why that changed. That's all.
Blackowiak: Steve, did you have any further questions?
Lillehaug: I guess I'd like to hear from the applicant.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I just have a few quick questions. Page 4, talking again about the
restoration of the shallow marsh. You said that it met with resistance before. Is this our chance
now? I mean we're not getting any trees out of this deal. I mean that's kind of what, we have to
just say that. So why, if it's a goal of the Bluff Creek plan, then is this our chance to move
forward with it? I mean why would we ignore it?
Aanenson: The problem is you've got property owners on the north side that run into this so
you're going to have to get again, we don't do this anymore but we have property lines that run
out. They've all been transferred, all the properties on this...go out into the wetland so it's
virtually, unless you can buy them...I believe is not going to be possible.
Blackowiak: So you can't work on any restoration anywhere? It's all or none is what you're
telling me?
Aanenson: Well you'd have to get all the property that interest along here...and you won't be
able to achieve that.
Blackowiak: Why can't you do some? Why can't you do the northwest comer? And work out
some of it.
Aanenson: ...it affects everybody. If you increase what, that was the goal is to increase the
quality of that wetland.
Feik: So you're increasing the water level?
Aanenson: ...little bit to get diversity of wildlife in that wetland, right. That was the
recommendation of the study by the experts, right. And that was approached 5 years ago.
Blackowiak: And so you've just dropped it is what you're telling me?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'm just thinking this might be the time to reconsider that. On page 8,
42
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
compliance table. It talks about again we change Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 2. How do we get
around this no deck thing because it's going to come back. Somebody's going to complain that
they didn't get a document and we want a deck. We're entitled to a deck.
Aanenson: Right. What we talked about with the applicant is that, while they've shown
oversized pads which are bigger than their typical and they're bigger than their 60 by 60 building
pad that on those lots they'll be coming in with a little bit different product and then they' 11 also
put those covenants with those lots. The 3 lots.
Blackowiak: So they don't get decks is what you're telling me?
Aanenson: No. They would have decks. It would be a little bit different type home. Custom
built for that lot, right. Right.
Blackowiak: I just don't want to run into, I don't want to see this 3 years from now.
Aanenson: We don't either. That's why we talked about it. Again, they're oversized building
pads, but so we would come back with a little bit different type, prototype of home that would,
where they have an area to build out, the house is oriented...
Blackowiak: ...all the trees removing, do we warranty, does the developer typically warranty
trees for a year or something?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: I didn't see a condition.
Aanenson: There should be a landscaping escrow requirement.
Blackowiak: Okay, is it a condition that I missed or where?
Aanenson: If there's not we can get that.
Blackowiak: Well it could be, it would be in the subdivision?
Aanenson: Yeah, it should be with the subdivision. If it's not.
Blackowiak: Okay, I'm not sure. I guess I didn't see it but.
Aanenson: Generally it's done with final plat, with the development contract that we put the
escrow in, but there would be an escrow requirement.
Blackowiak: Okay. As long as that's in there. Page 16. Building inspections, Fire Marshal
comments. Number 5 is blank and I couldn't find a letter or anything to substantiate what might
number 5 have been. Or is there just maybe not a number 5? Okay, that's fine. And then you've
got trail changes. That's another one of my biggies too. I thought too that it was going to be a
green way trail based on all the discussions we had with, in the park and open space referendum
and that was the whole goal. Along the primary corridor a green space. Focus on that so that'd
be a big concern of mine. Sounds like we've taken up a lot of time with staff questions so let's
move on to the applicants or their designee. Come to the microphone and state your name and
address for the record please.
43
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
Mike Burton: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Mike
Burton. I'm a Land Development Project Manager for Lundgren Brothers and with me this
evening is Mark Anderson, Vice President of Lundgren Brothers. Cindy Weber, our Land
Coordinator, and Ken Adolf our engineer from Schoell and Madsen. President of Schoell and
Madsen. Just like to open by saying we really think staff did an excellent job, and that with their
recommendations we are planning to bring everything into compliance that is being
recommended. Just want to open by saying that. And so I can start, probably come out of the
gates here. We've been talking about these 6 lots right in here, and the trees there. See what's
going on here, you have about a 10 foot cut that we've been planning. This below drops off quite
quickly right here so it's the age old question of woods or wetlands. I mean if you build this up
and then all of a sudden you're dumping dirt back down into the wetlands so we tried to preserve
that wetland area as best as we could. And so what we've done now is come up with a plan that
would hopefully save more of these trees, and that is this plan which is blowing this area up.
Here's the 6 lots. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Do this way is that private park, so first we'd like to say
that probably these homes will never build a swimming pool because there's a swimming pool in
this private park. So, and hopefully they won't be inclined to build play equipment because we're
going to have a really nice playground in this park as well. If you look at these trees, we went
through this afternoon and highlighted all the different types of trees. We've got 99 boxelders in
here. We've got 44 elms, 56 basswoods. If you look at this line right here, this dashed black line,
inside of that line we' re already intending on saving those trees, with the exception of the
building pads. This line here is the 80 foot by 80 foot plus the front yard that we worked with Jill
Sinclair and that's the building pad area. The back yards, this was always planned to be saved
these trees. So what we've done to try to increase this area, which was the area you were going to
be cutting down was, we're going to raise this row 3 feet. Right here, and what that will do is
allow us to expand this line of saving out to this point out here where this new red line is. So all
these new trees will be added in. In addition, we've got some nice oaks over here. That's the red
line is what we're going to do is build some retaining walls in there, and save those. And so I
think that's about the best plan we can do in that area. Additionally, Cormnissioner Slagle you
mentioned that trail. Well, as Kate mentioned, we met with Todd and he wanted that. He wanted
exactly what Kate was saying. Have the trail come here. Come down to a sidewalk. We started
with a sidewalk coming down right here. We're actually having a sidewalk on this side as well.
But that was what he recommended and so that's what we're doing.
Slagle: Did he give a reason?
Mike Burton: He did not give a reason. Hejust, that's what he wanted. So if we looked at the
compliance sheet, the lot grid, we are going to bring all those lots into compliance. Every single
one will be in the square foot. We're just going to, we've talked to Ken, our engineer. We can
tweak everything and make it all work. And we will do that. I think you talked about the trees.
The trees being sort of trashed back in here. Well a lot of those were already taken down as Kate
said, by the sanitary line so we're planning to move trees out of here. Some of these trees out of
here up into the first phase this summer. What we're planning to do is do this in 3 phases. The
first phase we'd like to do this summer. 20 twin home and then the HOA park. And incidentally,
this outlot right here is not a monument. That is a buffer. We're going to have a monument here
and here on the side of the road, and this will be our twin home monument, and we'll have a
single family home monument over here. And it's going to be called Vasserman Ridge, named
after, well what we did is we like to name our communities after some historical event and we
consulted with Chuck Dimler. I don't know if you know Chuck but his father knew the owner of
the Gateway Group Home that this was the original farm, and evidently this was German who
used to deliver water to the area farmers and so, they called him the Vasserman so, we're calling
this Vasserman Ridge. What else? The bridge, the pedestrian bridge. We'll build that. We're
44
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
assuming that that will be part of the park dedication with the trail. That the city will pick that up
and that that' s part of the trail. It' s a pedestrian bridge. And just for the record, the commercial,
the use we're under the assumption that we can get gas pumps there.
Blackowiak: Kate, neighborhood business does support gas.
Aanenson: Yes. And convenience store.
Blackowiak: Or what's?
Aanenson: What the PUD ordinance says is that it referenced the comprehensive plan and when
we did the comprehensive plan we wanted a more specific clarity. What's neighborhood oriented
because in the BN district it does allow shopping centers which is too broad, so in putting the
PUD together we said no single use can be bigger than 5,000 square feet. And again the intent is
that we wouldn't have one large center but we'd have something that services the neighborhood.
Whether it's a local pizza place, show repair, bagel shop, whatever, but it wouldn't be one large
single tenant so anybody that would meet that criteria, and still be consistent with the
neighborhood business district would be permitted. And that's the way the PUD ordinance
reasons. Again, the architectural standards was the other concern that we had. That it be a
pitched roof and match the flavor of both neighborhoods.
Blackowiak: Okay. And one other question just for my clarification. Drive thru's allowed or not
allowed?
Aanenson: No drive thru's.
Blackowiak: Not allowed. Okay, thank you.
Mike Burton: I think one of the recommendations was the high water level mark be raised 3 feet.
That's no problem so we'll be doing that. Matt, I know there was a concern about the storm
sewer line coming through that 20 foot berm. What we're going to do is make that the
emergency, is there a plan I can show that on Kate?
Aanenson: Sure.
Mike Burton: We'll make that the emergency overflow. That will take care of that, and then
actually it will increase or it will improve the sound mitigation. Yeah, so right here is the
proposed storm sewer line going through this berm and right here is the emergency overflow so
we're just going to move that over to here, and now it won't be real deep and we'll just continue
this berm right on through here and so that will be better sound wise for these twin homes and it
will be a longer distance then to come up through here so we think it will improve the sound
mitigation. These 3 lots up in through here, we looked at real hard as far as the distance from the
buffer and he did do calculations on it and found that only in our estimation it was Lot 13 that we
would need to apply some restrictions as far as porches and decks to the rear and, which is typical
for almost all our projects. But this is the only lot in this subdivision that we've found that we
need to restrict some of the floor plans from having decks or porches in the future, and it's typical
for Lundgren to provide a matrix and disclosures and restriction statement and we're happy to
provide the city with that and so that's just that Lot 13. I guess I don't have any other comments,
if you want me to stand for questions.
Blackowiak: Thank you, yes I would. Commissioners, questions of the applicant? Rich.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Slagle: My focus is initially at this meeting is going to be the trail, and I guess my question
would be, even though it sounds like the Park Director, who's a wonderful park director, either
gave you direction or suggested to go that way, my question would be is would you be against
taking that trail along the back edge, and I do understand that you get down to the Lots 11, 12, 13,
have some issues with setbacks. But my question is, on the north side and towards the west,
you've got homes that in many ways it looks like it's the same depth as the homes that I'm asking
for on the northeast...east wetland. Would you be against having a trail go down?
Mike Burton: Well I think we could certainly discuss it you know further with Todd. We'd have
to kick it around I think in our office if that's something Todd would want, though I think we've
been pretty cooperative with working with staff so.
Slagle: I guess my question though would be, speaking by myself but potentially for other
commissioners, if that is something that we would be interested in seeing. Because as we sit here,
you either vote for it and ask that you go and talk to someone in staff and depending on how that
discussion comes out, either it goes forward with some thoughts that we might have, or it doesn't.
And it goes to council and gets approved, and so sometimes it's tough for us to say you know
okay, you guys go talk and we keep our fingers crossed that something happens that we might
like. And I guess my question is, this is a serious enough issue for me because of what I have
seen proposed and the thoughts of getting the green way and the Highway 5 corridor, Bluff Creek
Overlay that I sort of what to know the positions and so I'd like to know your position. Whether
you're for that or against it, and are there concerns that you need to address, and if you want to
go.
Blackowiak: Name and address for the record please.
Mark Anderson: My name is Mark Anderson. I'm with Lundgren Brothers, 935 East Wayzata
Boulevard in Wayzata. Commissioner, I'm a little confused. I understand that there is some plan
that allows the connection of a trail all the way to Galpin, is that what you're referring to? And
you're trying.
Slagle: Sure.
Mark Anderson: Is there a park plan or?
Slagle: We're talking for him to be able to go...but basically what's happening is, on the south
side of Longacres, your development, you have that trail that runs along, and actually it goes up
to whatever street that is. And then it continues on where it stops. Just before it stops is where
the connector will be down to your's, I think it's, what's that circle up there?
Aanenson: Bent Bow.
Slagle: Bent Bow. You have that connection down, connector to your lot. What...are saying, if
you follow your finger along the tree line going to the southeast fight there, keep going. Keeping
going. Keep going down the wetland. Works it's way. Okay. What we're saying, or I'm saying
is that that's what I believed would happen. It would go behind our homes on the edge of the
wetland. It would be a very nice public trail just like you have in Longacres. So now what I'm
seeing for the first time this weekend is that the trail is actually not going to go along the wetland,
but actually it's going to go in the middle of your neighborhood and continue down to West 78th
and then they'll have to walk up on the north side of West 78th, a very busy road perhaps, to get to
Galpin. I guess I'm just wondering, since you're amenable to the trail being in your back yards
46
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
on the homes to your north and west, would you be open to running a trail down along the east
and southeast?
Mark Anderson: Well the reason I ask the question, I'm trying to understand the big picture here
and come up with the solution that may be alternative D or E, which is not quite either of what
we're talking about here. The problem that I see is that we started with staff as to the trail system.
They said this is where the trail system goes and then we designed the subdivision to kind of fit
and work that in. I'm under the impression that the way it's designed right now, there's not
sufficient room behind those homes for a trail without having serious impact on the back yards
and the privacy of those people. So that' s why I ask it. Now it is possible to perhaps come down
the road for a while and then cross back in perhaps on Outlot C. But that's why I'm trying to
figure out, where is it going you know. So we can work with you but we designed the
subdivision with these parameters. We were basically dictated to, and to make that suggestion
means we would have to redesign this whole thing.
Slagle: I understand and I think for the commission and staff, the difficulty obviously is the park
director's not here to present the thinking to us. So we are in a position where we either vote for
it, don't vote for it, table it, what have you. And I'm just saying to the rest of my commissioners,
although it' s my comments. I' 11 make it quick but this is enough of a concern for me to get an
answer as to why this went this way that I would, I really want some meat into w_hat some future
action so.
Mark Anderson: And that's a way to connect the trail.
Slagle: Exactly. That's all I have right now.
Blackowiak: Alright.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions of the applicant. As you might have gathered already, my
big issue is the trees. I have a real problem with, and what I looked, I did a similar exercise by
the way as you did. I took the plat that has the trees on them and I looked, one thing I was trying
to filter out, well how much is boxelders and how much is good hardwoods, and in that area here
that staff pointed out, Block 1, Lots 29 through 33, or 34 for that matter, according to the staff
report there are 25, mostly all oaks and basswoods and one ash that are between 30 and 40 inches.
Big trees. Huge trees as far as I'm concerned. And with the tree preservation that originally the
grading limit that you originally suggested, once you have the custom lots going in, there will be
2, maybe 3 of those trees surviving. Now with the addition that you just presented to us with the
extension of that tree preservation or no grading zone. No grading to the north west, there would
be 3 at best, 4. No actually it's only 2, at best 3 trees in that group that will be added so it's
commendable. You're doubling them from 2 to 3 to 5 to 6 of them that will be saved. However,
I still struggle with it that from 25 or depending on how you count it. Actually depending where
you delineate it, it's even more than 25 of those really huge trees, oaks, basswoods and ask, only
between 10 and 20 percent would stand a chance to survive. From a city viewpoint those trees
are a treasure, and so I wondered, I discussed that before with staff. There are these different
options. Eliminate the lots. Replace them with twin homes. Maybe swap the park over. Maybe
go a different route and a different framework. To me that's, as Commissioner Slagle pointed
out, this is big enough an issue that goes deep enough to me that I feel it needs to be looked at
before.
Mike Burton: If I may.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sacchet: Yes it's your turn.
Mike Burton: If you look at this plan real closely here. Again, this is the area that we were
saving. This is what we're proposing now to add. Okay.
Sacchet: Right. That's what I addressed.
Mike Burton: So we just counted 33 trees inside this, between the new red line and the black line
that we're saving.
Sacchet: Clarification. I mean I wasn't counting trees. I was counting trees that are between 30
and bigger. 30 inch and bigger diameter.
Mike Burton: Okay, well. What we would need to do is take the time here to count the trees that
are remaining that we'd still be pulling down but remember these are.
Sacchet: I counted them.
Mike Burton: Okay, well these are building pads. These trees are going to go regardless because
they're in a building site.
Sacchet: Yeah, there aren't that many on that lot actually. 33 has 3 of them.
Mike Burton: Well oil this lot, this area would be the area that we'd, in any event, in building a
home there, you'd be taking those trees. So these trees around here are trees we're looking at
seeing if we can't save some of these trees actually, are we not Ken? We're looking at that area,
but we are again saving these trees with retaining walls here. With building this, these trees
would go. These trees would go. So it's these trees right in through here that we're talking
about. I just don't see those as a great number of trees right there for a subdivision. I think we've
saved a lot of trees.
Sacchet: Yeah, well you sort of give me a framework. It doesn't really answer my question. I
don't l~ow whether it is going to answer my question to be honest with you, but let's move on to
tile other couple questions I have to keep this moving. Outlot C, you said it's not going to be a
monument. It's just going to be a buffer. Buffering the higher density from the lower density.
Mike Burton: Correct.
Sacchet: You think that needs a designated buffer for that?
Mike Burton: We thought it was a good idea.
Sacchet: Okay, okay. Well I can accept that. Now real quick question, why did you spell
Vasserman with a V? Because Vasserman in German is spelled with a W.
Mike Burton: Well because we thought they'd call it Wasserman, like Wasserman Lake in
Victoria.
Sacchet: So you preferred tile sound versus the spelling? Alright. That's a good answer. I
believe that's l-ny questions for you. Yeah, we talked enough about the trees. Thank you.
48
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: LuAnn, questions?
Sidney: Well I guess Uli covered the tree issue. I'm still quite concerned about that. Anything
you can do to take an accurate inventory of the significant trees as part of the application would
be good. And then also, you know trying to save more trees if there would be possibilities.
Mike Burton: Lundgren wants to save trees. We don't want to take trees. Trees add to value,
you know. That's what we want to see on the lots. They add to value.
Sidney: And I guess, I guess this is more comments but I am concerned about the berm that's
being used for noise mitigation and I guess I' m wondering how the appearance of that could be
improved. I'm thinking of, it's going to have more of a wall appearance to me because you're
going along 5 and then all of a sudden boop, there's this huge berm. And I'm wondering how
that could be sculptured.
Mike Burton: Well we have put together a landscape plan. I could lay that up here. So this area
we are planning, this is, under the buffer yard requirements we're already planning on planting
that berm.
Sidney: Okay. And I guess the other comment I'd like to make is that in the report we're talking
about 60-70 db noises. Sound levels at certain times for Highway 5 noise, and I must say, I guess
I'm concerned about the noise level in general in this neighborhood, knowing from experience
that 60 db is enough to disrupt my sleep so I guess I'd like to just share that with you. That we...
Mike Burton: Well that's why we thought we'd take that proactive approach and contact Mr.
Braslow and have him do a study and we pretty much followed his recommendations and think
it's as good as we can do with this site.
Sidney: Yeah, so I guess questions about just the appearance of the berm and you certainly have
more expertise than I about that, and then maybe just a heads up that there could be significant
noise.
Mike Burton: Yeah, you don't really want to undulate it up and down or you lose the noise
mitigation. You have to have it up there and consistent so that's what we followed.
Sidney: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce questions.
