1d Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 1, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Karlovich, Craig Claybaugh, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet
and Rich Slagl~
MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Linda Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project
Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Name
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
Address
7301 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
~REOUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (#78-2) FOR AN
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL STATION AND RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE, SITE PLAN
.REVIEW FOR A 3,984 SO. FT. RETAIL BUILDING, 48' X 80' CANOPY ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE
~AND A VARIANCE FOR SEPARATION OF GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY
BUSINESS DISTRICT (BIle, LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ZAMOR ADDITION, 441 W.
79TM STREET, HOLIDAY STATION STORES, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Barreji
Vic Sacco
Mike Ramsey
4567 W. 80z Street, Bloomington
4567 W. 80th Street, Bloomington
6362 Oxbow Bend
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff?.
Claybaugh: No questions, however I do need to abstain from the discussion and subsequent vote. My
current employer, Riverside Construction is currently engaged in a project with Holiday Station Stores
within the city of Ramsey.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Karlovich: I just had a quick question with regards to the purpose of the 250 foot separation
requirement. Is that a fire requirement or?
Generous: It was intended to limit the number of gas stations and convenience stores. They didn't want
every corner to have one. The market has sort of taken over and determined how many the city could.
The actual ordinance started out, they were just looking at convenience stores. Gas stations weren't part
of the discussion, but it evolved over a year and a half period when they were reviewing the ordinance to
incorporate gas stations. They were also, the city was concerned that we did not permit in our ordinance
a full service facilities for auto repair as part of gas stations so they amended that at the same time. In
this instance it wouldn't work.
Blackowiak: Rich?
Slagle: Just one question. I'm looking at the landscaping blueprint and wondering, as I drove by, I saw
there were 3 large spruce trees I believe that were located just directly south of the eastern most parking
spot. Am I to assume, we've not seen these on this plan, that those are being taken out?
Generous: I believe so, yes.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have 2 questions too. First of all I want to be really clear about the time
line of how this came about. The holiday station was there first in '79, and then the Amoco came 10
years later, and then it was in the following year when we introduced that setback requirement. Is that
about the right time line?
Generous: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's somewhat significant to see the order of how things happened. Now, these
questions are more for the applicant. Is there enough space to put all these extra trees in that we're
asking for from the view of staff?. I'm going to ask you too, ask the applicant of that but what's staff's
opinion on that?
Generous: That was Jill's directive that they could comply with.
Sacchet: It should be possible, okay. Under the conditional use permit findings, finding number 8. That
has not too many because actually I believe the proposed use does not have vehicular approaches to the
property which do not create traffic congestion. That means they all do create congestion. I think you
want to take one of the not's out I believe. Is that correct?
Generous: Yes, it will not create traffic congestion.
Sacchet: Yes, so the current approaches are such that they do not create. I think it's actually correct in
the second go around when you wrote it. Now there's another clash between the two versions that's
under the variance findings. Finding C states the proposed variance is due to the desire to efficiently
utilize the existing access points as well as comply with the requirements of the city's design standards.
The corresponding finding in the recommendation part reads somewhat different, if I remember right.
That was corresponding to on page 13, number 8. Is that correct? The one that says the purpose of the
variation is not based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the land.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Generous: Correct. That's the requirement under ordinance.
Saechet: They say slightly different things, those two the way I understand it.
Generous: Yes, and I believe I went into more detail under the staff report. Under the final findings.
Sacchet: Okay. So basically your, because it's a little bit slippery one. I mean obviously this change is
to estimate the property and generate more income and, but it's, yeah it's true that they do use it more
efficiently at the same time.
Generous: Right, and they could actually do it, but then they violate some of the other things. The
design standards that the city's trying to get and so I was trying to balance the two of those.
Sacchet: Okay. One more question about the signage. We say that the big stand-up sign is actually in
place, right? So they wouldn't need an approval for that. That's already there.
Generous: That's going to stay there.
Sacchet: That stays the same. In addition they can have on two walls of the building they can have
lettering and they chose to have that on the east side and on the south side.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: So for instance they couldn't have another sign on the north side, is that what we're saying?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's the questions I have from staff. Yep, thanks.
Blackowiak: Ms. Kind, any questions?
Kind: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I've got a few. Bob, you talked about the original approval was tied to a
specific site plan. Do we do that now?
Generous: That's what we're doing, yes.
Blackowiak: So everything is tied so it's .nothing changed.
Generous: Well it's a different site plan though.
Blackowiak: Right. So we just have to go through the approval with, okaY. Alright. Do you happen to
know what the current retail building size is, or should I ask the applicant that?
Generous: I don't remember offthe top of my head.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Okay. According to my calculations there are 3,840 square feet of canopy. Is that counted
in the site coverage percentage as well as the building?
Generous: Well the impervious surface underneath it is, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just kind of curious. As I did the math I looked at it and I thought boy,
that's huge because it's almost as big as the building.
Generous: Yes.
Blackowiak: I mean it's almost like two buildings so that's what I'm trying to get that through my head.