Feik: I've just got a quick one. Outlot C adjacent to Lot 10, Block 1. Why is that an outlot
versus increasing the size of Lot 107 Lot 10's a very, very small lot.
Mike Burton: We're going to have a homeowners association here that will be maintaining these
outlots and we want to make sure that that buffer between the twin home and single family is
maintained. And that it's maintained in a nice way.
Feik: But there's not a buffer between 28 and 29 on the other side. Necessarily.
Mike Burton: 28 and 29?
Feik: Over on Block.
49
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
Aanenson: Block 1.
Feik: Block 1, yeah. There's no buffer between the twin and the single there.
Mike Burton: Yeah, I think we have a different orientation. You're talking about right here?
Feik: Yeah, there's no buffer there.
Mike Burton: Yeah, we have a different orientation. See as you drive in, we're going to have a
twin home entrance and a single family home entrance and as you drive in, we just want a little
separation as you enter the single family on the road was the idea.
Feik: And that couldn't be accomplished by just making the lot bigger? I'm just curious.
Mike Burton: We just wanted to be able to have control over that area by making it an outlot that
the HOA will control and then maintain that landscaping by having control.
Feik: Alright. That was my only question, thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Steve.
Lillehaug: I have one quick question. First off I cormnend you on addressing all the conditions
that staff has recommended there.
Mike Burton: Thank you.
Lillehaug: What, I've got to beat this tree issue to death here. The trees are very important here.
I think Commissioner Sacchet addressed the trees in the center parcels there good. I'm looking at
the Lots 24 and 25. What are your feelings towards dedicating a conservation easement on those
lots for 24 and 25?
Mike Burton: And we're talking Kate I think about that in that area.
Aanenson: Correct.
Mike Burton: Yeah, we didn't have a problem with that.
Lillehaug: Okay. Good, thanks.
Blackowiak: And I don't have any questions. Rich, go ahead.
Slagle: I know we're debating it, and I don't know if this would work or not but in Settler's
Ridge where we've got the fencing on the south side of Pioneer, would that help? I mean would
that, or would that be too much? I'm just wondering how.
Mike Burton: We talked to David Braslow about fencing and it was his, I think his opinion was,
he doesn't like fencing. He likes plantings more than fencing. Sounds runs into fencing and he
thinks it bounces over it and travels over it. He likes vegetation to absorb sound as opposed to the
fences.
5O
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
Lillehaug: I have one more quick question.
Blackowiak: Sure. You commented on the bridge. Actually this will be a question of staff. Do
you have any comments on he addressed the issue of the bridge?
Aanenson: We'll check with the Park and Rec Director. This kind of to go back to Rich's
comments just for clarification. It may be moot to you but when park and trails are put in, that's
credited towards their park and trail dedication. Sidewalks are put in at their expense. So
however Todd negotiated that, but that's how it works. Park and trails are paid, so I don't know
how Todd came about that. But if there's a trail...I'd have to ask Todd about how the
compensation works and obviously they want to know. We'll check on that for you.
Mike Burton: Yeah, Todd told us that the cost of the trail, we'd build it but we'd be reimbursed
for it. The cost of building it.
Aanenson: But our issue with the bridge is that's a way to mitigate any wetland impacts so I'm
not sure if that nexus goes to the trail issue or if that goes to our issue of trying to preserve that
wetland with impacts so I'm not sure. We'll have to strike a balance on that, if that makes sense.
Lillehaug: How would you suggest addressing that right now I guess.
Aanenson: Well our feeling was, instead of impacting the wetland bridge, it just so happens it
makes a nice amenity for the trail. Should they be compensated for that? I don't know. I'm not
sure. I think that's something I'd like to discuss with them so, and talk to Todd about and Lori.
Try to look at what type of structure. You know we've just talked about it today, or yesterday for
the first time...
Lillehaug: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Alright, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to
comment on this issue. Had a couple over there, I think they gave up on us. Seeing no one, I will
close public hearing. And now's the time for comments. Rich, why don't you start.
Slagle: I'll start. But before I start, I'll have one quick question and again, I've got to get better
at writing my questions. I apologize Kate, but did you say to me that the applicant did have a
meeting with Longacres?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: The neighbors in Longacres and literally no one's here.
Aanenson: I did talk to Councilman Steve Labatt. He was at that meeting. The Cohoon's who
have left the meeting.
Slagle: Live in Longacres, okay.
Aanenson: Correct, they're Longacres. And spoke to them. Showed them the plans. They have
seen it. They were here. Other than that they said that they didn't have a turn out, but Steve has
talked to a number of his neighbors too.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Alright, my comments. This is the first proposal I have seen since I
have been on this commission that is of this magnitude. I was not part of Ashling Meadows. I
was not part of Pulte. You can go on and on. And I have to tell you, as a commissioner, this is a
lot to handle and there's a lot of questions that have come up today and I'm faced with one major
issue and that is the trail, and obviously I'm sure Mr. Hoffman, knowing him like I do, has some
good reasons why he suggested or discussed what they had discussed. But I would like to hear
those and so I will share with you now that I am not prepared to vote one way or another on this.
Not just because of the trail, but because of the trees. There's some questions on noise. It's not a
huge issue on my end, but I think there' s more that I would like to see staff get back to us with
and then vote on it in a future meeting. Might be the next one, or the next one, but just being
honest. There's a lot of here. It's a huge project and in the course of an hour and a half, 2 hours
I don't know if I could vote on it. So that's my thoughts.
Blackowiak: Uli.
Sacchet: Well you heard from my questions a little bit where I stand. My main issue is the trees.
I considered this big trees, and I'm talking not about the boxelders. I'm talking about these oaks
and basswoods and ashes between 30 and 40 inch caliper. That's big trees. I consider those a
city treasure. There are very few areas, if any left in this city that has that amount of huge trees
and even the ones between 20 and 30 inches are significant, and there are a lot of those that I
didn't even look at at this point yet. I feel that, no I don't feel. That's a bad thing up here. I'm
very clear that this has not been looked at sufficiently. There are options, as staff said in the staff
report, to eliminate some of those lots and I'm talking about these 29 through 33, or at least 29
through 32 of Block 1. To remove the lots and replace the units with twin homes elsewhere.
Well the elsewhere, we have a problem with the framework but we haven't really explored
different frameworks. Convert these units to twin. I mean it's mentioned in the staff report but it
hasn't really explored further. Swapping the neighborhood park. Well from where I'm coming
from, those trees are more important than a swimming pool. I know that's just not the vision that
you have with this development, but I think from a city viewpoint that could be a very defendable
position to take. Whether PUD helps or part of it would have to be zoned dense or maybe that, I
mean those are options to lo°k at. Even with the addition, I appreciate your effort, and don't
misunderstand me. I think this is a great project and I want to commend you for bringing such a
good project in front of us but I do have to agree with Commissioner Slagle that I can't really
support it with, these questions go too deep. The one with the tree. The one with the trail. They
go too deep that I am inclined to support this project enough. Now the extension that you
recommended off the no grading zone, does just about double the tree you save. I mean in terms
of the ones I looked at. The ones that I counted. The 30 to 40 inch oaks, basswoods, and ashes in
that particular area. It increases it from 2 to 3 to 4 to 6, so basically from 10 percent we go up to
20 percent of these major trees being saved, but I think it would be reasonable from a city
viewpoint to ask that 2/3 of these trees get saved. And then if you have to do a give and take, I
think certainly half of those trees should be preserved. In some way or other. Now based on that,
to wrap up where I stand with my comments, in the rezoning finding, one of the things you have
to look at is preservation of desirable site characteristics, protection of sensitive environmental
features including mature trees and others. Well, we don't get enough of that. We do not get
enough of that that I can support this rezoning application. With the preliminary plat we have
finding number 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including several things including
vegetation, are suitable for the proposed development. Well in general that's true. It's going to
be a wonderful development. A great setting but we have not enough preservation of the
significant feature of those trees. Then again, still under the preliminary plat findings number 5,
the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. The finding of staff is the
proposed subdivision indeed will not cause environmental damage, subject to conditions of this
52
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
report. While saving 10 or possibly 20 percent of those significant trees in that particular area
where we have hardwoods, of that size, to me that's significant environmental damage so I can't
support that. With the conditional use permit, it will not change the essential character of the
area. Finding number 3. Well it totally changes the character, the essential character of the area.
Now I have to commend you guys, meaning Lundgren Brothers Builders,'you have a very smooth
way to do this in phases so it doesn't get noticed all that much but in the end those trees are going
to be gone, and so the end effect to me is not acceptable with that. It will not result in the
destruction or loss or damage of several things including natural features of major significance.
Those trees are of major significance to me for the city. And that is my comments. So at this
point where I stand, I'd like to table this and have these issues furthered researched. Thank you.
Sidney: Goodness, quite a list.
Slagle: You need a drink of water?
Sacchet: Deep breath will do.
Sidney: Well I must say you said succinctly what I want to say, and I appreciate that so I don't
have to say it. But it's unfortunate, I guess I feel like, you know I wish this had come in as a
PUD. That we would have a concept plan to look at and maybe some of the issues that the
commissioners are talking about, we would have had a chance to talk with Lundgren Brothers
earlier on this. Of course that is not the scenario that we're dealing with here. But I think it is
significant that we have some trees that we'd like to save that it's important to the community
that we try to do that. We have issues with homes very close to a major highway and I think just
dealing with the noise issue is going to be a concern. The trails, have we done the best job that
we can with the trail system? What are. the options in this development? Can we have more twin
homes and increase lot sizes? And I just get the feeling like we're not quite there with this
development. There are too many questions. We have a lot of impact to the wetlands. Or I
shouldn't say that. We're dealing with wetland issues. We're dealing with significant trees. I
think we need more information about that. I don't want to really try and create a, well wouldn't
like to have a more density at the expense of trees and I see this to be the way that a lot of
subdivisions go. I think if we can be more sensitive to some of the tree issues, I think we'd be
better off. That's my comments.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce.
Feik: Sure. I'm not comfortable with it for some different reasons. Some the same, but some
different as well so I'll only discuss the ones that differ from the comments currently out there.
Part of it is, I'm not comfortable with the trail system in general. I would much, strongly prefer
to have the trail coming down both the east, southeasterly direction as well as the west side as
was targeted by the original Chanhassen trail goals. I would consider, I think Kate had said
something about up-zoning it to accomplish some of the things I think the city would like. One
of the concerns I have on this is, I don't think it is a very, I'm not sure how to say this. I'm not
trying to say it in a discouraging manner at all. It's not a very welcoming development for the
rest of Chanhassen. We stub a trail into it, but really not the feeling that the community can ride
through it. I would normally have expected maybe a stubbed road going to the east to the
Pryzmus property to allow that to be developed in concert with this, like we've seen in a number
of other projects. That is not that large of a site over there and I think that would seemed to it
would make more sense from what some of the other things we've seen. So I guess I'm not real
comfortable with it today. As I sit here I keep asking myself more and more questions, and not
getting them answered.
53
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Steve.
Lillehaug: I think you did a very good job on addressing all the wetland issues. I mean it's very
commendable to throw a large development in like this and have to do minimal wetland
mitigation and basically all the other issues, with an exception to the trees. I just don't think
there's enough big tree preservation and it's a key concern. I also have concerns that you did
follow guidelines from staff, as far as the alignment of this trail. But I don't want to, I want to try
to streamline the review process here but I don't want to compromise the better for the
development so I don't want to compromise anything on the development here. I'd like to
streamline this but I agree with the fellow commissioners that this isn't what we want to see at
this point.
Blackowiak: Okay. My comments are, have pretty much all been taken. There are some major
issues and I think you' ve heard them and I would certainly encourage you to check the minutes
and look at our biggies but they would look to be trails, noise, trees. I mean and we need to see
this back. We need to see how it's going to happen and I, Bruce thank you for bringing up the
connection to the east because I never even thought of that. How do we stub in? How do we plan
ahead because we try to pride ourselves in doing a good job and looking at the big picture and see
how things are going to fit. I mean this commercial is a perfect example of that where we try to
think okay, we've got the Pulte commercial. We need to tie in this next parcel and check
accesses and things like that. We usually do a pretty good job and until you said that I didn't
realize that we'd kind of been forgetting what's to the east 'so good catch. I just think there are a
lot of issues that need to be resolved and we do need to see this back so based on that I would like
somebody to make a motion.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that we table this.
Blackowiak: Is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for
Vasserman Ridge, located on the north side of Highway 5 and northeast of Century
Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: This item is tabled. It will be put on the next available Planning Commission
agenda after things are worked out. Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT #2000-2~
MISS ROSIE'S FARM, REVISING THE SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR A
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 7461 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, SUSAN MCALLISTER.
Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, in an effort to kind of move things along, if you'd like
to speak just give me a signal. Uli, questions.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sacchet: Yes, a few quick questions.
Blackowiak: Quick questions.
Sacchet: The landscaping it talks about the applicant has not yet met two conditions of approval
for interim use permit and it talks about a landscape plan and buffer yard plantings and then it
goes on to talk about a windrow of trees along the south and east. Could you explain a little bit
what that entails because that landscape plan, it's a farm. We don't want to landscape it. Buffer
yard plantings. Where do we need to buffer and then this windrow, I'm not quite clear...
A1-Jaff: That was a recommendation of the original approval. Typically within farms you have a
row of trees that eventually mature to block off wind to open areas. That portion of the landscape
plan has not been implemented.
Sacchet: That would be Pulte needs to buffer? I mean does Pulte has to own the buffer then? I
mean Pulte is the one who comes in with a different use...matter of opinion I guess.
A1-Jaff: I believe the applicant has to provide the landscaping on.
Sacchet: Did Pulte provide any buffer plantings there?
A1-Jaff: I don't know, but I can find out.
Sacchet: That may be, we don't have to dig too deep. Now you're maintaining the thing of two
buses is a matter of intense...
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: I'll make comments about that. And then you have a condition about handicap parking.
That it needs to be commercial standards drive to the house. If it's by the house and if it's not by
the house then it has to be an accessible trail.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Can you explain about that perhaps?
A1-Jaff: A handicap parking is proposed within this area. If that is the case, this entire driveway
will have to be upgraded versus if the applicant decides to keep the handicap parking within these
areas, only portions that would need to meet state requirements is this driveway.
Feik: Why?
Sacchet: Walkway.
A1-Jaff: Walkway. And eventually it will get to this area.
Sacchet: The reason why I ask this is, it would seem like we have conflicting elements. On one
hand we have the Historical Society says the driveway should be narrow and historic and gravel,
but then this seems to say it needs to be wide and all this other stuff.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
A1-Jaff: Only the pathway would need to.
Sacchet: ...finish the driveway. So that kind of cancels out the possibility of the driveway, the
handicap parking being by the house.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: If it is on the southern side, then we need this trail to fulfill certain standards and are the
standards specified? Do we know what they are?
A1-Jaff: They would have to meet building code requirements as far as.
Sacchet: The trail being flat enough and.
A1-Jaff: Correct. Certain grade.
Sacchet: ...and you wouldn't impact the historical, alright. That's my questions.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Feik: Sharmin, real quick. You state that if the handicap parking goes to the north side they have
to upgrade the gravel road where it swings all the way around the property. Upgrade that to
bituminous? Or why? It's 10 foot wide.
Sweidan: Upgrade it the width of it.
Feik: Just the width?
Sweidan: We can go with the gravel but it has to be according to the conditions if it is gravel
road.
Feik: So you can drive a bus up there, but you can't drive a handicap van up there? I'm trying to
understand the difference between why you have to upgrade it for handicap when you wouldn't
have to upgrade otherwise.
Sweidan: You have to upgrade the width of it. It has to meet 20 foot mininmm and that's
according to the marshal, Fire Marshal. He needs for the fire truck a path of 20 foot minimum.
This is the minimum width he can go to. Now, if they need the handicap to be up north, up there,
it doesn't matter what kind of pavement. If it is gravel, that's fine. We have a condition for
gravel she has to maintain and supply us with.
Feik: So in other words, if it's a private drive essentially it can be 20 feet wide?
Sweidan: If it's private does mean handicap parking is not allowed.
Feik: If the visitors are not driving on that, then it can be 10 feet wide.
Sweidan: Exactly.
Feik: Is that really the crux of this?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sweidan: 10 feet for the private use only. Not for the handicap or for the public.
Feik: Okay, so it's really not just handicap driven?
Sweidan: No.
Feik: Okay, thank you very much.
Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn.
Feik: Oh wait, you had something else. I'm sorry.
A1-Jaff: Also, if you look at condition 6 on page 12, this is also handicap parking is addressed
under that. 6 and 7.
Blackowiak: LuAnn, question?
Sidney: Why the windrow of trees? Where did that come from? Condition 9. For the interim
use permit.
Feik: And is it still relevant?
Sidney: Well yeah.
A1-Jaff: It is along the east property.
Feik: Is it still relevant?
A1-Jaff: It is still relevant. They haven't met this condition. Speaking to Jill, she.
Sidney: So this was part of the original.
AI-Jaff: This was part of her original plan. It had to do also with vegetation along Bluff Creek
Overlay District.
Sidney: Okay, so this is looking back at what was originally approved then.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sidney: So this isn't something new?
A1-Jaff: No.
Feik: In your opinion, it still is necessary?
AI-Jaff: It is required.
Feik: That's not exactly what I said. It's required for the previous stuff.
A1-Jaff: Is it still necessary?
57
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
Feik: Could it be eliminated is the question? Could the requirement to plant those be eliminated?
I don't care how it got there. I want to know could it be eliminated and is it necessary?
A1-Jaff: I believe landscaping is always necessary and it goes back to, if it's going to block wind,
yes. It will be.
Sidney: Well that's maybe just a question mark for City Council.
Feik: Okay.
Lillehaug: I had one quick question, and then I want to hear from the applicant. The initial plan
addressed the driveway off of 41 to the north of the property and this new plan really doesn't
address it, but I'm seeing a note on there that that driveway, it says only bus entrance and exit I
think is what I'm reading. There's a letter in here where MnDot addresses it that that should only
be used as a private entrance. And I don't think we addressed the condition here. Do you think
there should be a condition attached here? Limiting that driveway to a private use only and no
buses shall be.
Sweidan: We can...but we thought that you know once they are going with the new access
from.., they' re going to have to use that northern part.
Lillehaug: Okay, you think they will use it though?
Sweidan: If they are...according to this access, yes they can use it. Yeah.
Sacchet: One clarification Madam Chair. When we talk about this northern access, I mean that's
the gate that stands next to the woods. I mean it's not exactly driveway. Is that what we're
talking about? Because the access, the main access that looks like the driveway now is going to
be closed, so we' re talking about it's going to basically need a machete to get through, right?
Sweidan: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, just want to be clear.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one question Sharmin. I could not find in the letter dated July 25,
2000 mention of a windrow. I see mention of a buffer yard. I see mention of a landscape plan. I
don't see anything about, specifically about a windrow and I'm just wondering if that's new
based on.