This is I guess an engineering question probably. Can you talk to me a little bit about the current
distance between the east entrance, the east access point on West 79th Street and Great Plains Boulevard.
To me it does not look like it's a huge distance in terms of feet. How does that comply with current
standards and is this an opportunity for us to improve that because it seems like it's, if you exit out from
that east entrance you're just right there by the stop sign and I'm wondering, is there any room for
improvement there?
Sweidan: Well Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. Actually there's no specific distance from the
main street toward the east entrance, how much it should be exactly. But main reason he's using the
existing also entrance, but he is doing some, on extending to the curb toward inside the curb and gutter.
That's all that he is doing. Just reshaping the whole existing entrance.
Blackowiak: Okay. I was just curious because it seems like it's rather close to the intersection so I was
wondering if we could, if now would be the time to change anything and that was I guess my question.
Saam: Madam Commissioner. We could add that condition if you'd like. We were just, our thinking
was they're not looking or proposing to change either of the existing accesses so our thinking is they're
working fine now. We don't have complaints. Let's leave them alone. However, if you would like that
condition added, we could look at that more closely.
Blackowiak: I don't know that it's necessary. I was just I guess asking the question because I think this
is the time to do it. If that would be an issue for engineering at all~
Saam: I guess one thing we'd have to think about then is where the other access would be. I'm sure
they'd want two accesses.
Blackowiak: Well I just meant shifted it a little bit further to the west is kind of what I was, and I don't
know how that would work. If it would work but.
Saam: That's something we didn't lo°k at in too much detail but we could.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just kind of worried about that. I guess that' s, those are my questions for
now. So would the applicant or their designee care to come up to the microphone and make a
presentation. Please state your name and address for the record.
Victor Sacco: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Victor Sacco, S-a-c-c-
o. Manager of Real Estate for Holiday Companies. Address 4567 West 80th Street in Bloomington.
Basically we have worked with staff. We've got about 27, 28 now I think, conditions of our site plan for
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
this development. Want to redo the whole facility. We've been there approximately 20 years. I think
it's working nicely. We've enjoyed the association with the City of Chanhassen. Want to reinvest in the
city and we feel that this site plan does that. Basically we don't have any issues really, working with
staff I think we're in agreement with all the things that they've talked about. This new condition here,
we're fine with that which is draining from the roof to the north or south side. We have to look at that.
Work with our engineer and put that together but we're fine so if there's any questions that you folks
have of us. I also have John Barreji who is in charge of our construction, is here to help answer any
questions involved.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Uli, you're nodding.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have a couple questions of the applicant. I think you propose to put
new sewer and water access in, or city staff recommending that you use the existing ones. Is that an issue
for you?
Victor Sacco: I don't believe it is.
Sacchet: No problem there? The flag pole is something that staff points out that it would have to be
moved. Would you know where to move it?
Victor Sacco: I'm not sure exactly where we're going to move it but.
Sacchet: I think it's one of the conditions.
Victor Saceo: Yes, we'll make sure that it's within the setback area and that.
Sacchet: So you don't foresee any problem there?
Victor Sacco: No.
Sacchet: How about placing the extra trees that are necessary? Have you given some thought because
there isn't really all that excessive amount of space the way I see it.
Victor Sacco: We've talked to our landscape folks and we're fine with that, aren't we? Yes, we think
we can fit all those trees.
Sacchet: So you're fine with that? That's great. Let's see ifI have more questions for you. Nope, that's
it. Thank you.
Victor Sacco: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have a similar question to what Madam Chair had and that is, what is the size of
this new building compared to the previous?
Victor Sacco: The existing was a 3,920 square feet. 3,920 square feet is the old one. And the new one is
3,984. Real similar is size. Very similar.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Kind: Okay. Thank you.
Karlovich: First of all I just want to make some comments before my question. This is probably the
most beautiful looking gas station building I've seen in a long time and I think it will greatly enhance the
city of Chanhassen. Be a great improvement over the existing one, and I do understand in today's market
that the newer stations are doing much better. The only question I had for you and possibly for staff, was
there any consideration of any windows on the south side? I thought that was part of the design
standards or I don't know...
Aanenson: Let me take a stab at it first. The first site plan Bob worked a series of different drawings
with the applicant. One, to increase the impervious surface. There was some parking in the front corner
that we objected to so in fairness to the applicant, I think they've worked really well to meet some of our
objectives that we had as far as design and layout and visibility from the corner. I believe as far as the
pitched roof and some of those things that we pushed, they worked well with us. We gave some
examples to look at as far as gas stations that we thought were good designs. We certainly know what
direction we're looking at with windows and I believe indicated that to them but as far as today's
ordinance, it does meet that so. They were suggested as much window space as they could. But as far as
what they see is their prototypical design and what they see for their needs, I would leave that up to them
to answer that question.
Karlovich: Okay. I guess I saw it as possibly, maybe you think it's better to have the wall there as
opposed to the windows but I thought that would probably be an opportunity to probably even market a
little bit more from Highway 5.