A1-Jaff: You are correct. On page 7, under landscaping.
Blackowiak: This was just sort of a suggestion that was in one of the reports. So it wasn't, this is
new is what I'm asking, or kind of telling you. So this windrow thing is new?
A1-Jaff: Yes it is.
Blackowiak: Okay, just to clarify that. Thank you. Well Susan, you've waited long enough.
Come on up. Name and address for the record please.
Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and I live in two, same spot but I have two
different addresses. One is 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard, Excelsior and the other one is now 2930
58
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
West 78m Street in Chanhassen. Yeah, I keep trying to tell the post office it's the same place. I
never get my mail though. Yes, my real address will become 2930 West 78th Street but right now
that's where I am getting my mail so I think we'd better put that on for the record. I'm in a
transition area. I think I was born in a transition area. So I'm here tonight because I have got
some requests and that is to re-route my driveway due to some new historic information that was
discovered by me in December of 2000. And I guess I'm just going to get to the point, like you
know. The people that know me from before know I always get right to the point and I don't pull
any punches. I just call it like it is so we'll just start that way and go from there. On July 24,
2000 the City Council approved my request for an IUP to operate a petting farm subject to 14
conditions. Condition number 5 specified the landscaping shall be the following: 2 overstory
trees, 6 understory trees, 6 shrubs, and I figured out the cost would be about $2,300. Today I
come before you and some how there's a windrow of trees that I figured out how many trees
would have to be planted according to what the city's requirements is and that's $21,000. I think
this is absolutely ridiculous. All I'm doing is coming before you, and I'm told I need to amend
the IUP simply to allow me to re-route my driveway to preserve the historic integrity of the
farmstead for nomination to the national historic registry, and some how now it has been
determined by the planning department that I should, like I said, add trees along the east and
south property lines around the pasture to help define the parameters of the farmstead and provide
some screening from the development area, that is according to the bottom of page 7. Number 1.
Point number 1. This is a working farm. It's been a working farm since 1983. It's not to become
Camp Snoopy or the Pickled Parrot. The property lines are the pasture area. I will show them to
you right now with some pictures that I have, just so we can clarify things. If somebody can get
me the camera on these photographs. You can see here that these are close-up's. Am I upside
down?
Sacchet: You're upside down.
Susan McAllister: Whoops. Okay, those are close-up's of the fence and as you can see there,
this is when it gets to become farm country last year. This is the east property line right here and
I think this is the south property line because the water tower, was built there. Actually this is a
couple years ago. So then therefore you can see there is fencing all along there. Okay, therefore
the pasture fencing which runs along those two sides will continue to find the east and south
property lines. I am not going to put trees along any part of that area, and this is not even
negotiable with lne at all. It is to stay natural to preserve the farmstead's integrity and also to
grow my pasture area. I need the sun in my pasture area. Right now I already have a farm in the
middle of a forest. I will show you this photograph. This is just part of the, where the barn is and
you know, this is the only part out there that doesn't have trees. Everything else absolutely...
Feik: Excuse me. Would you orient me which is north and south on your aerial?
Susan McAllister: Okay north is right here. South is here so my driveway will eventually be
coming up here and then winding around, okay.
Feik: Yep, thank you.
Susan McAllister: And this is the pasture area on the east and south side so, okay. It is
absolutely ridiculous to ask me to do anything like that when the landscaping was approved 2
years ago there was no mention of a windrow whatsoever. I'm simply re-routing my driveway
due to the new information about the farm that was discovered by me in December, 2000. I just
want to clarify that you know, I didn't feel I was going in for an amendment to the IUP but I was
told I had to. I got my site plan approval like I said 2 years ago. I'm simply showing the official
59
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
driveway due to the newly discovered historic information. That's it simply. I don't know if this
becomes somebody that doesn't want to look at a farm. I think it might be something like that.
They don't want to see a barn. I'm not sure. I can't go there because I don't have that answer. I
just want to say that it needs to stay natural and that's one of the, I mean one of the real important
aspects of preserving something for the National Historic Registry is to keep it as close to the
original as it was, alright. And just, actually I've already met some people from Arboretum
Village that love looking at the barn and the pasture and they actually are hoping the additional
units about to be added won't block their view. I know different but I'm not going to tell them.
In fact they even want to help me paint the barn, you know all the out buildings this summer.
Number 2. Regarding that tree line again. I, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the
State Historic Preservation Office and the Corps of Engineers are still dealing specifically with
the east and south property lines regarding the farmstead and if anybody has to screen anything it
will fall on Pulte's shoulders due to the adverse affect, quote unquote, their development has had
on a historic farm. We are still negotiating this so I can't even visit this issue at this time. So, I
am asking you to remove condition number 9 of the IUP entirely as re-routing my driveway
should have no bearing on what was approved 2 years ago. As for the bus situation, I simply am
planning for 2 buses now, even though I only have permission for one now. I don't want
necessarily to have 2 busloads of kids there at one time. It's basically a safety issue more than
anything. One bus could go over their planned time at the farm, or one bus could arrive earlier
than planned or both which could result in a possible liability issue for the city seeing they will be
owning West 78th Street at the time I open. It's only, you know like I said, it's only for safety to
allow them to park and wait instead of blocking West 78th Street with nowhere to go.
Additionally the invisible structures, the way they're manufactured, they interlock and they need
to be installed at the same time so I'm simply you 'know, in case 2 buses, 1 bus doesn't leave and
another bus shows up, they have to have a place to go and that's what I'm building for. That's it.
You know, if I need to have 2 buses in 2 years or a year from now, I'm not ashamed to come up
here and ask for it, believe me. Okay so condition number 4 of the IUP shouldn't be an issue at
this time. Condition number 6 of the IUP is problematic. As I have spoken to Steve Terrell, the
building official about the handicap van or car, or cars, coming up the 10 foot wide driveway,
asking him is it going to make it commercial or is it going to be personal? And he felt that the
small amount, the low usage that it would have would, was okay and that it would not cause my
driveway to become commercial as a 26 foot wide. It's already going to have the 7 ton roadway
design in it. So I'm asking if the I0 foot wide driveway can be the accessible trail. According to
the engineering firm, they think that I should be friendly to handicap people. I want to be friendly
to handicap people and allow them to come up towards the house, but it totally goes against what
the intent is, is to keep the driveway a walking area. Actually the cars are going to pull in off of
West 78th Street. They're going to park there and the kids are going to be able to walk up the
driveway. That's what the intent is for this 10 foot wide driveway. I'm the only one going to use
it and a fire truck will be using it, I hope not but I mean if they have to, I think they'll go straight.
I'll give them permission to go straight across the yard. They don't have to go around the circle.
And you know the handicap, I wanted them to be closer you know so I'm just saying that's a
question mark. I mean I don't know what to do with that. You're going to have to come up with
some answer for that. Condition number 17 of the IUP. The Interim Use shall terminate in 8
years by June 24, 2012 which really should read July 24~h of 2012. Because it was given in July
24~ instead of June. So if, okay the intent was to give me 10 years. Everybody knew at the time
I applied for it I couldn't start at that time that I applied for the IUP because West 78th Street
wasn't in yet and sewer and water was not available to me until actually last week. It's at the spot
where it's at. And I don't know if it's officially available but it's in the spot it's supposed to be
in. These were 2 of the conditions that I had to meet in order to operate so, and let's refer now,
I'll refer to City Council comments. Let's see on, from Linda Jansen in July of 2000 and Nancy
Mancino, and that would be on page 25. Okay, Councilwoman Jansen: And I'm assuming that
60
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
would be from the start day of the actual business since we discussed it may not be able to start
until 78th Street comes through. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's the other part. Councilwoman
Jansen: So it would be from once you have access from West 78th Street. And then I said I had a
letter from MnDot that says I can use the driveway now. Or I can use that access now, but
MnDot wanted me to take total personal responsibility for the safety problem that might occur
them and I was not willing to go there. I am not so I decided I couldn't. Even if I wanted to, and
I chose to, my driveway was missing half of last summer. It just didn't exist. It did not exist.
Okay, then we come to Mayor Mancino: Well it's between you and MnDot so whenever you
officially start, you know it's worked out with MnDot. If they allow you to, you'll need to notify
us and then it will start from that start date. Okay, I have not started. So therefore, therefore I am
asking condition number 17 to read, the interim use shall terminate in 10 years by July 24th of
2002.
Sacchet: 2012.
Susan McAllister: What? 2012 1 mean. That's what I meant. Oh my. I missed it again.
Slagle: Have you addressed staff with these questions?
Susan McAllister: No.
Slagle: Is there a reason, may I ask?
Susan McAllister: Well because, no. Not yet. 'I'm addressing them tonight.
Slagle: Okay.
Susan McAllister: I just saw these just a couple of days ago. Okay. Condition number 27. My
engineering firm, which talks about that it has to be a 3 to 1 ratio, slope. My engineering f'm'n
thought it was a 3 to I slope so they're checking it out because they believed it was so I don't
know what is going on there. It will be if it's not. As for the duck pond, it is not a new addition.
Hang on, I will show you. I'm simply showing it in the same place it was 2 years ago. There it is
right there. It's almost exactly in the same spot, wait a minute. Yeah. It's almost exactly in the
same spot that it's going to be now. It actually is in the same spot, so therefore there's no
specifications called out at that time when it was approved with my IUP in the context of my IUP
in the year 2000. So I ask you to remove condition number 6 in the conditional use permit which
asks for that 10 foot bench. Also, condition number 5 is worked, I just want to mention that
condition number 5.
Slagle: We're going back...
Susan McAllister: We're backwards, yeah I'm sorry. Okay, condition number 5 of the
conditional use permit. The stormwater runoff from the manure/compost area shall be buffered
prior to discharge into the Bluff Creek Overlay District to protect water quality. The applicant
shall work with the city staff to develop an appropriate buffer plan. I'm already working with the
Carver County Environmental Services on this and they've given me their plan as to what to do
about that so. The City did have a problem with you know policing from everything from other
agencies so therefore I'm asking them to not deal with that. I will deal with the Environmental
Services because they really oversee that. So I don't think that that should be in there either. So
condition number 5 should be eliminated in my opinion.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1 8, 720072
Blackowiak: Okay Susan, now if you're dealing with the County and you feel that they have an
appropriate plan, then you really wouldn't have any problem with the City just taking a look at
that would you?
Susan McAllister: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. Then we don't have to take it out.
Susan McAllister: So finally I ask you, how did we go from 14 conditions to 30 conditions if I'm
simply re-routing my driveway? Initially I said 2 years ago the driveway shown on my site plan,
I stood here and said that, is not necessarily the route it's going to be. It simply shows the
approximate stub in from West 78th Street because I had to show something in order to show you
a plan and so MnDot just plunked it in there. They just you know, she put it in there. I used the
plan and that's what I'm saying, and just so you know, I'm simply, I'm just, I'm not asking for
anything new. I'm just showing the official driveway alignment. Well I'm asking for it to be
gravel actually but I'm not adding everything and everything that's been discussed has been
approved 2 years ago, except for the gravel with the IUP so I don't know what else to say. If you
have any questions. I can show you the parking area actually and how that's going to look, a
little bit. This is a meadow right here.
Feik: You're upside down. Thank you.
Susan McAllister: And the parNng will be in here. It will be behind the tree area so you won't
even, you won't see them because we're going to carve it right out of there so this is from, this is
from, believe this or not, this is from the south side of my property which really is West 78th
Street right here and so actually when you're coming in, you know you're going to go to one
parking area there and then you' re going to head towards the... This is going to be carved out in
here. So it will be...and this is the other side when you're coming off of West 78~ Street and
you're park .... in here. So I tried to do it, you know I love protecting tile environment and I'm
trying to do everything I possibly can to protect it. I need to keep my farm eligible for the
National Historic Registry application because if anybody that you've ever met in your life that
would need that on their charm bracelet it's me. So therefore I, it's important to keep the farm as
natural as it was originally. I have definitely lost, you know I mean the fields weren't mine to be
had but that was part of the farmstead but that fence row or hedge row or whatever you want to
call it is rnore than 1,200 feet away and to bring that close and try to say that I need to start like
surrounding my entire farm, it's not going to work. It's not going to rnake me have a workable
farm anymore. I'm going to block all the sun from my pasture. It's not going to work. It's not
going to make me have a workable farm anymore. I'm going to block all the sun from my
pasture, and I think it's simply because some people...don't like the look of a barn so that's just
my opinion. You got any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions.
Lillehaug: I have a question. What has changed from tile original approval here that now we
should approve 72 bus parking lots rather than 1 ?
Susan McAllister: I'm asking for room to put 72 buses.
Lillehaug: Has anything changed from the previous approval?
Susan McAllister: Not that I know of. What do you mean? What 'kind, what do you mean?
62
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Lillehaug: Previously you wanted 1 bus parked and 10 parking...
Susan McAllister: I haven't done anything since I was here actually 2 years ago today. I was
here on June 18th. My anniversary date.
Lillehaug: And that's why I'm asking. What has changed?
Susan McAllister: Nothing.
Lillehaug: To warrant 2 parking stalls.
Susan McAllister: Nothing. I'm simply trying to tell you, I'm simply saying that if I'm going to
put in the invisible structure, I need to put it in at the same time according to the people who
designed it. Because it interlocks. Did you see the specs? Okay, it's under the grass, yeah. And
I'm just saying if there's, I'm not saying I want space for 2. I don't want 2 buses at one time right
now. Okay, I might work myself into it later but I don't want that now. I never really did ask for
that. I just wanted 2 buses to park there in case they show up at the same time or one doesn't
leave in time. There won't be any room to shuffle people around or buses or cars or anything.
There's going to be a problem so I'm trying to eliminate a liability situation.
Lillehaug: One more question. The gravel driveway. One of our tasks here tonight is to grant, to
look at the variance for the gravel driveway. Is there anything else fueling it other than the
National Historic Registry? I read their letters here and it didn't clearly, to me say that you have
to have a gravel driveway. Otherwise you'd be excluded from the registry. I think the verbiage I
read, it suggested maintaining gravel. I' m wondering if there' s anything else fueling that as far as
funding or.
Susan McAllister: No.
Lillehaug: Because we talked about cost of trees and I'm wondering if there may be a trade-off.
Susan McAllister: No. I will not be willing to trade off. I'm sorry, I just can't do that. And you
know there is a Dennis Demistat of the Compliance Office for the SI-[PO did fax a letter to the
city I'm sure. Do you have it? Is it in there?
Blackowiak: Yeah.
Susan McAllister: Oh, I didn't get it. Okay well, I hope it met with what he recommended and
he did physically visit the site. Even though it says on here without physically visiting the site, he
did visit it. I mean it was kind of, that sort of sounds like he didn't visit but he did visit it. So on
historically significant sites it's best to maintain the character of the site. It's best not to make
changes to the site that are radically different from the historic patterns. The farm is a farm.
There's no other farm in the middle of a city that I know of, because I've sure gone through heck
trying to get it. So therefore it's got to have the driveway that was original to the farm which is
gravel even though, see what happened is this is like a technical thing. Okay. A technicality.
Two years ago when I got approved they didn't have a hard surface ordinance for a driveway,
okay. It just said my driveway had to hold the weight of a fire truck, plain and simple. That's
what it said. And I told them it was going to be gravel. I never said it was going to be blacktop
or anything else. I specifically said gravel. I didn't even say that the parking area was going to
be gravel. It was going to be grass at that point. But now I see that I have to at least put in gravel
so that is what I'm asking for. Is to protect the integrity of the farmstead because it's different. It
63
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
can't be compared to anything else around here, and that is one of the intentions that the city did
say years and years ago that we want to be different. We want to be different from other
communities so therefore now's your chance.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Blackowiak: Other questions? Bruce?
Feik: None for the applicant, thanks.
Blackowiak: LuAnn?
Sidney: Well a question for staff I guess. Interim Use Permit termination date. What is the date?
As stated in the staff report or the date when it's granted by City Council and the clock starts
ticking?
A1-Jaff: Typically there's a drop dead date on an interim use permit. In all honesty I need to
check the original file on this one. Bob Generous prepared the staff report.
Blackowiak: Shaixnin, I can help you a little bit. I was checking on that too. We got a copy of
the Interim Use Permit and on page 20, well it's City Council meeting dated July 24, 2000, so
that's the date of the City Council meeting. That's the date it was granted. So there was a lot of
discussion as to whether it starts right today. Does it start when she starts working? And it's
really unclear in here because it says a little bit, well we can start. We can start it when the actual
operation begins. Then however, if you go to page 26, Roger Knutson says, it is from the date of
approval. And then Councilman Senn says, from the date it's granted? Roger Knutson, yes. We
have no way of tracking when she would start. And then Councilman Senn, so she waits 4 years
to do it. That's not, and Roger Knutson says, it's her decision. And Kate says, also on the
interim use you can come back and ask for an extension, so she can not get started, she can come
back in and say I was going to be in. I mean interim use allows for'extension so that's the whole,
I mean page 26. Top third of the page.
Sidney: So it's an accurate date?
Blackowiak: July 24, 2000 is the date that it was started. It says June 24th in the staff report but
it's actually July 24~. 2000 so that's when it was granted. So if that helps at all.
Sidney: Okay. That's it.
A1-Jaff: Madam Chair. There is one thing that I failed to mention earlier. Since the historic
preservation of the site is bringing this before you again, staff did wish to add a condition that
says, the State Historic Preservation Office shall review and approve any alterations to the site.
Blackowiak: And that would be in which, that would be in the.
A1-Jaff: In the interim use permit.
Blackowiak: Okay, that'd be number 31.
Feik: So what if the SHPO disagrees with the modifications that you require and she loses her
historic status?
64
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
A1-Jaff: Well it is before you...historic status.
Slagle: Can I ask when the historic status is going to be granted?
Susan McAllister: When it' s, the application is done.
Slagle: Have you applied, formally applied?
Susan McAllister: I have not formally applied because there is still an issue with the east and
south property lines actually. The trees, okay. The SHPO won't even make a comment with that
right now because of the fact they said it could be dangerous.
Slagle: Well okay but, and not, I just had a question. The trees are in this application as a
condition, correct. I go back to July of 2000, all that any type of plans refer to just a buffer.
Parking area should be screened from public or private right-of-way adjacent single family
residence. So my question is, since July of 2000, we, what's happened before we ran into this
one? I mean it's almost 2 years of not applying or, I don't want to put words in your mouth but...
Susan McAllister: Well I didn't know that it was eligible for the National Historic Registry until
last May, even though the report was published by, Pulte was supposed to do a report. Okay.
And in order for them to come forward with their planned unit development they had to do a
report because they were applying for federal money, okay to fill wetlands. So the Corps made
them prepare a report. That report was only discovered by me about 6 months later.
Slagle: I watched the TV so if I can, I understand where you're going on that.
Susan McAllister: I'm not going further with it.
Slagle: Good. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say good. But basically, can I comment?
Blackowiak: Please do.
Slagle: I do have a concern that I want to direct to staff, how we go from 11 conditions on July
24, 2000 to now to 30.
Susan McAllister: 31.
Slagle: 31. That concerns me. But you know, I don't see any reason to change what the council
and the commission did back then. I think we should vote on whether it's yea or nay and go on.
Sacchet: More questions?
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Sacchet: Okay, I've got a few questions for the applicant. The duck pond. Is there a problem
with that, what's it called? Safety bench.
Susan McAllister: I don't even, well first of all, I don't know what a safety bench is.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sacchet: It means that you can't just go down real deep. It has to go shallow so if a kid wanders
out, he's not going to drown right away. He has to walk all the way to the middle of the pond.
Susan McAllister: I thought the ducks needed a bench. I'm going okay. This is new to me.
Sacchet: I think I'm interpreting this correctly Sharmin but it's my understanding that it has to be
very shallow at the edge and then maybe can drop off a little more in depth. Is that correct?
Sweidan: Essentially...shouldn't be a sharp steeper.
Susan McAllister: I don't know. I mean I have to ask my engineer about this. I don't know but I
just want, I don't want it to get so big because it's got to be so shallow before it gets deep, you
know what I mean. I don't want that. I don't know how to answer that other than it wasn't
addressed 2 years ago. They knew I was having a duck pond, only it was a swan pond then but I
chose to do the duck this year, just because I'm more friendly and I could put you know like
cattails or something around there to stop kids from wanting to go through it. You know what I
mean? I just don't want it to get so wide, you know, in order to keep it at 10 to 1 so, whatever. I
don't know. It was not addressed 2 years ago and it's in the same spot it was 2 years ago and it
just got a duck pond instead of a swan so.
Sacchet: Another question for you. Basically conditions right now prevent you from having the
handicap parking by the house. Now having the handicap parking in the parking area, and
whatever that means making the trail accessible.
Susan McAllister: I don't know what that means. That little trail that I showed there was going
to be mulch. It was a mulch trail for kids.
Sacchet: Does it mean it must be hard surface or? The idea I guess is you have to be in a
wheelchair.
Al-Jarl: You have to be able to use a wheelchair.
Sacchet: Now technically you can wheel a wheelchair up and down the stairs so you can wheel it
over mulch but it n-fight not be the ideal.
Sweidan: Mulch is not a material that we can use for even for kids...pavement, asphalt or the
concrete.
Sacchet: So it has to be hard surface.
Sweidan: It has to be hard surface even for a wheelchair.
Sacchet: Then we clashing with the historical character.
Susan McAllister: Well see if we do the hard surface, then what happens when we meet the
gravel driveway to get, you know the rest of the farm is done all in gravel. It's all gravel. The
whole farm is done in gravel. All those areas going to the buildings have been gravel for years.
Sacchet: ...
Susan McAllister: That's okay, I'm used to that.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sacchet: Alright, that's my question.
Blackowiak: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Okay. Thank you Susan. This item's
open for a public hearing. I don't see anybody here so I'll open and close the public hearing.
Sacchet: Before we, can I have one more question for staff?.
Blackowiak: Sure, quickly.
Sacchet: Because there's another condition I just discovered looking at, it's condition 20 of the
IUP. Revise driveway width to 26 feet and a maximum of 10 grade. Now, if it is not commercial
it doesn't have to be... 10 feet or?
Sweidan: Yes, there's a small portion by the farm...24 so it has to be at least 26. If they are not
going to make the whole driveway a commercial, so that portion of the drive.., should be 26.
Sacchet: So the car coming into the parking lot, this is not addressing the whole driveway? So
we should be clear.
Susan McAllister: I think he changed it to 26 feet already.
A1-Jaff: If you look at this, right now it's shown at 24 feet.
Sacchet: Oh, it's just that one piece. It's not the whole driveway.
AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Sacchet: Because it's a condition...okay, thank you. Thanks.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Alright, well let's try to get out of here before midnight.
Slagle: We should be able to do that.
Blackowiak: Well we have one more item after this. Oh yeah. So let's make comments. And I
think what I'd like to do is just a little bit differently. Take a look at each of these, the conditional
use permit. Interim use permit. Take a look at them separately and then kind of comment as we
go along. So I mean let's talk conditional use permit first and get some consensus and then move
on. So if anybody would like to comment on conditional use permit. Any proposed changes.
Sidney: Looks fine to me.
Feik: I'm fine.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. Interim use permit. Aside from renumbering. We don't have a
number I but.
Sidney: I guess I would be in favor of removing condition 9.
Blackowiak: Condition 9. That makes sense.
Feik: I for one would be in favor of adding 2 bus stalls.
67
Planning Commission Meeting- June 18, 2002
Sidney: If it's gravel. I don't have a problem with that.
Sacchet: ...it's the cement...
Blackowiak: Which I think would actually be much more expensive than gravel but.
Sacchet: It's a safety issue.
Susan McAllister: And it's beautiful.
Feik: Change too t7 to reflect June to July. Proper date.
Sacchet: If I could comment on that. I think since this goes to council, I would want to say for
the record that council may consider whether they want to make it 10 years...but since it's
reviewable.
Blackowiak: To them? Okay. Any other comments you want to throw out here? Number 6.
Sorry, I'm going backwards. Susan made mention that Steve Terrell said that you may not need
to have, you might be able to have handicap parking up in a personal area or something to that
effect, and I would be in favor tonight of leaving number 6 as is, but before you go to City
Council Susan, have Steve Terrell show up at the meeting. Have him write you a letter or
something like that so you can verify that, and you can present that at City Council. You know as
it is tonight, I wouldn't change anything.
Sacchet: Can I comment?
Blackowiak: Sure.
Sacchet: Actually I have comments for 6 and 7. What irks me is that it seems like the direction
from city side is giving to the applicant is to some extent clashing with the intent to maintain the
historic character of that site. But if you're asking for the driveway or for the trail for that matter
to be hard surface, I see that as a conflict with maintaining historical character. I think since this
is...some flexibility should be granted here.
Sidney: Work with staff.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I was going to say work with staff, but you know I don't think it's a city
issue. I think we're talking a state law with accessibility so I don't think it's even in the city's,
within their realm of saying anything about that. But I would say definitely work with staff to
determine state requirements.
Feik: I'd like to see the gravel stay. I think the bituminous is inconsistent with, and over kill.
Sacchet: So the condition work with staff on the handicap parking and possibly access trail...
Blackowiak: Yeah, and just to see how state laws, yeah.
Sacchet: Work with staff... And then I'd like to specify condition 20 that it applies to the
parking entrance and not the whole driveway.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay, good.
Lillehaug: Condition 19. I mean does the Fire Marshal mandate the 20 foot goes all the way up
to the residence? I mean I can't believe that'd be true.
Sweidan: ...
Blackowiak: Where's the 10 foot come in?
Sweidan: The 10 foot? They apply to the 10 foot trail width. The Fire Marshal insists on 20
minimum even if they're handicap by the house.
Lillehaug: Do you know what the existing driveway width is?
Sweidan: The existing?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Sweidan: I think it's 10 feet because it's coming actually from Highway 41. It's...but it's ending
with I0 feet.
Feik: So is 20 feet a code or is it desired by the Fire Marshal?
Sweidan: It's a code by the Fire Marshal. For the fire trucks.
Al-Jaff: Fire code.
Lillehaug: I guess I'd leave that as stands then.
Feik: Unless there's another way to get them up there.
Sacchet: Right now it's 10 feet though, is that correct?
Blackowiak: It could be non-conforming.
Lillehaug: So that'd be grandfathered in but when you modify it you have to upgrade it to 20
feet I guess is how I'd understand it.
Feik: Yeah, but somebody's got to be the authority to give it back.
Blackowiak: That might be City Council.
Feik: I would recommend that it remain at 10 if at all possible.
Blackowiak: Well I think we leave the condition as is and then contact the Fire Marshal because
I don't think we have the, I don't want to start messing around with those conditions.
Sacchet: Yeah, in...City Council that 10 foot as it is now is more character and that we would
recommend the council consider that.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Blackowiak: Sure. Okay. Anything else? I think we add number 31. That SHPO would review
and approve alteration on site, because if it is going for historical, that makes sense. So we've
walked our way through that one. So let's make a motion.
Sidney: I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional
Use Permit #2002-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the
following conditions, 1 through 6.
Blackowiak: Is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Sidney moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit g2002-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District, subject to the following conditions:
1. No alterations or construction shall be permitted in the Primary Zone.
2. A 50 foot building setback shall be required from the northeast property line.
.
Any trail development must be coordinated with the City's Parks & Recreation
Department.
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within
two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook.
The storm water runoff from the manure/compost area shall be buffered prior to
discharge into the Bluff Creek Overlay District to protect water quality. The applicant
shall work with city staff to develop and appropriate buffer plan.
For safety purposes, the duck pond shall have a 10 foot wide safety bench at the normal
water level. The slope of the safety bench shall not be steeper than 10: I.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: Motion carries 6-0. Another motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval
for the amendment to the Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan
with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system, based on plans dated
February 22, 2000, as revised December 27, 2001 and subject to the following conditions, 1. 2,
yes. Conditions 2. There is no 1. To 30 with the following changes.
Btackowiak: You know what, how about just go to the record. Yeah, as discussed.
Sacchet: There's no point in rehashing it.
Blackowiak: No.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
Sacchet: As discussed. Actually there's going to be 31 conditions then plus the changes.
Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to the Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan
with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system, based on plans dated
February 22, 2000, as revised 12/27/01, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan shall comply with Sec. 20-267. Petting Farms.
o
.
o
.
o
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Accumulation of feces shall be located at least 200 feet from any well. Accumulation of
feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable
odors exist. The premise shall not be allOwed to become unsightly.
Parking shall be limited to 10 stalls with the provision for one (1) bus.
An eight-foot accessible parking space with an eight foot wide access must be provided.
This space must be located as close to the business entrance as possible. Signage must be
provided in accordance with the Minnesota Building Code.
Handicap parking may not be located adjacent to the house unless the driveway from the
southern parking area to the parking stalls and the parking stalls themselves are improved
to commercial standards (26 foot wide drive aisles with seven ton roadway design).
If the handicap parking is located in the southerly parking area, then an accessible trail
must be provided from the parking area to the petting farm area.
The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the proposed development. The applicant
shall show the location, size and species of Proposed trees and shrubs.
Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading and shall be installed prior
to construction.
Landscaping shall be added to the area between the parking lot and West 78~ Street to
provide a buffer. Included in the plantings shall be 2 overstory trees, 6 understory trees,
and 6 shrubs. Installation of buffer yard plantings or a landscaped escrow is required
prior to beginning operation of the petting farm.
Landscaping may be required for the parking lot if it exceeds 6,000 square feet.
The site shall only have access from West 78th Street. The northerly access on Highway
41 shall not be used for public access.
A dead animal disposal plan shall be submitted to the city for review.
The permit shall be reviewed annually to determine compliance.
71'
Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such
as Carver County, DNR, USDA, etc.
The interim use shall terminate in eight (8) years (by July 24, 2010).
The Building Officials conditions are as follows:
a. All public buildings must meet code requirements as required for new buildings
because of the change in occupancy classification.
b. All buildings and areas intended for use by the public must be on an accessible
route and accessible to people with disabilities.
c. One accessible parking space must be provided.
d. Accessible sanitation facilities must be provided. Portable facilities may be allowed
with a seasonal use, if permitted by the building code.
1. ' The use proposed requires that permanent sanitation facilities be provided,
two restrooms, one male and one female.
2. The property must connect to city sanitary sewer service.
3. The existing septic system, which is failing, must be abandoned.
e. The food preparation facilities require approval from the Minnesota Department of
Health.
f. Structures intended for public use must be evaluated by a structural engineer to
determine if the building is safe for occupancy.
Tine Fire Marstnal's conditions are as follows'
a. A 20 foot wide fire lane shall be provided, but it is recommended that the City
Council consider 10 feet.
b. The Fire Marshal shall review the existing buildings to be utilized for the petting
farm to determine code compliance.
c. Smoking is prohibited in any building used in conjunction with the business.
d. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on the fire lane.
e. Any new driveway must be designed to support the weight of a fire truck year
round.
f. Any new driveway must be installed prior to the removal of the existing driveway.
g. The amount of combustible material (i.e. hay, straw, etc) on the floors of any
buildings used in the business must meet fire code requirements.
h. All electrical wiring must meet code.
Revise the driveway width to 26 foot at the parking entrance and not the whole
driveway, and a maximum 10% grade is allowed.
Tine Handicap Park must be off the commercial portion of the driveway wittn appropriate
signage.
Add City Detail Plate No. 5300.
Re-sod or re-seed any disturbed area.
Add a benchmark to the plan.
Tine applicant must get MnDot permit for right-of-way grading.
72
Planning Commission Meeting -June 18, 2002
24. Show parking stall width and length.
25. Revise the driveway side slope to a maximum 3:1 along the west side.
26. Ail plan sheets must be signed by a Registered Engineer.
27.
The applicant needs to submit:
a. A maintenance schedule for the gravel drive for review by the City.
b. A letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 125% of the cost of the annual
maintenance.
28.
In addition, the applicant will be required to sign an agreement that:
a. The property owner will submit an annual inspection report confh-ming that the
driveway has been properly maintained to ensure the 7-ton design remains viable.
That inspection to be performed by someone mutually agreeable to the property
owner and the City of Chanhassen.
b. If the maintenance schedule is not met, the City reserves the right to perform the
maintenance and bill the property owner for actual cost plus 30% for administrative
costs.
c. Should it become apparent that the property owner is incapable or unwilling to
maintain the 7 ton gravel road appropriately, the drive related parking areas would
be closed for commercial use until such time as they are reconstructed to meet the
then current city standards for commercial drives.
29.
The State Historic Preservation Office shall review and approve any alterations to
the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bruce Feik noted the minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated June 4, 2002 as presented.
Blackowiak: Okay, I will adjourn. Is there any old or new business you'd like to talk to us about
Sharmin?
AI-Jaff: Not tonight.
Blackowiak: Okay, not tonight. Okay, meeting is adjourned.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:25 p.m. Open
discussion on District 112 site location followed.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
73
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 29, 2002
Chairman Franks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rod Franks, Tom Kelly, Jack Spizale, David Happe, Amy O' Shea,
and Glenn Stolar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Atkins
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Corey Hoen, Recreation
Supervisor
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mark Nettescheim: I'm Mark Nettescheim and I am at 9151Great Plains Boulevard, right off of
Bandimere Park. I'm going to be doing an Eagle project and I was proposing that I'd put up 3
benches around the new playground structure that they have there and for the last few days I' ve
been watching the parents drive up in their cars and sit there on the grass watching their kids so. I
watched them where they sat and most of them sat in the shade of the tree right there so I put a
bench over by the tree, and then I put one behind it because someone to watch the baseball games
plus watch their kids at the same time. Then the other one over by the bike path, closer to the
park. Where they park the cars because it's easier access and it's a good place to put it. This is
kind of the bench that I was proposing to do. It's the same ones you guys have in there right now
and I just drew it up again as measurements and everything on it.
Hoffman: And what's the material?
Mark Nettescheim: The legs on it are metal and the back and seat are wood. That just has more
measurements. More in detail. In that area it shows the base which is a concrete slab that will be
the foundation of the bench. That's all.
Hoffman: Questions for Mark? You want to talk about the process a little bit. When you're
going to start and who's going to help.
Mark Nettescheim: I'm going to try to get the people to contact from Todd, the bench people and
I' 11 call them and see if they can help and what time I can get the stuff delivered and ordered.
And after that, see how it goes so.
Franks: Mark, or Todd, do the benches come constructed?
Mark Nettescheim: You have to put them together.
Franks: You have to put them together.
Mark Nettescheim: Yes.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: Alright. And are you pouring the concrete for the slab?
Mark Nettescheim: Yes, we are.
Franks: Okay. So you'll be doing all that work?
Mark Nettescheim: Yes.
Franks: Do we provide the materials for that then?
Hoffman: Eagle Scout projects in the city, traditionally we are approached by Eagle Scouts who
want to complete their project. The City pays for the materials. The Scouts coordinates the
project and performs the labor and create a relationship.
Franks: About how many hours Mark are you estimating it will take to complete your project?
Mark Nettescheim: I'm guessing it will take about 3 to 4 hours for the concrete to dry and to get
the base of the bench in. Then to construct the rest of it will be another 2 hours or so. So I'll
have some help from our church too so it won't take that long.
Happe: Does it require any type of special permits or anything to do what he needs to do? Great.
O'Shea: Mark, does the wood come finished or do you have to put a sealant on it or a varnish?
Mark Nettescheim: I think it comes sealed already so it should be.
O'Shea: It's all set?
Mark Nettescheim: Yeah.
O'Shea: Okay.
Hoffman: So these will be the benches that we currently have in the park.
Franks: Well it sure is needed there. I see all the parents standing around or sitting on the
ground so it was good to recognize the need. Todd, do we need to approve the project tonight
with a formal vote or? We can go ahead and do that tonight then?
Hoffman: Absolutely.
Franks: Are there any further, thanks a lot Mark. Are there any other questions or comments
from the commission? Is there a motion then to approve this project?
Spizale: I'll make a motion to approve the project as it's been shown.
Franks: Is there a second?
Stolar: Second.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Spizale moved, Stolar seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the
Eagle Scout project proposed by Mark Nettescheim as presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Franks: We look forward to seeing those benches get put in. Thanks.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Happe moved, O'Shea seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 23, 2002 as presented. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
INITIATE DEVELOPMENT OF A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PACKAGE~
CHANHASSEN COMMUNITY CENTER.
Hoffman: Members of the commission. Tonight we have a charge from the City Council to
initiate the development of a request for information package for our Chanhassen Community
Center, or at least to investigate the possibility with a variety of private and public service
providers who are in the business of recreation service provision. To generally reach out to them.
Inquire what their level of interest is in coming to Chanhassen and partnering with the city to
provide some type of recreational facilities. So the history that you have in your package
includes the back side of the cover memorandum is the Request for Information charge statement.
What is our goal? The goal of the commission is, you have a duty of preparing a Request for
Information packet to deliver to private and public recreation service providers. Results desired
are simply to ascertain the level of interest that private and public recreation service providers
have in joining in a partnership with the city. Building a community center, or community
recreation facility. Scope of the responsibility. Commission shall report back to the City Council
and the commission has a good deal of leeway and authority of using and consulting with
resources but you do not have the authority to act on behalf of the City Council to enter into any
agreements or intended agreements. The timeline. Tonight we start with the initial conversation
and then I present a work outline to the City Council that you would prepare this evening. The
10~. The 25th the commission comes back and finishes that project. If need be you can come
back on the I 1t~, an independent evening and complete the project and then the council would
like to see your final report on July 8th. Again the commission has the ability to go ahead and
let's say you simply feel overwhelmed with this project and you would like to bring a consultant
in for a one month period of time to help with the formulation of this project, you certainly can do
that. Or you can bring in any other outside consultants simply for information purposes. You
will provide written reports via the Park and Recreation Commission Director to the City Council
and you are expected as members of the park commission to conduct background fact finding
consultations and come to meetings prepared to discuss your discoveries. Otherwise we simply
will not be able to meet the timeline if we do this in a more formal process. So you're going to
need to out in the street working some contacts and talking to people about this. There's a
newspaper article about the meeting that the council held to initiate this process and then th¢
remainder of the material in your packet is all background information from the survey to the city
held, and this is what the City Council is responding to. Is the community survey. This council
feels very strongly that they invested the time and resources in a community survey, which is a
very good tool to gauge what a community would like to see, and they're responding in the
recreation area to the fact that approximately 2 out of 3 people would like to see some type of
community center facility in this town. There's also a great interest in a pool facility in this city
of Chanhassen as well. The other data goes back to many of the referendums, just to get a feel
because where the council sits today is that you ought to do this. The city would like to move
forward. It's really going to take a referendum vote to raise taxes to raise the money to put this
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
type of a facility on the streets so that' s the reason for the information on the referendums. One
that goes back 6 or 8 years through a variety of referendums that were held in the city for other
proposed community centers at the time. With that Chair, I'I1 turn it back over to you to facilitate
that process and if we can make it as simple or as difficult as we would like. Basically what
we're doing is attempting to reach out to Lifetime, Northwest, the Y, the schools, anybody else
that we can put on that list and send a letter. This is the City of Chanhassen. They've all shown
interest to date and now it's just formalizing the process to start that and initiate those
conversations again.
Franks: Right Todd, just a couple of questions first before we start, if that's okay. The first is the
cost of hiring a consultant to take a look at this is I'm sure, is far ranging but ballpark it for us.
Hoffman: 80 bucks an hour. 60 bucks an hour.
Franks: Okay. My read on this was, and I don't know if the other commission members had the
same kind of idea but the council is actually looking to us to do a lot of the work here and present
them with some information and some options. So if we go ahead and use a consultant, my
feeling would be to really target the use of the consultant to some real specific and technical
questions which we're not really able to address with it being a citizen commission. But what I'd
like to do is to take the time tonight, and hopefully it's not going to take too much time, and really
narrow down what our thinking is and how we'd like to go through this process. And then maybe
we'll have a better idea about when, if and how we would choose to use a consultant on some of
the more technical issues. What I'd like to do too is open it up in a sense of more of a work
session type of discussion so we can get some ideas flowing. I'd like to know from the other
members of the commission what some of their thoughts and ideas were concerning our task and
the timeline. So go ahead Glenn.
Stolar: One question, and I'm not sure of the processes here. How I work, there's a huge
difference between an RFI and an RFP. Right? The RFI, all we're asking for them is to give us a
ballpark of what they think we would do. We'd put criteria there. I would hope we'd be able to
borrow RFI's from others and basically get the information and ascertain whether this is
something we should forward to the next phase.
Hoffman: Correct.
Stolar: Okay. So we would have the opportunity at that phase to use a consultant for an RFP
where I really would want to make sure we have the expertise in choosing.
Hoffman: And the council made that conscience differentiation between the two.
Stolar: Which is important, so I agree with you. Rather that we should very limit our use to just
make sure, did we miss anything in this RFI that's going to be a gotcha later. That we'd say oh
yeah, this is a good idea. Go forward with this. You remembered this, this, this and this. Okay.
So if that's what you're suggesting, I agree with that approach.
Franks: That's what I'm suggesting.
Stolar: And then the other question is, do we have a bank of RFI's that we know of right now
that we could borrow to start looking at and get at least for me personally, I would want to be
more important as to what one of these would look like in this type of environment.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: Are you talking from the other communities?
Stolar: Other communities, yeah. I don't know if any of the associations carry knowledge banks
like that that you can borrow from. Chaska obviously we could talk to them.
Hoffman: Yeah. We can talk to communities. There's not a bank out there but you can find a
thousand RFP's. RFI's are a little different animals but.
Stolar: Well even an RFP we can reduce to get our, I mean that actually allows us to look at the
broader set of requirements, although it's a lot more reading.
Hoffman: Absolutely. But I think the RFI, it's going to say, we, the City of Chanhassen are
interested in building, providing this service to our residents. Here's what we'd like to include in
it. This is what we see as a potential location. Or the potential locations and some of those types
of things so it' s very generic in nature but it' s a good idea to check into some of those other ones
so I'll do that.
Franks: Okay. Then that hopefully leads into the next question is what really are we looking for
in a community center? What are the components that our community is really wanting to be a
part of the community center?
Happe: And part and parcel of that question Chairman Franks is I know that you, along with the
council and the previous Park and Recreation Commission visited a number of community
centers on kind of a whirlwind tour so I'm interested in what some of those shared observations
were or some of those basic elements that you guys looked at at the time that would be something
that we'd want to consider for this community center.
Franks: Well we saw the whole, really the whole range. Everything from more basic to the more
extravagant with ice sheets and outdoor water park and indoor water park and full health club
facilities to much more basic so it can all be done. It's what do we want done in our community?
Hoffman: The council did express that they though the Plymouth model should be the base,
which is the larger facility.
Franks: Did they give any indication about the ice sheet? Indoor pool? Outdoor pool? Health
club facilities?
Spizale: Indoor and outdoor.
Franks: So some of the things we may be looking for is an indoor aquatic facility. In conjunction
with an outdoor.
Spizale: I think the other ones we saw had nice gyms. Running track. I'm trying to think of
some of the stuff we saw.
Stolar: Exercise rooms or weight rooms. And if you look at the question 146 on the survey, it
lists several things there for which they voted the, 65 percent that it had a walking/running track,
gymnasiums, aerobics room. Had racquetball courts on that. I'm not so sure that that was a part
of that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: Well right here we can already diverge in two different directions. Are we looking at a
whole new community center concept, that may be in a partnership with a private enterprise that's
going to provide the workout space or cardiovascular space like a Lifetime does, or are we really
looking at keeping our rec center that we have with gym space and very limited workout space
and moving towards just constructing an aquatics facility? I guess that's what I'd like to look at
first. How expansive do we want to be? We already have some recreational capability, workout
capability here. It's really limited.
Happe: I think too Rod when you look at the community survey I think that the aquatics was
super high. I think that ice sheet or a separate focus on ice arena was extremely low. So my
preference would be not to focus on that.
Franks: Well I'm thinking on exercise. Like workout areas. We have the small workout area at
our current community center, and gym space that's available there as well.
Stolar: The gym space is pretty crowded there, so gym space may still be a capacity issue. I'm
not sure about the workout facilities. Do we know Todd?
Hoffman: They're self loading, but we can triple that space.
Stolar: Okay. And is that true for the gym space too? I'm only there a little bit but every time
I' m there, it' s packed.
Hoffman: It's full during the winter. Empty now.
Spizale: I think a consideration too is will we be sharing this with the schools, which I'm sure we
would be at some point. As far as size.
Franks: Sharing what parts of the project with the schools?
Spizale: Well I think some of the other ones we looked at were shared with high schools and
grade schools and different things and I think that's consideration too. Will we be sharing this
facility with a school?
Franks: As far as maybe for swim meets and.
Spizale: Yeah.
Franks: So really Jack you're looking at a partnership that involves the city, the school district
and maybe another entity as well?
Spizale: Yes. I think it's a thought. You know especially if we build a high school in the future.
Franks: Well now that was indicated too in that article in the newspaper anyways is that the
possibility of this being constructed in conjunction with the high school.
Hoffman: There's the possibility that they separated the two issues for clarity at this point.
Franks: Okay. Is there thinking as far as siting any future community center, that it would be
sited with the future school, if one occurs?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: Could be. I think they're on parallel tracks because one or both of these may
disappear and it may fizzle out and so they wanted to keep the chances alive for as high
percentage of success as possible so start planning for a community center. Start planning for
high school. If they both evolve to the point where now they look like okay, these things can
happen. Let' s put them together, then you continue on down that path of discovery at that point.
Stolar: Would that change the availability of space or the location, I would assume, depending on
whether we combine with the school or not. Which may change how a private venture would
approach us.
Hoffman: Yes.
Stolar: Do we have a listing of possible sites?
Hoffman: Yes.
Stolar: And then we can divide them up and say you know, if it' s solo it' d probably be in these
sites. If it's with a school.
Happe: Should we review that listing with potential sites, we should create a listing of likely
targets or public organizations that would be the logical candidate approach for a public/private
partnership.
Franks: And the list of preferred components to the community center.
Hoffman: And the Planning Commission will deliver to City Council the site analysis for a high
school. So there's going to be a lot of overlap between sites for high school sites and potential
sites for community center.
Franks: Alright. So we're really looking at having, and if I understand so far, an indoor and
outdoor aquatics, correct?
Hoffman: Yes.
Franks: As one of the listings and workout space and gym, extra gym space.
Happe: What impact though Todd would a facility like this have on the existing community
center or the investment, or the existing rec center and the investment that we' ve made over
there? I mean does that, do we obsolete ourselves on the dollars that we've already spent by
duplicating this on a new facility?
Hoffman: No. No. The recreation center, when this town is fully developed at 35,000, the
recreation center will be a wonderful compliment, if it's still operating, to any type of community
center they would build, I don't care how extravagant.
Happe: Okay. And there could be an interchange between those two facilities so that you have a
joint membership per se or something.
O' Shea: So Todd, am I hearing that the meetings rooms out there are being utilized a lot.
Hoffman: A lot.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
O'Shea: And so there would be, possibly we should be considering more community, indoor
community space. Meeting rooms at a community center.
Hoffman: Well there'd probably be a shift. So right now those meeting rooms are used for
recreational programming. Tai Kawn Do, Tai Chi, Yoga, all those things. Well if those go into a
new community center, then it opens up space for more community type meetings which was one
of the primary reasons that the recreation center was developed. There just was not enough
public meeting space for local associations, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, all the different meetings
that take place in a community and the recreation center has provided that. But people get boxed
out because there's just too many things going on at the recreation center right now during the
school year. There should be no worries about the impact to what this facility would do to the
recreation center. There's plenty of choices for the recreation center and it's space and they're
not limited to just keeping it.
Franks: You know and this just kind of complicates. When I first saw this Todd I have to admit I
thought, how are we going to do this in this one meeting, really within any kind of depth. Really
too when we sit down, let's say we bring in someone from Lifetime and someone from the
YMCA for example to give us some information. The YMCA is going to have a facility with
meeting space in it. Lifetime is going to have a facility without any meeting space in it, and so
you know it's like two different types of approaches even about how they're going to, the type of
facility that they would construct.
Happe: If I'm understanding the assignment correctly, we go out and get the legwork done. Get
the homework done. Get various options that could be components of this and serve that up, so
that's not, I mean that's not a te~Tible thing that there's going to be some different approaches to
what this facility might look and feel like.
Hoffman: I don't think so. The commission doesn't have to come up with a solution of what this
building would be. Just go out to an RFI. Suggestions about what it should be. Anybody wants
to sit down and talk to you, they want to know what you're thinking. Indoor/outdoor pool. These
are the kind of facilities we want and they're going to go oh. Full blown community center type
facility. That's what they're looking for. Okay, now we know where we're at. Well here's how
we enter into that equation. We're a for profit for this. We're non-profit for business. We're a
school so it appears this is what we need to do and here's what you would need to do and then
when we get that set of information and then the council would receive it. So here's the Y's
proposal. Here's Lifetime's proposal. Here's the school district's proposal or at least, the school
district would probably not come forward with a proposal. That's not the type of organization
they are, but they'll come forward and they'll say you know, we're interested in parking. We
need these facilities as well so, that would be the kind of respond I would expect from the school
district.
Franks: On my list then was an indoor and outdoor aquatic facility, exercise area, classic gym
space, and daycare facilities and that's what kind of rounded out my list of amenities that I'd want
to see in, at a minimum, in what any kind of community center that we build. Or that got
constructed in town.
Stolar: In going along with that, I don't know how specific we want to get in the RFI but I also
want them to keep in mind smaller children, for example separate gyms or separate facilities that
would allow smaller children either kids pool as an example. Or zero depth pool.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: Well I like the zero entry pool, yes.
Stolar: The zero depth pools. A smaller gym that would be only for children with lower baskets
or lower activities. Those sort of things. Trying to think of some of the health clubs I've been to
and what have they done.
Happe: Flagship does a great job.
Stolar: Yeah, that's where we belong.
Happe: With that separate gym with the little hoops for the little guys..
Stolar: Little hoops for little guys and then they also use that in the morning, people play indoor
soccer there.
Happe: It's great program space.
Stolar: I assume we, based on the conversation and the van ride we had, we probably don't want
to ask for tennis courts on this.
O' Shea: I would like to ask for a performance arts space though.
Happe: I was wondering if you were going to, and maybe that ties in with the, maybe that' s part
of a community or a meeting room. Maybe that doesn't have to be a separate facility. Maybe
there's auditorium seating in a meeting rooms.
Franks: Well when you see how nicely I think it fits in, in the Chaska Community Center. It
certainly is the type of amenity that could fit into a community center.
O'Shea: I don't think it's a priority with very many people right now. I don't know how it. would
go over if you'd ask them but I think for long range planning it definitely would be something to
plan for.
Happe: It' s got to be a killer in terms of cost per square footage for bang for the buck in terms of
how much use it's going to get against a lot of the other spaces.
Franks: Yeah, the for profit companies I figure would have a hard time justifying the space.
Hoffman: That's your's on the end of the building.
O' Shea: Well if there was, I' m talking about a high school some day of course, that certainly
would be planned into that. Or it could be.
Hoffman: It'd be wonderful there. People get a little bit, schools and profits can go together.
Franks: All the time.
Hoffman: Yeah so, in fact we bring a for profit in here and they say, you tell them, oh by the way
there's $14 million coming over from the school district to put into this facility and they're not
going to turn their back on that. So there' s a lot of exciting possibilities that could happen.
Plymouth is a huge, huge concept. Big time facility. Huge, or multi-faceted agreements between
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
the school district and the city and the city and Lifetime and just, but that' s what makes it happen.
Today's environment, the days are gone of the city building a community center on it's own.
Those days are simply gone so, partnerships and they've evolved over time. At least all the
partners I think are becoming more astute as they go into these...
Stolar: ...this RFI want to have them bring in some of their history. Some of their background. I
don't know that we'd want to venture with someone who's never done it before. So part of the
RFI is their experience. Yeah, where have they done it.
Happe: Thanks Mark.
Hoffman: Good night.
O'Shea: And to some of the facilities, I think we would look also at family changing rooms in
there. Again I don't know how specific we want to get right now, but the indoor aquatic facility,
I think through the survey...and something that's multi-faceted with zero depth to really fun
slides and a place where you can teach swimming lessons and yet have a swim team practice so
it' s got to have a lot of different uses and layout, and I think it should be quite extensive when we
look at it. Because it seems like a real high need out here and something that also can be used for
swimming lessons. That kind of thing.
Franks: I think there's a necessity for any facility out here to be really sensitive to families and
children in the construction of the facilities like you say. That the family changing, family locker
rooms. The gyms and pools that are geared towards not only adults but to the children and
families as well.
O'Shea: I do. The thing also with the aging population, and it works well with younger kids too
is, another area that can have a warmer temp as well for the pool water and that way you're
serving seniors as well as the young kids and they can learn a lot faster in the swimming lessons
and that type of thing. So I think that would be in keeping to do too as a warmer temp pool
versus something that doesn't have to.
Stolar: You mean two different types of approaches because the clubs need the colder temp
pools, so if you ever want to get club activity in there, they want cold water. And I agree with
you, you need both.
O'Shea: Right.
Stolar: Because for seniors, if you go to the Courage Center they have senior activities there. Of
course that water's like 90 degrees. Doing their water exercise, yeah.
Hoffman: Bath water.
O'Shea: And even like at Foss Swim School, they keep their's really pretty nice and warm. But
again I do think we should look at the older generation too, which we're approaching. But so I
think that's a key when we look at the aquatic facility as well. And a layout that makes sense for
life guard placement too, but witt:~ that again we're getting real nit picky. And I don't know if, I
looked at it as, how can we get the drain off the city. I see this as, that I don't see the rec center
as being in the negative. In the red. I see that being able to produce money or break even with
this facility. I also see possibilities for skate park expansion. So I think when you look at the
facility, what's the whole thing that the city is asking for. You know the kids want more skate
10
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
park. And kind of tie it all in, just like a performing arts center, and then if we do team up with
the school, I mean it would fit so nicely. If we look at it globally, what are the citizens asking and
then somehow this could all work into a whole facility of ways of getting the product in. But I do
see, like for example the skate park. I see that growing because it's here to say and a BMX
course. That, instead of having the city have the burden of those telephone calls of complaints
about language use and not being supervised, possibly this facility would take on that burden and
work in conjunction with the city as well as that new facility and have it staffed and then they
handle the staffing. Somewhat like they do like Lake Ann where they've got life guards. It's a
lot cheaper from somebody who' s in that business of hiring part time staff anyway to do it, and
they' re already doing staff training and...package so it's not that big a burden for them.
Hoffman: That's a model used in many communities already. It's not necessarily right on site,
but other service providers manage the skate parks.
O' Shea: So again in the facility, I do see part of like for example skate park. Not saying maybe
it wouldn't be located there but somewhere where it could be developed into more ramps. More
programs offered.
Hoffman: Something we learned at Plymouth, when we talk about ice. In ice conversations, the
last time it was brought up in Chanhassen was when the second sheet was added onto Chaska
Community Center so at that time the City, a piece of land down, just behind the round building
at Prince' s, that we were offering up for free to the skate association, the hockey association, and
they were going to build that second sheet of ice here in Chanhassen on that property. Well
Chaska didn't want to see that happen so they came in at the last moment and said, well let's put
the second sheet onto the arena and here's the deal that we'll give you to make that happen. So
now we have 2 sheets in Chaska. Eden Prairie has 2 sheets just down Highway 5 and they're
looking to build a third. That's the hockey association is looking to build a third. They're
financing. And then Minnetonka has their sheets and Victoria is looking to build a sheet there so
it might be that the history of Chanhassen will never have an ice arena in town. And that's a
service delivery decision. You know people that use it have to drive to one of these other
facilities, but the fact is, in Ramsey County last winter they sold ice at 50 percent because the use
of those facilities was, too many built and the use going down so they're selling ice time at 50
percent, and now no longer can you cover your operating costs and you're starting to take a hurt
financially. In Plymouth, the field house generates as much revenue as the ice arena at about 25
percent of the cost. So they're making money, a lot of money on their field house where they're
just paying their way on their ice arena, which was an amazing statistic and so their field house is
a very, they take the cover off in the summer. They put the cover on in the winter and so now
you have field space inside during the winter for your soccer programs, golf programs, walking,
running, track programs, Lacrosse programs, all outside programs. It's a very successful field
house in Plymouth.
Happe: I think there's a possibility that we haven't talked about yet too Chairman because I think
there' s, the potential may be for an interesting hybrid because you have local companies like Foss
who are great aquatic programmers, but may not be the experts in the golf dome. Whereas you
have a Rain, Snow & Shine that may be a potential parmer and take a look at some type of indoor
range. I just noticed that 50 percent of the surveyors respondents either strongly supported or
somewhat supported the development of a municipal golf course. You could bring in a third
partner in, I mean maybe there's an opportunity for like a Northwest to specialize or focus on the
things that they do well, and to have really a conglomerate of multiple service providers. I don't
know. Maybe. That's a little different twist on what we've been talking about.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: I kind of want to bring this all in a little bit, ifI can and I'm a linear thinker so.
Hoffman: Fun to dream.
Franks: Oh man. It's a lot of fun to dream, but you know we have to move and we can dream for
a long time and come up with really great ideas but what I don't want to see happen is a lot of
people who are interested to put in a facility here, come in and tell us what they're going to do
without us first letting them know what it is we're looking for. At least with some general
concept, and so when they come in they're already having some understanding as to what it is
that we want and maybe some of the people that see that aren't even going to bother to come, so
we won't have to waste our time with that. I agree, you know the partnership possibilities are
just, whoever wants to get involved, I mean we can go on and on and on. Foss or Presbyterian
Homes working with seniors when they go in on Villages on the Ponds. And I mean it just could
go on and on so.
Hoffman: That should probably be part of our work outline is to list those possible partners.
Stolar: And we could ask them where have you done this before. The issue may not be, we don't
know what they are, but have you done it and show us examples of where you're done it.
Franks: With a partnership.
Stolar: With a partnership so people, and then like you said, list some of the areas. Foss Swim,
as an example. Foss Swimming or any golf facilities. If we count the performing art facility and
just ask them to say, where have you done this because yeah you're right. They're going to bring
ideas to us, and let them bring them but let's give them examples or let's introduce to them the
idea that we want to hear that from them.
Franks: Sure. I mean one of them that we even, partnerships all over the place but the Ridgeview
Medical Center right out at Waconia. They're right in the facility in Waconia providing services
right there so.
Happe: So really back to the first thing you said. A list of key components of potential partners
and a list of, and eventually a list of targeted locations for different configurations.
Franks: And then maybe some discussion about who we want to send that request to. Can we do
that? Or is that too lineal for everybody?
Happe: Perfect.
Franks: Okay. I'm willing to be flexible. Sort of. Alright, let's bring it back to the amenities.
Todd, what do we have so far?
Hoffman: So far indoor and outdoor pool. Gymnasiums. Running Track. Exercise rooms.
Daycare facilities. Performance Arts.
Franks: Okay, go ahead.
Hoffman: Facility specific to children's programming. Sized appropriately. That's what I wrote
down.
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: Yeah there was, if you can add it in as a concept that life span development be built into
the concept, i.e. it'd be good for seniors. Good for adults. Good for families. Good for children
and so.
O'Shea: Do we have cardiovascular workout room?
Hoffman: Exercise. Both cardiovascular and strength.
O'Shea: And when you say daycare, are you thinking daycare or babysitting? Is daycare?
Franks: I'm open.
O'Shea: Okay. So it could be either or?
Franks: I think so. I mean let's see what they come back with.
Stolar: Do we want any type of restaurant or any of those types of things in there? Food service.
Hoffman: Climbing wall? Restaurant.
Happe: What about batting cages usually go right in with gymnasium? Drop down batting cages.
Driving range. Anybody?
Hoffman: Golf facilities?
Franks: It's go big. I think that we can go with that as well.
Hoffman: Well you can eliminate gymnasium. You could add a field house and then you add in
your concept.
Franks: I think that's a good idea.
Hoffman: We tried to build a field house with the rec center, but it got too overwhelming for
elementary school campus.
O'Shea: So then a field house basically could contain running and walking track.
Franks: Golf facilities. Anything else?
Spizale: I think that's a good start.
Franks: Alright. That's a pretty good list. Do you believe that the meeting space, if a facility
were constructed, is it your idea that the meeting space currently available at the rec center would
be adequate to city needs?
Hoffman: I think so because it's going to be embellished and then used primarily for meetings.
Franks: For meeting space, and at that time will then be adequate for our meeting space needs.
Happe: We added a meeting space into the library too so there's additional space there for
meetings.
13
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: One component you are missing is the alcohol for wedding reception, graduation,
banquet facilities. And Chanhassen woefully deficient in that.
O'Shea: Community room type of thing.
Hoffman: Yeah. Maplewood has it as one fourth of their program.
Franks: And it's a big money maker.
Hoffman: Yeah. Plymouth has it as a Creek Center, that's all it is.
Happe: Plymouth is our reference standard from the City Council?
Hoffman: Yes.
Franks: But the Creek Center, it's separate.
Happe: Okay.
Hoffman: Because they missed that component in the first go around.
Franks: Well there is nothing here really as far as banquet rental. I mean if we could get in on
that market, I think that'd be providing not only a really good service but a potential source of
revenue generation too so.
Happe: My only hesitation with that is, I don't, I haven't seen a public outcry for that type of
service or even surfaced as a topic...
Franks: You haven't been trying to plan a wedding lately.
O'Shea: No weddings or graduations in your family.
Stolar: But I also think the question is, is that a community center or is that a private enterprise
and I think we could list that as one of the potential partnerships that they might invoke. You
kmow I wouldn't want to go to Lifetime for a wedding. But do they have a facility where they
partnered with someone that has a banquet facility? I think that's a fair thing to add for any
partnerships that they might have had.
Hoffman: Are you familiar with Maplewood Community Center? It's a wheel. It has a center
core. It has a banquet facility in this corridor. Performing arts theater in this corridor.
Gymnasium is in this corridor and a pool facility in this corridor. You couldn't find a more...
and it's booked 2 years in advance.
Franks: We might as well put it on the list.
Hoffman: Okay. Next list.
Franks: Next list. Potential partners.
Happe: Likely targets.
14
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
O'Shea: Lifetime. YMCA.
Spizale: YMCA.
Happe: Northwest/Flagship.
Franks: Okay, then we also have other partnership possibilities like the school districts.
Hoffman: 276 and 112.
Franks: Correct. At one time the Timberwolves were very interested in having a practice facility
out here.
Happe: Are they still tied into Northwest or is that a separate entity?
Franks: With the new owners now, I don't know.
Stolar: Would we partner with Bally's or something?
Hoffman: Sure. Who's the service provider in town right now? Chan Fitness.
Franks: Chan Fitness.
Hoffman: Foss Swim School. There's a couple of loose organizations. There's kind of the Chan
West Partnership that has been meeting with staff about we would like to build a facility out here
so we'll put them on there as a kind of an independent.
Franks: Alright.
Stolar: When you send out an RFI, do you have to do a public notice also, right? Or no?
Hoffman: Public notice that we.
Stolar: So anybody that we don't have on the list is interested in participating.
Hoffinan: I don't know if we're required. We could certainly do that. Where would we put it?
I' m trying to think that people would recognize it.
Stolar: I'm trying to think for example is there some out of town organization that wants to get in
here that'd be willing to make an investment to start making a presence in a fast growing area. I
don' t know if there' s a list of some of the more, that are available elsewhere.
Franks: Or placing an ad in a trade publication.
Stolar: Yeah, something like that.
Franks: I say that slightly facetiously but I mean, I don't know how else we would find these
people.
15
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Stolar: Well actually I can find, a friend of mine used to be a consultant for health clubs.
Internationally actually, so I'll find out from her. If there' s a possibility.
Hoffman: Sure. Broader reach...
Happe: There's an organization called, I'm embarrassed I'd actually know this but there's an
organization called Curves for Women I think that is one of the fastest emerging health clubs.
They're more of a mall based operator but they should at least be included on our Request for
Information because they might have a concept that we may be interested in that would be a little
more global than Curves for Women but.
Hoffman: Yeah, largest growing franchise in America.
Franks: And they're in town.
Hoffman: They're everywhere.
O'Shea: Hugely successful here.
Happe: They won't let me in but I've heard it's.
Franks: Oh no, they do have to let you in.
Happe: Oh do they?
Franks: Don't they? I think they do.
Happe: I think they do. Just being facetious.
Franks: Well anybody else?
Hoffman: Any Twin Cities people we forgot? Northwest. The soccer clubs probably.
Franks: And that's for the field house, correct?
Happe: What about Rain, Snow and Shine?
Hoffman: Sure.
Happe: For a component. Any other local or area golf organizations.
Hoffman: Soccer clubs are widely interested in field house components. Great. Alright, what's
the next list.
Happe: Next list was, and I don't know how we do this one but potential locations based on
format or concept.
Hoffman: We'll bring back you a map. We have a map on that. The start of the outline is that
we want to seek out RFI examples, and base RFI on one of those that we think is good with these
potential facilities and these potential partners. I send that up to the City Council and they'll say
16
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
you're doing good work and we'll finalize it at our next meeting and...back in the hands of the
council and we' 11 check on the wider, broader sense of who potential partners are nationwide.
Franks: Well Lifetime is definitely expanding nationwide and there might be other companies
that are interested in coming to the market as well so.
Hoffman: The local club is a national franchise. Chan Fitness.
Stolar: They're associated with Gold's Gym or one of those.
O'Shea: How about clarifying question. Is July 8t~ when we make a recommendation to the one
company that we want to work with?
Hoffman: No. You're making the recommendation. This is the RH process that the council
should use to solicit input.
Stolar: ...maybe to get 2 or 3 companies to submit an RFP for very specific outline.
Hoffman' If they choose.
Franks: So you're considering our next, we'll go over this again at which meeting?
Hoffman; June 25th, unless you're uncomfortable with that, then we'd schedule a June 11th
meeting.
Franks: Alright now, will we be able to, I mean based on what we've given you now and what
you' re going to be doing with it in the next month, will we be able to, do you think, finish if we
wait until June 25th?
Hoffman' Hope so.
Franks: Because weahhve to have it ready to go by July 8th.
Stolar: Would we be able to add some of the materials in the June 11th timeframe after the
presentation to the City Council that we can start doing some work so we'll be better, like you
said, be better prepared for June 25th. If we have it ahead of time, before June 11th. Then if we
decide we have to have a meeting, we can at least make a call then.
Hoffman: If I do my job correctly on the 254, you should be approving a concept and refining it.
Franks: Would it be helpful Todd for you, for us to have a work session prior to the meeting to
just go over it?
Hoffman: Timing might not be there because right about June 11th is the time that you would
think you'd just be getting into full gear.
Franks: No, I mean prior to the 25th meeting. Starting with say at 6:30.
Hoffman: Oh sure.
Franks: Have a work session meeting before our regularly scheduled commission meeting.
17
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman; May not be necessary. Again if I've got it prepared for you, unless you want to do a
complete overhaul which you could do after the meeting if you get into the discussion that
evening and you're not satisfied with how it's looking. Take the time necessary.
Franks: Well I'm comfortable then in just really taking a look at it on the 25th if the material
comes out with as much notice as you're able to give us. Even if that, if you can, if it comes out 2
weeks before the packet, if you can. If not, we'll trust that you'll get it to us when, as soon as you
can.
Hoffman' You bet.
Franks' Is that, everybody agreeable with that? Okay.
Hoffman: This RFI is going to include a variety of information on the city. Population.
Demographics. Some of those. Some of that information because when these large companies
take a look at this stuff they say well, Chanhassen. Who is that? Where is that? What's the
current population? What's the expected population? What's the median income and where are
they located in reference to all these other, and they're going to say who's out in their area so
we'll give them that information and then I think the rest of it is fairly straight forward. It's not
going to be a huge packet.
Happe: Just reading the charge statement, the last full section of the charge statement where it
says members of the Park and Rec Commission are expected to conduct background fact finding
consultations, come to the meeting prepared to discuss their discoveries. An extra meeting on
June 11m may be required to complete this charge. Are we, does this, are we taking this far
enough with what we've discussed already? Because we're not doing a whole lot of reaching out
beyond the packet parameter from what I've heard you say thus far.
Hoffman: Glenn mentioned he's going to contact somebody. If you want us to send an'email or
make a phone call. Anybody that has any contacts with any of these organizations that they can
talk to folks and bring that to the next meeting, or just give me a call.
Franks: Well would there be specific type of information that you'd be looking, that would help
you in your process in preparing for the 25th?
Hoffman: I don't think so. An RFI would, strategically what we want to know, what's out there.
Well who's saying what? And that doesn't have much to do with an RFI. What it has to do is
how are we strategically located to cut a deal with somebody, number one. So you know, an
RFI'S an RFI. Basic information. We're not going to change that dramatically, but this stuff like
well, if somebody knows of some corporation, company, individual out there that can say hey,
this is you haven't thought of this. We want to know that. You haven't thought of mailing it to
this person or this corporation. They're interested in hitting a new marketplace.
Franks' But as far as doing fact finding with actual potential providers, we're not really at that
point yet until this whole R_FI process is further down the road.
Hoffman: Correct.
Stolar: Outside of Plymouth and Chaska, what other places would you suggest we might just go
visit on our own?
18
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: Maple Grove.
Hoffman: Yep, Maple Grove with Northwest. In the profession the word is that Maple Grove
got about the sweetest deal of all through Northwest. And then Lifetime is Champlin, Savage.
Savage is under construction. If you saw the little news clipping about Savage. What they've got
to do is they, oh kind of a say debate about the fees. How much are we going to charge and
boom, the fees are what seem relatively too high for the citizens and so the council's concerned
about that. These deals weren't made before you know you say here's the cash. Let's talk about
what the fees are going to be so those are some management issues that were made along the line.
Stolar: Is that something we want to ask in the RFI what they would expect the fees to be?
Hoffman: I don't think an RFI would get down to that scope. I don't think.
Stolar: Or their experience in how much they've charged for these in there. If they put them in
the fees in general. It's like if we ask for what they've already done, they can just tell us the facts
there.
Hoffman: Yeah, an aquatic center, you can ask for that. They might be reluctant to give it.
Franks: You know one of the things along with that, if we could is, do they have provisions or
experience in dealing with economically disadvantaged people in the community? I know like in
Plymouth that was one of the things that was done through Lifetime was making the place
available to everybody.
Hoffman: Maplewood is a great facility. Shoreview is a great facility. Over the, those are the
great ones. Eagan is going to build one. Where else are they out there? Champlin's going to
build one.
Franks: If you want to see a nice water park, St. Louis Park. Outdoor water park.
Hoffman: They took 160 calls today on why they weren't open.
Stolar: Because it's warm. Who wants to go.
Stolar: I have one other challenging question for this RFI for the audiences if we do it. Do we
send an RFI to some of these cities asking them what they would consider to be a partnership
with us to allow us to use it, or are they just overbooked and it wouldn't be worthwhile to do that?
Hoffman: Well, we've had the conversation with Chaska. They're the likely partner in that type
of, and I don't think this is the platform for that. Unless we want to send Chaska an RFI and say,
how do you want to partner with the City of Chanhassen?
Franks: Wow.
Stolar: Why wouldn't we want to partner?
Hoffman: One of the identity things, and that's one of the reasons that people want a Chanhassen
Community Center is for the identity of having something that is our own. Eden Prairie's looking
at a water park and so, an outdoor water park. If we build one in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie,
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
not a very good marketing so it's kind of like, you build it for what do you want to provide for
your own residents and I see the Chaska deal as a last option. So if the city runs out of land,
never builds a community center and we still, all of our residents are...
Stolar: ...one of the things we were thinking about with the outdoor pool or water park was a
question of whether we put out a bid for them to expand their facilities and allow our people to be
regular members as a cheaper alternative to building a facility ourselves. To leverage off what
they already have. It was really exploratory. It wasn't even an agenda item. It was an open
working session but we were talking to Edina and we were talking to St. Louis Park, and the
question was, Chan doesn't have one. Maybe partner with Chan, because the idea of having
some community identity, I still challenge the question that people support this. 90 percent
support it but if you look at the question, what would you want to spend your money on, 90
percent say a facility. 17 percent said a pool so I think that clearly is our leader. It's only
whether they said would you support a rec center that you get 63 percent. I look at the broader
question of what do you want? Only 59 percent said nothing.
Hoffman: What page is that on?
Stolar: Now not saying this is the greatest survey in the world or it's the be all end all, plus
we're starting to go back to the citizens regardless. It's on page 18, question 136. What facility's
not currently here that you would like to see here? 90 percent said they want to see a community
center.
Hoffman: 60 percent said none.
Happe: Well unfortunately our task hasn't been a discerned that.
Stolar: No, but what I'm saying is that does say that there is some hesitation and do we need to
explore options. I don't mind tiering this and saying let's look at building our own facility first.
Find out if that's a go. If not, let's look at other things because again we're going back to the
citizens regardless. We aren't choosing to do something right now. We're just going to the next
step, but it is just something to think about on our back burner is a partnership. When we're
talking about partnerships, a partnership with another city to create the capacity to allow our
people to enjoy these types of facilities.
Hoffman: You bet .... go through this process...you say alright well, we're going to build this in
Eden Prairie. Or we're going to add onto the Chaska Center or we're going to do something else.
Franks: I really don't see this as an either or type of approach, and that's really, that's the
question that I've had in my mind too really. The idea is to provide the amenity to the residents,
and how is it that we're going to provide it. And right now I see that we're exploring actually the
construction of some facility probably with some partner in some form here within our city. If it
looks like that's not going to work, we're going to have to look for another means to provide that
amenity. Certainly the other option that really pops up.
Stolar: And I agree it's not and or because it could be an and that we build it here and invite Eden
Prairie to invest in it with us and expand our facility so it can accommodate them, as an example.
So as long as we understand that that might be an option to help leverage some of the base costs.
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Happe: I also think Glenn, I don't know, I understand what you're saying. I'm just, we could
pick this survey apart if it was to a level that goes beyond what we need to do with it but on page
19 you have 62 percent of the residents, I'm sorry.
Stolar: It's 65 percent support a community center.
Happe: 65 percent supporting a community center. It's not saying.
Stolar: Well again, without getting too far into it, I know survey design. This is not a very well
designed survey because it doesn't correlate the questions to provide you with some fundamental
understanding or the behaviorals or the attitudes that these people have. You're asking them a
very straight question, and you're not correlating them to say does this relate to each other, or are
these conflicting questions which right now I look at and I say they're conflicting questions. But
I understand, I'm taking us off track and I apologize.
Franks: Well our job is really going to be, is really requesting the information and like you say
Glenn, we' re going to bring it back to the council and to the residents and at that point I think we
can get beyond what's being asked in this survey and with some more solid information really
ascertain where the community wants us to go, where the council wants to go and where people
really want to put their dollars. But we need to keep all those options open but, and move
forward with the process that we' ve been charged to from the City Council.
Hoffman: And I'm ready to go.
Franks: And you're ready to go?
Hoffman: All the direction I need.
Franks: We' I1 look forward to getting that information as soon as possible and really dealing with
it in depth on the 254. Are there any other items you think Todd that are coming up on that
agenda? I'm wondering if we can't just be careful to leave ample time for us to be able to discuss
this issue without lots of other items.
Hoffman: If this seems to be a problem, I'll schedule accordingly.
Franks: Alright. Now the other heavy hitter is the 2003 Park and Trail acquisition and the CIP.
INITIATE 2003 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PRO,IECT~ CIP.
Hoffman: Chair Franks, members of the commission. Traditionally what has been most effective
with this is to go through the CII~ page by page and start to take a look at park by park for the 5
years and tonight we're not going to finalize it but just to start to get some general position
statements from commissioners because it's a totally new group of commissioners and we'll have
totally different viewpoints on a 5 year CIP than the people who generated that document. So
you have a copy of that. I'm just going to allow.
Happe: Did you bring an extra copy Todd? I have mine out in the car...go get it real quick.
Hoffman: Allow Chair Franks to run through that and start...
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: So what we're looking to do is just really go park by park and see what it is that we'd
like to do. You'll take that.
Hoffman: Did anyone else need a copy? ...Cfi' process, it's just as important you consider what
you would want to eliminate, or take away or what you would want to add in based on perceived
importance and priorities. We'll continue to work on this in June, and July, and then after your
July meeting send a recommendation to the City Council on both a 2003 CIP and an updated 5
year Cfi'. And most likely at some point in July or August we will sit down with the council face
to face and talk about that document. It' s one of the meetings that council would like to go ahead
and conduct with the commission. Park master plan, our general guideline and that's included
under the cover memo on item number 3. These master plans guide the conversation. In the
master plan, these are the amenities that are completed to date. These are amenities that are left.
Half the people have been coming to the commission, have your neighbors been talking to you?
Have you heard word on the streets that our community is in need of this kind of facility at this
park location? That's how the conversation starts in many cases. And then there's some facilities
listed on each master plan that will probably never be built, and in fact be removed from the
master plan as these are refined over time. Or updated. Bandimere for example includes a tennis
court and a basketball court. They've been in a very poor location. Not adjacent to parking and
to expect people to park in those parking lots and make their way back to that tennis court,
basketball court is just not a very real expectation. People like to park and get to the facility and
have a very convenient location. So that was not a priority. There were however at the public
hearings for the Bandimere Community Park master plan, some neighbors that were highly in
favor of that facility, a tennis court in the park. Generally I think you can say that the
community's satisfied with the mix of facilities they see. They always see something better in
another community. These great big, extravagant playgrounds that you see at some of the
regional or larger city parks, we don't have one of those and so many of our residents with
younger children, or many of our parents who participate in child care leave the community to go
somewhere else to find that type of facility. Where would you put that? Lake Susan. Lake Ann.
One of the parks, community parks when you go ahead and redevelop a playground site. So
feature or signature type of facility that really give you a name in a community. Recently we've
been incorporating these neighborhood trail connectors through neighborhood parks. People love
them. One up at North Lotus. One you've probably been on when you walk through the park,
and so it allows a broader use of an already existing facility and brings more appreciation from
the local community. If you want to flip through until you find a cover page that says park and
trail improvements.
Happe: Is that page 617
Hoffman: 13, 14, yep, and then 61. We talked about this a little bit at the work session.
Franks: Now we're first going, I'm on page 61. Is that where everybody else is at? Alright.
Starting with 2002. Todd, are any of those projects completed yet?
Hoffman: Skate park project, it was not...but those improvements are done. Trash receptacles are
done. Some of it, a portion of the permanent park benches and tables budget has been spent, and
that's it. The other ones that are programmed, the trail from Bandimere Park to Chan Hills is
programmed. The trail from Highway 101 north is programmed. Marsh Trail Glen trail
connector is currently in wetland permitting and can hopefully be completed by fall. Tree
plantings we always complete in the fall because then we don't have to water them all summer
long. And a trail connector, Highway 5 at Riley Creek. A trail connector Highway 5 at Bluff
Creek are both, they're included in one project with the $250,000 on top and the budget on that
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
has come down so you won't see that level of expenditure. And then City Center Commons will
most likely occur in 2003 so that will actually move out of 2002.
Kelly: Did the extra money they called for last night, is that part of this or that's extra?
Hoffman: It's above and beyond this. It's unknown where that allocation will come from at this
time.
Kelly: Okay, is that something we should be aware of for this?
Hoffman; I'm hopeful that it will come from a general funding source, park dedication. I think a
$200,000 allocation is a significant share for park dedication in that project.
Franks: Okay. So most of the stuff in 2002 is either done or in the works. Okay, so we're really
moving on then to 2003. The improvements that we're looking at in 2003 at Bandimere
Community Park are what Todd? That $25,000.
Hoffman: What's the page and we'll go through them one by one. Silo restoration.
Franks: That's what it is.
Hoffman: So remember on this timeline you can X out 202 and you can add in 207. And we
need to program from 203 to 207. 5 year CIP. So at Bandimere, 203 has a silo restoration which
is the existing park silo .... just like it was off the farm. It's thought that it should be kept as a
landmark of rural Chanhassen and it needs updating and maintenance. And then the other project
there is $40,000 for Phase II play equipment at Bandimere in 2004. And then if you cross
reference this with the plans that, go ahead and open up the master plan for Bandimere Park, you
see that the other things that are not included are the restroom with a shelter with arbor. A
concession space. Hard court play areas. Tennis court, basketball court, picnic shelter, rest stops.
All those items which I think you see in a mature park system but probably at this time in our
development stage don't have the financial resources to tackle in the budget so they don't still get
on the radar. That's what the project CIP's for is to start putting things out there. Priorities onto
the radar screen in those later years.
Happe: How can we discern what Phase II play equipment, what components that is on this
master plan?
Hoffman: You don't. It's just.
Happe: Okay, it's just a generic amount of money that's allocated.
Hoffman: It's an addition to the playground. Again general thought is that the Bandimere
playground has been highly successful. Let's continue adding to it. We only accommodate one
age group now. Let's add on for an additional, probably younger age and compliment what is
there.
Happe: As an additional rookie question, what is the amount $40,000 instead of 50 or 30? Is 40
an arbitrary dollar amount that was assigned to this in the budget?
Hoffman: Yes. Based on purchasing playground, $40,000 is about base level to build a
reasonable phase of equipment. If you want to get more elaborate then you go up from there.
23
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Happe: And is a silo restoration something that would need to be completed in 2003 or would be
nice to be completed in 20037
Hoffman: We have no safety concerns with it. It doesn't need to be completed.
Franks: What exactly are we looking at to do for the restoration?
Hoffman: Going in and closing up all the entrances on the silo and painting it, probably with a
Chanhassen logo and something that says Bandimere Park. Bandimere Community Park.
Franks: But there's no safety concerns regarding the silo? Okay. Any other comments about
Bandimere Park? Anything?
Spizale: $25,000 sounds like a lot of money to restore some silos.
Happe: One silo.
Franks: One silo.
Spizale: Park money. It just seems like better spent on playground equipment.
Hoffman: You could probably spend more on the silo, frankly. Your best example of this is the
one on 41 in Chaska that says Jonathan.
Spizale: It sounds like a high expenditure to me for a silo.
Happe: ...question. If you flip flop the order of the 2003-2004 so you get the bang for the buck
out of the continued growth of the park itself, which you said the spending, the per capita
spending has been strong, maybe we just flip flop that order. If the silo doesn't need to be done
in 2003, maybe we put the emphasis on improving the park in 2003. We can leave the silo out
there as a project we'd like to get to but it doesn't necessarily need to be done in this coming
fiscal year.
Franks: That's good. When we look at the bigger picture though we're looking at in 2003 in City
Center Park, about $275,000 to go ahead with the construction of the warming house park shelter.
So you know if we take what is it, 25 but then 40, then we really have to take a look at what
we're going to do with that as well so. I can see the wisdom in all that. If that's the kind of route
we want to go. 2003 is a big year, along with 2002 if the 101 trail goes in because what we're
looking at with the road and trail construction at Lake Ann.
Stotar: That's something that we were going to talk about.
Franks: Right. So considering how that goes really.
Happe: Does it make more sense, Rod you've been through this process before. Does it make
sense to look, to process through all of this and then come back with conclusions after we've seen
all the rest of the expenditures? What's the most methodical way?
Franks: I think so.
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: We're not going to make any crucial decisions tonight. It's too much of a learning
curve so Rod, if I can just cruise through these. If you'd like me to do that and just so we can
have a conversation.
Franks: You know let's go through each of the items for the parks and then you'll have an idea
about what everything is, and then we can flip back through the whole list. We'll know what
you're all talking about. If there's anything else that you see when you look at the master plans
for the park that you're wondering why it's not in, then we'll put those in and talk about those.
Todd, can we approach it that way?
Hoffman: Absolutely.
Franks: Alright, let's do that. And then so let's move on then to the City Center Park.
Hoffman: City Center Park has $275,000 in 2003 for a park shelter building, which would be an
equivalent of a shelter building that you see at the recreation center. Brick and mortar structure. -
Warming house. Concessions. Outdoor area for picnicking. And the master plan for City Center
Park is 2 pages down. You can see the location for that. In flipping through you'll see City
Center Park master plan... Located just directly behind City Hall, a warming house, shelter
building. In the northwest coruer of the hockey rinks. And again this serves as a focal point for
the entire park so parents are leaving and dropping off children. Sports organizations are
conducting tournaments. This is the headquarters and it's a summer where playground programs
have their headquarters during the summer. In 2004 City Center identifies $100,000 for a senior
garden amenity which is in the far northwest corner of the park and that would be in collaboration
with the senior center and the senior housing. It would be more of a sculptured garden type
setting. That was a plan of the City Council when they redeveloped City Center. Was not just to
make it for ballfield kids. Everybody's paying for this park. Let's get everybody involved in it,
and so a senior garden or what you call a community garden with floral displays and arbors and
those type of things. So that's it for City Center.
Stolar: Where is that garden again?
Hoffman: It's not shown here.
Stolar: Where it says open green space? In that area.
Hoffman: Yep, open green space and picnic shelter. Up in that corner.
Stolar: For that type of thing are we going to have to, does it include seating at all? Okay.
O'Shea: Did you get feedback from the seniors on that?
Hoffman: Yep.
O'Shea: And that's what they.
Hoffman: We've got a great plan upstairs.
Stolar: How does that coincide with the City Center Commons though, over here that's also
going to have a similar feel?
25
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: Probably puts it farther down the line. Let's see how this one does. Why would you
start another project behind City Hall? So I think it finishes it off. Curry Farms Park has $40,000
in 2004, and that's one of those wood playground structures that's beginning to show it's age.
You see a lot of...of these structures. They get out of kilter and we do quite a bit of maintenance.
You get splintering and parents hate it when their kids get splinters. They start screaming and...
so that's 2004. Kerber Pond Park has $10,000 for signage, for interpretative signage. Kerber
Pond is just right down here by Kerber Boulevard. It's a nature...let's provide some
interpretation there on what people are seeing as they take that walk around the pond. Plants.
Geography. Geology. Wildlife. Those type of things. Improvements at Meadow Green.
$50,000 in playground equipment. It's probably the highest priority that we have in the city.
Meadow Green is a neighborhood park utilized as a community park due to the ballfields that are
there. We get a lot of use Monday through Friday during the summer and they have the worst
playground in the city sitting at that site. But what we are saying is we want, just because it's not
the best playground in the city'we're not just going to throw it away. We're going to maximize
it's utility. Do minimum improvements on it and then at it's life's end we'll take it out and
replace it. It's getting near to that point.
Stolar: You said this is the oldest one?
Hoffman: Oldest one. And there's 10 of those and generally we'll be bringing them,
recommending that 2 of those are replaced annually in your program. Round house renovation.
Roundhouse Park, there's $30,000 in there for 2004. Building a neighborhood playground and
Phase II of the renovation so you were out there this evening and witnessed first hand Phase I.
This says that there's some commitment in the near future to add that second phase of playground
equipment at that location.
Happe: So that's not specific to the round house that's...
Hoffman: Yep. Money for the round house has been...does not show up any longer in the CIP
but it's there for the council to use... Remember that only the parks that have something listed in
the projects CIP are in here so when we get to go back through this at future meetings or a work
session, we're going to look at every park and if you want to add something, we can add it the
CIP list. There's a trail listed which was taken off. Whitetail Ridge Court to Lake Lucy Lane.
So it's no longer an item in the CIP. Anybody familiar with where Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy
Road heads west, and you take a right at the Y like you're going to go into Pheasant Hills and
then the road ahnost dead ends and you have to take a sharp right into Pheasant Hills. This is a
trail connector from that point forward over to Galpin Boulevard, which some people in the
neighborhood. Some did not want. Commission looked at it. Thought it was a good suggestion
and put some money in. The council last year took it out... So we'll look at that. When we sit
down with some more time I'll show you where that is. If you get a chance to go out there and
look at it. These little trail connectors are great to make local trips so people go out for a walk or
a run and they want to get back, but generally neighbors hate them going in so they're difficult to
put in. Nice amenities. Where, we have a road easement here. It's not just a trail easement. We
have a full road easement so you've got plenty of room to work in, and at one point we got pretty
close to making it happen and it just hasn't happened over time. Bandimere Park to Chan Hills.
The pending project. Page 69. Page 70. Pending project, the 101 trail. Page 71, trail and road
reconstruction at Lake Ann Park currently has $485,000 allocated in 2003. You need to make a
decision if you want to do that. To try to take a look at alternatives, you may have seen portions
of the road tonight. We've asked for a price, an overlay. A mat overlay so they take a fiber mat.
Overlay that and then take asphalt on top of that. And you receive another 10 to 15 years of use
and drop the cost down to about $150,000 versus 485 so. 485 is complete reconstruction. Take
26
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
out everything that you see there in the old part of Lake Ann. Curb and gutters. Storm water
ponding. Brand new road section. Or you just continue to patch it with an overlay.
Happe: Todd, if I can hang you up on this one for just a minute. Can you just re-explain for us
again why this particular fund is being used to pay for streets and parking'lots. Would that
traditionally come out of the general fund or would that traditionally come out of Park and Rec?
Hoffman: ...20 years and served all the citizens. I do not think it meets the intent of park
dedication. Why is it taken out of there? Because it's very easy to do. It's a dedicated fund. Got
a million 7 in there. Let' s take it out of the park dedication.
Happe: So in theory we're going to take funds that have been raised to build new amenities and
new parks, and we're going to reallocate those funds to repair, restore or rebuild a 20 year old
road and a parking lot to go with it?
Hoffman: That's what this document says, yes. I don't support that.
Stolar: How was the road originally funded? Was it the park dedication to build the park?
Hoffman: There was no park dedication when Lake Ann was built. It was built with general
fund allocation.
Stolar: Do bond funds for parks and trails also go into this fund? Not just the dedication fees but.
Hoffman: It'd be held separately. So the last park fund held in a separate account specifically for
those improvements identified in the park fund. And so, and then operations and maintenance is
a general liability. General tax liability and then the city general CIP general tax liability and
then we have park dedication.
Happe: Todd, have we historically been asked to bear the burden of paying for roads and parking
lots on revamps like this?
Franks: Not since I've been on the commission but this idea of rebuilding the Lake Ann road has
been around for a while. It's not anything that's coming up new. It hasn't been resolved yet I
don't think so. My feeling is, is even, Todd you threw out doing an overlay for $150,000 and that
sounds like wow, we can side step for the 485 if we go for the 150. My feeling on that is, the
precedent that that sets I think is dangerous. In that what we're saying, although we think maybe
we' re getting by less expensively, we' re still saying that it's okay to do what I consider
engineering improvements on existing facilities with park dedication bonds and I think that that's
not a precedent that we as a commission want to begin to endorse because it's one that future
commissions will have to face again and again and again. Is my feeling on this.
Happe: So what would you, in your opinion, what would your recommendation be for dealing
with that $485,000 looming bill?
Franks: I think that this issue here is a fantastic issue to bring up at one of the work sessions that
we' 11 be having with the City Council. One of the things to remember is that although we are
doing this budgeting, this is not our money. This is the council's money that is, this is real
confusing now. So we're not spending this money. We're making some recommendations about
how these funds should be allocated into what projects. The problem for us is, and you'll begin
to feel it too I think is you start to feel some ownership over this and the projects and the things
27
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
and so you know, when these disagreements arise, we have to remember what our job is. But I
think right now our job is to do some education about how we see this to the council.
Hoffman: And then just to make a recommendation.
Franks: And to make a recommendation.
Hoffman: If you feel that this, then you would say, this project will not be a part of the Cfi'.
Stolar: How did it get here in the first place though? Was this something the City Council said
put it in or something we just did to highlight the need?
Hoffman: It was something that...the previous city manager put in, and I continue to push the
question that we need the Lake Ann road to be reconstructed and he said fine, I'll put it in park
dedication.
Happe: So if I'm understanding correctly, if it's in the Cfi', it's our recommendation?
Franks: We will approve the CIP and then that will go forward to the council.
Stolar: Is there any statutory rule about what can and cannot come out of here? At all.
Hoffman: Yes but they're pretty vague. As long as you're building park facilities and not
spending.
Stolar: On operations, yeah. But what about maintenance? Like trails for example. If a trail
buckles and it needs to be repaired, it shouldn't come from this fund.
Hoffman: Again statute wise you're not going to find the differentiation.
Stolar: Historically what have you done?
Hoffman: Historically what have we done? Historically we have not invested park dedication in
maintenance and as far as we will continue to send that message that redevelopment should come
out of the redevelopment fund and general obligation fund. Redevelopment shouldn't come out
of money that was placed in a fund to build new facilities to meet the needs of existing, or future,
people that have just moved here. Can you imagine 20 years from now the list of redevelopments
and if you gan~er every new development dollar and put it into redevelopments, you're not
meeting the intent of legislation.
Stotar: And that's what, a couple of things relate to this. One, in Eden Prairie they did do a
bonding fund just to do replacement or repair and threw it all in the CIP fund so that was one of
our revenue sources along with park dedication. They co-mingled them, because they were a
maturing city, right to your point. 10 years. 15 years from now that's where the shift comes so
they just co-mingled it, but still some development. The other question is, are we going to have
any flack then if we say something against this yet we're going to replace or repair some park
play areas with the same fund? That, I just want to make sure because I agree with Rod. I don't
want it in here, but I want to make sure we make our case well.
Hoffman: That's another question that we have, I've asked for a replacement fund, just like we
replace vehicles under replacement.., and it's pick your battles.
28
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Stolar: I understand. Thanks. We can put this money as our replacement funds for play areas.
Franks: There's a larger philosophical issue too here is that as we expand out and maintenance
becomes the larger expenditure than development, how is it that that's going to be funded?
Especially since those new revenue dollars into the park dedication account aren't coming in.
And I think we' re seeing that now where our system is getting big. Maintenance is getting bigger
and bigger and bigger.
Happe: Probably a pretty clear distinction we can draw though between replacing a broken swing
seat and revamping and restoring road, a park road. Maybe that will be where the difference...
Stolar: But in the broader issue, when is the year, and we'll get to some of that but when is the
year we think we need to replenish the funds because we aren't going to have dedication fees to
start replacing these things that were built starting in the 80's.
Hoffman: There's no lack of things to spending money on. $800,000 on 101 trails. $200,000 or
more up here. Park buildings so if we can start reaching a consensus with all the decision makers
that replacement means minor replacement from the general obligation fund. That' s just going to
help everybody in the future. How many times have we told robbing Peter to pay Paul? Okay,
onto the Marsh Glen trail connector. That's a scheduled project. Tree plantings, scheduled
project. 74, park shelter, Bandimere Community Park. Scheduled out $175,000 in 2005 which
would most likely would not be putting the shelter necessary at that time. Justification,
Bandimere Park is the second busiest park in town. It hosts thousand of users each year.
Provision of service is that a shelter will greatly increase the level of satisfaction of park users.
Page 75. Half court basketball at Bandimere Heights Park, $15,000. A small item on the master
plan. Skate park ramp. Again in 2003 1 think we need to add, move this $75,000 and spend it on
a natural ramp instead of on other improvements that we thought would justify in time.
Maintenance equipment, trash receptacles. We have one more year. They're replacing all the
ugly blue barrels with attractive trash receptacles... Permanent park benches and tables are an
ongoing improvement that we're putting in our park system as it matures. Trail connector,
Highway 5 at Riley Creek is a scheduled project. And the trail connector, Highway 5 at Bluff
Creek...
Franks: After the scheduled projects in year 2002 are completed, what kind of a fund balance are
we looking at?
Stolar: Roughly 1.275. Something like that.
Hoffman: There's a million 6 thousand scheduled to be invested. That most likely would come
down to about a million 3. $400,000 approximately. Plus revenues for 2003. So that gives you a
swing anywhere from 3 to 6.
Happe: What are projected revenues Todd?
Hoffinan: No. Projected revenues are probably about $250,000 to $300,000. Maybe a little
higher. Projected expenditures, $1.3 to $1.6. Current balance of $1.7. So you're taking it down
to anywhere from $100,000 to $300,000 and adding on anywhere from $250,000 to $300,000.
Happe: Does that include removing City Center Commons out into 2003? Okay, I gotch ya.
29
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: So 2002 is a huge year for park dedication.
Stolar: If what you're saying is true, the 865 listed here can't be spent in 2003, right?
Hoffman: Correct. Unless...are designated .... this is the time for discussion with the City
Council on how this community wants to move forward with capital budgeting for parks.
Franks: Right. There's just certain realities that we have to face. That these type of large
reconstruction or maintenance expenditures are going to be tagged onto the park dedication fund,
we are going to be unable to meet needs that the community's expressing like their playground
equipment and their trail connections. We're just not going to be able to do it. And those are the
funds that will be necessary to complete those projects. This is a good time for that discussion.
Stolar: When we actually do this final thing, could you have that rev, projected revenue line,
balance line on a summary sheet?
Franks: After going through the overview, are there any other thoughts about the projects or any
projects that you've noticed that you'd like to see that you didn't see?
Happe: Talking just 2003 or extending out beyond that?
Franks: Well we can take it in 2003 and move out forward.
O'Shea: I think we need to look at the skate park and spend more money there.
Franks: In 2003?
O'Shea: Yes.
Franks: For equipment purchase.
O'Shea: For more ramps and expand it.
Franks: Well we've been doing that at about $7,500 increments. Is that amount still enough to
buy? It's not is it? About what dollar amount to add onto the skate park?
Hoffman: Well if you want to add a single small...that will do it. If you want to add a single
large component it's $10 to $12,000. $10,000 to $15,000. If you want to add multiple, it goes up
from there.
O'Shea: I think isn't it one of the most heavily used areas?
Hoffman: The most heavily used.
O'Shea: Is that I think we really need to look at that and making it as good as we can.
Hoffman: ...during the sun~ner all the facilities in town are used very heavily, and so they're all
important.
Stolar: Are we for this, are we loo~ng at just this is continual expansion of it or is it also
replacement? For the skate park.
30
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: Currently it's expansion.
Stolar: There's room to expand for the next 5 years of material, what we have there will be fine?
Hoffman: Yeah.
Stolar: Okay. And then you Said there were park play areas we're going to have to replace, that
there's a list. I only saw one or two here. What other ones come up in the next 5 years between
now and 2007 that you think?
Hoffman: I'll put that together for you. There's 10 of those playgrounds out there in all. They're
scattered throughout the city, generally in the older areas of town so, Meadow Green Park, that's
a huge park. Curry Farms Park. Minnewashta Heights Park with wooden play structures. I'll
incorporate those into the list.
O'Shea: On that note, because they're aging neighborhoods? The equipment you're putting in, is
that what the neighbors want to see or are the kids older that they're not being used that much?
Hoffman: That's a good question. Neighborhoods age. But a neighborhood playground is just
one of those amenities that everybody expects every park is going to have, and so you might
change the age group on a phase. Let's say okay, we're going to redevelop and you get together
with the neighborhood and they say well all our kids are older currently. Let's put Phase I in for
the older kids. And then Phase II...turnover. But there's not a single neighborhood park that we
have in this city that does not have a playground.
O'Shea: Right. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have something for them, but is a kiddie what
they need for the age that they think they're going to use that park for?
Hoffman: Yeah, that's an individual decision at the time. Every time we put a playground in a
neighborhood, we bring them in. They generally pick it.
O'Shea: Okay.
Stolar: Do you want discussion on the...construction at Lake Ann?
Franks: I think...getting this wrong is what I'm hearing is there's some, there's still some things
we need to pick up about that but if I can pull this back too. What I'm hearing is, there's some
consensus here that this commission is also viewing this expenditure as one that may not be
appropriate to come under the park dedication fees.
Happe: It's absolutely not consistent with park dedication fees and their intended purpose.
Stolar: And not fiscally feasible given our current funding.
Franks: And I think just having that understanding that that's the current consensus of the
commission with the information that we have now is enough really on that issue for now.
Happe: But one of the things we do want to take a look at for Lake Ann Park, that we've talked
about tonight is within that picnic and park area. If there's potential to do, what are we calling a
shelter.
31
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Franks: A shelter.
Happe: So with the only expenditure listed for Lake Ann Park for the next 5 years being to fix
their road, we probably, there's some great space there that could be enhanced with residents
requests for different amenities for picnics and corporate functions, etc.
Franks: Well I'm just looking at the overall 2002 through 2006. Some of the things that I'm
saying just throwing out is, you know if the silo right now is not a safety concern, I think that's
one of those nice things that will polish the park but I think that we can maybe use those dollars
better in some other places right now and that be one of those kind of polishing up amenities we
might do later. Also I feel kind of the same way about the interpretative signage around Kerber
Pond right now. That's nice but I think we really have to start looking hard at creating the hard
amenities instead of filling out the soft amenities so to speak.
Stolar: On that one, is there some way we can get someone to possibly do that as a project?
Look at ways for Arboretum or a college group, come out and view it so that we don't have to
spend?
Happe: It would be a good Eagle Scout project.
Hoffman: Possibility. There's not a real direct tie between Kerber Pond Park and any
organization that would be interested in doing that. If you have a closer tie, if it was adjacent to a
university. The Arboretum probably believes that they do enough for the community in their
current establishment.
Happe: The up side is, I mean it's, there's a percent of the overall budget is what, 6~7 percent of
the projected revenue so the dollars are up significant, if it's a project we want to go forward
with, it's certainly affordable. But it may be a logical place to cut.
Franks: Right. Well I'm not necessarily looking for cuts. Pushing them out, right. Right. You
know we're looking at potentially doing projects that are going to draw the balance of the park
fund down pretty low, and so we really want to look at how we're really spending those dollars.
In the past the commissions have traditionally been pretty frugal in attempting to save money and
build up reserves. I think at least in the short term the days of having reserves are gone and we
have to think about how we're going to use the dollars that we have at the time most effectively.
Happe: As part of the impact, or part of the desire to have been to use the dollars that we have
available to get continuous improvement across the boards in our parks or to focus that money in
a selected projects? Is one of our objectives brought to be able to impact the multiple parks or is
the objective to funnel that money into the major projects?
Franks: Which money are you talking about?
Happe: The park and rec dedication.
Franks: You know it's really to do both. We need to keep developing the existing parks that we
have in a way that's consistent with the master plans and appropriate for the residents that are
around the neighborhood parks, and then also look at the bigger questions too about community
parks, land acquisition, being involved in something like the community center so the larger
scale. I really see it as both.
32
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: And generally it was an orderly progression. We were in a huge growth spurt for
about a dozen years, and we just couldn't get around to everybody's project that year and the
commission said you know, just wait until next year. We'll get to your park. We'll get to your
playground. There were neighborhoods that were just about fully developed and we had physical
space for the playground in the park but it just wasn't there yet and so then the allocation was
made and so there was almost this orderly fashion. You know you'll be next and that's what
occurred and that's, the growth has slowed down. What I'm hearing is that we want to separate
and as long as we make that clear separation and are bringing that, when we have a replacement
or a maintenance project, it's going to go on a different list. It's going to go over here on a list
that says these projects are maintenance and replacement and they should, they need to be funded
from somewhere else. These projects are development improvement and that's what the
commission is going to focUs on as we have a park system that we want to continue to develop
and improve. We have a funding source. Here's our recommendation. Our recommendation
over here is to take these, find different allocations so these projects can move forward and then
it' s a policy decision of the City Council. As long as you have that clear distinction I think then
they know where you're coming from and we don't continue to mix these things as we go
through this growth transition.
Franks: Which I think has happened in the past. We have mixed. What Glenn was mentioning
earlier I think that developing a priorities ranking for these replacement things and so it's not just
us necessarily sitting around thinking well, let's replace another swing this year. But really based
on certain criteria, it's at the top of the list.
Stolar: I can look and see. I had my Eden Prairie one. We had certain things. Safety was always
number one. That always rocketed to the top. So playground where kids are getting splinters.
Franks: But I really do see a difference between adding a Phase II play equipment versus
replacing existing equipment. And I think we do run into the same problem with, if we start
using the same funding source, or recommending that the same funding source be used for
replacing old equipment, we're going against the stand we're making on Lake Ann Road just like
you were saying Dave so. We're there Todd.
Happe: One additional question. Do we have an opportunity to put together a list of projects?
Typically the Lion's club or even an Eagle Scout project, etc. I mean there's a certain amount of
these projects that would be great to have available as community projects should they, should a
Lion's Club or Kiwana's Club or any one of our various civic or service organizations. Should
we be more vocal or more visible in terms of what those opportunities might be? Not necessarily
soliciting you know service projects, but at least have identified what some of those major
initiatives could be, should a.
Franks: I don't want to be a downer on that because in theory it's a great idea and I know I've sat
up here and I've said that too, and I've watched the great ideas come out and the ability for our
local service clubs or organizations to really come through on really anything big, significant
project I think is pretty limited now. And so it begins to be kind of a frustration for everybody.
Hoffman: Dave, as a staff member I'm well connected with each of those clubs and they all have
made commitments to the community and some have met those commitments. The Lion's are
still meeting a commitment on the Lake Ann ballfield. They had $100,000 commitment. They
lost the charitable gambling and so they're continuing to pay back in chunks of $3,000 and
$4,000 and $5,000 of that commitment and they're over halfway there. So and the Rotary, I'm a
'33
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
member of the Rotary and those people are talking about where can they get some.., and then the
chamber, that's about it.
Stolar: One other question on this part of your plan. We know that the trails are the big amounts.
Do we, it may be too late for all that that's going on this year, but do we want to isolate trails that
are new trails connecting new neighborhoods and pay park dedication fees versus trails going in
towards the master plan of an old neighborhood. Again park dedication fees, you and I talked
about this last night. They don't cover what we're spending on the 101 trail. And they got parks
besides that. I mean between 101 trail, just trails this year, that's 1.2, 1.3 million dollars, just for
trails out of our $1.7 budget. I'm not saying right or wrong. I'm just saying clearly identifying
them because then you can distinguish, and I'm more worried about beyond here. In the
$250,000 we get next year, making sure that we identify. That money that's revenue is to help
connect trails for those new neighborhoods and really focusing on that versus building a trail on
my neighborhood which we're already there. Whether we have a trail or not, we paid our park
dedication fees. We got our park. These new neighborhoods, we can put a trail there that
connects them to the rest of the city. I don't know if that's another divider we'd want to put in.
Hoffman: Well we always try to put those trails in with road construction so we don't end up
paying for them.
Stolar: Okay. So that's how you cover them, okay.
Hoffman: In new developments we want the trails going in right away.
Stolar: Right away, okay.
Hoffman: We played catch-up in the '97 referendum with the 7 miles of trails that went in
existing neighborhoods and we didn't have park dedication. We didn't have a million 5 to put
into trail developments so we put it out to a referendum.
Franks: That's a good point because those big trails on Galpin and Powers and all those were
done with the referendum.
Stolar: Okay. That's why I was looking, there was a 2.9 or 4.9 referendum.
Franks: We're really looking at two projects that are listed in 2002 and 2003 that have some
philosophical issues attached to them and just the points that you're bringing up.
Hoffman: Chair Franks, I'm prepared to clean up this budget proposal for the commission, on
behalf of the con-unission and bring it back to you at your next meeting. If you have additional
comments or other commissioners have additional comments, I'd be glad to take those but I think
we just need to move forward and clean it up and hearing the discussion on what you'd like to see
completed.
Franks: At what meeting do you anticipate this coming back to us?
Hoffman: June. And then July.
Franks: Big meeting. Alright. That wraps up new business.
34
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
Ae
SUMMER ACTIVITIES.
LAKE ANN PARK OPERATIONS.
Hoen: Thank you Chair Franks, members of the commission. The following list is a list of
programs I'm offering for this summer. The list includes some previously, programs we've had
in previous years. Some new programs this year. Some of the new programs I'm offering this
year include field trips to Bunker Hills Wake Pool, Minnesota Lynx basketball game. Camp
Caterpillar is a preschool program that we're doing in cooperation with Science Explorers. Some
of the youth programs that are new this year are Emergency Room and Science Blast Off which is
also that we do in cooperation with the Science Explorers. Introduction to Lacrosse Camp.
Advanced Lacrosse Skills Camp for Boys and Girls. As well as Robichon's Ramp which is the
inline skating classes up here at the skate park. And Fishing for Fun. It's a program that teaches
kids some fishing techniques. Catch and release and teaches them to respect nature. Any
questions on that?
Franks: So we're still having preschool programs? I just had to say that, sorry.
Hoffman: They've very popular. If you want to take them away, make the motion.
Franks: No. Any comments from the commission? Any questions for Corey?
Happe: Corey, is there any plans, are we doing anything different in terms of the publicity for
these events or are we on the same course of action?
Hoen: Same course. We've got fliers at the schools. We've got fliers at the Chan Rec Center.
Fliers up here at City Hall. And then obviously our Chanhassen Connection that goes out to
every Chanhassen resident.
Happe: Does the Villager do anything with...
Hoen: We do some advertising with the Villager. It's whenever they have space.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Stolar: ...the only point they came back was they wanted to know if their approach would have
any bearing on maintenance costs, long term and the answer was from the designer it was no. It
shouldn't but they asked him to still come back with any issues related to that long term
maintenance cost. The highly selective things. The types of benches. The plantings, all sorts of
different questions like that but it went very well I thought.
Franks: What were some of the things that they added in?
Stolar: The one funny thing was the transformer box. They want to look at possibly moving that
in Phase I as opposed to in the overall master plan. They want to look at that one. That's one of
those that put it as an add-in, let's figure out, or look into that but they haven't necessarily said it
has to be in Phase I. But they thought it would be easier if we're going to build the sidewalk out
35
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
there. Get it out of the way now. Just build the whole entranceway and not have to redo the
entranceway once you get it out in the secondary phase. Some of the, again I didn't have the list
but they had several items up through number 28 that were all landscaping items to just move 4
trees.
Hoffman: Trees, plantings, flowers, grasses, arbors, the benches. The additional seating.
Happe: They did do the arbors?
Stolar: No, I thought they pulled the arbors. The arbors I don't think were in the.
Hoffman: On the list it was $15,000 for smaller arbors.
Stolar: Smaller arbors, right. They pulled the bigger arbors out of the master plan.
Franks: Big.
Happe: Have all the commissioners seen the plan for City Center Commons? The master plan
from.
Hoffman: Right there.
Stolar: I think it was the lighter shaded ones are the ones that were later phases and some of those
they pulled in.
Hoffman: So we have here this evening...in this location and from the discussion last night, the
tree.., so even outside of where this new maple would be introduced.
Stolar: That was the other thing. They asked about that tree being removed, just to put a maple
there when it's not significantly in the way.
Hoffman: The grading is going to most likely change... We have the new library. The new court
yard area between City Hall and the library. The library drops off. Parking lot. Additional
parking lot in this location. And then the main area for the City Center Cormnons in this location.
This is where the transformer is located and very nice...
Happe: Thanks Todd.
Hoffman: Construction to occur in 2003.
Franks: Was there any comment about the involvement of park dedication fees in funding for
this?
Stolar: No.
Franks: Okay. Thanks a lot.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET.
Franks: Any comments?
36
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 29, 2002
Hoffman: Lots of information on the school district for you... The difference in the miles, one
has a high school in Chanhassen, one does not.
Happe: The memo on the Seminary Fen.
Hoffman: The Governor vetoed the allocation for the fen as a part of the budget.
Happe: Line item veto?
Hoffman: It was a huge effort by a wide array of government groups, non-profit groups. They
had volunteer citizen lobbyist working this one single item down at the capitol so disappointed to
see it cut.
Happe: Well one of the positives about the funding that Mr. Workman secured for 101, what did
get approved in the budget for $500,000 so.
Franks: That was too bad. Maybe next time. That's the nice thing about the legislature, there's
always another session. Alright, is there anything more on the Administrative Packet? Just one
thing I'd add in. If you're interested in seeing a very interesting tournament, June 1st and 2nd
down at Lake Susan. The INT water ski and wakeboard tournament will be held down there. If
it' s a nice day, walk down there. You can see how that park can be used and how the lake is used
and it's just really kind of cool. Cool tournament to see so, 1st and 2nd of June.
Happe: I appreciated the park tour we took tonight. I'd like to do that as often as everybody else
is agreeable to getting out and seeing the parks so.
Hoffman: You bet.
Franks: Okay, great. Well if there's nothing more, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Spizale moved, Happe seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37