Victor Sacco: Well we felt that, it's a relatively narrow building. It's 45 feet. It has a lot of frontage
going north/south but east to west, it's only about 40-45 feet and we do have that column feature there to
break it up so I think we just, we hope that you think that it will 10ok okay without the windows. The
faux windows.
Karlovich: I think it looks great with or without the windows. I was just throwing that out as a
discussion item. I mean it's a very nicely done building. Thank you.
Blackowiak: I guess I just have one more question. Back to the square footage question. What is the
current canopy size as compared to the proposed?
Victor Sacco: 52 by 50 is existing so, what is that?
Blackowiak: That's 2,600 square feet. Okay. So it's about a 50% increase in both the intensity of the
gas pumps and, okay. Is that a Holiday Station over on Highway 7, in Shorewood by Waterford Towers?
Victor Sacco: Madam Chair, it is yes.
Blackowiak: How big is the Canopy over there, do you know? I mean comparable or no?
John Barreji: Three times the size of our building. The one in Shorewood with the massive roof?.
Blackowiak: Yes, the massive roof.
Victor Sacco: That thing is huge.
Planning Commission Meeting - May l, 2001
Blackowiak: I want to make sure that we don't have the massive roof in Chanhassen as well.
Victor Sacco: Okay, good. We won't have that. That was part of a strip shopping center and the
developer and the city wanted something, it's huge.
Blackowiak: That's their option I guess but okay. Alright, that was it for my questions. This item is
open for a public hearing so if, well excuse me. Before I do that, did you want to add anything sir?
John Barreji: No.
Blackowiak: I didn't mean to cut you off.
John Barreji: John Barreji, Holiday Station Stores. I am in charge of construction. 4567 West 80th
Street. No, I don't. Not unless we push the access. Driveways.
Blackowiak: Okay, and would you be, talk to me about that a little bit. Since you're up here.
John Barreji: The reason is, if we push this further back then cars, the cars as they come through will
take the first exit as they come through. If we push this further back then the cars hit the island
perpendicular so we should stand at least 5 to 10 feet from the end of the island to the end portion of the
curb. So that's why, it actually worked up really well with....
Blackowiak: Right. I was just kind of curious about the distance. That was my question. And if
engineering is not worried about it then I guess I'm feeling a little better about it so. Alright, well let's
try it again. This item is open for public hearing. Oh excuse me, Rich.
Slagle: One more question Madam Chair. There's a mention in the conditions for a rock construction
entrance. Can you talk a little bit about that? I don't see it on the.
John Barreji: It's not shown on the plans as part of our revisions. When we got the conditions, they're
not done yet but they will be ready for the City Council meeting. A rock entrance is just a typical
entrance for construction access into the site.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, let's try it. Third time's a charm, right? The item is open for a public hearing so if
anybody would like to comment on this proposal, please come up to the microphone, state your name and
address for the record.
Mike Ramsey: Hi. My name's Mike Ramsey. I own the property just west of you guys. My address is
6362 Oxbow Bend, Chanhassen. I own the Gold Medal Sports and run the plaza right behind you guys.
The building looks great and I welcome it next to our building. I just have, I guess I've got to voice a
couple of concerns and the drainage issue is I guess being addressed. I still worry about the drainage
issue. I guess I don't know, I'm not an engineer so I don't know about the elevation of the building. The
Holiday sits higher than the plaza right now and in the winter when everything melts and there's runoff,
we've got it coming in the back doors &all the tenants right now so that's something I'm dealing with
right now so I'm a little skeptic and worried about the elevation issue of the new Holiday coming in. I
know you're talking about running the drains to the north and south, which would be great. I still, I know
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
the building is pitched east and west so is it caught by gutters and then dispersed the other way? I'm still
worried about that so I guess that's it. An issue and a question, a big question I have. I also have a
question on your mechanical boxes behind. Right here. I have a patio just to the south, it would be the
southwest of all these mechanical boxes on the end of my plaza and at the present time there's a
restaurant in there that doesn't use the patio but the patio was put in at considerably expense and I can in
the future I can see the patio being used and if the mechanical boxes are sitting right out in front of the
patio, I can see quite a big of noise. If the air conditioning ducts, mine in the plaza everything had to be
put on the roof and it's screened in. I'm looking at your drawing and I don't think, I don't know how
you'd put it on the roof but so all the mechanical boxes I guess, regardless of whether they're fenced in
or screened in, right off the patio is I guess a bit concern of mine also. And the space, I guess you're
talking about landscaping. It's going to be a tough squeeze to put in trees inbetween there now, and I've
got no problem with trees being put in there but there's a bunch of pines in there already and I don't
know if you can put, there's a shrub tree and a canopy tree. I'm looking at, we've got understory trees
and canopy trees. I was asking my wife, what's the difference on that. Is an understory tree, is that
pines?
Generous: They're ornamental trees generally.
Mike Ramsey: Okay. And canopy trees obviously are shade.
Generous: Those are the larger ones.
Mike Ramsey: I just think it will be tough squeezing them along there because there's 15 feet between
all the property lines, and especially if there's mechanical boxes. They'll be in the mechanical boxes so I
guess, and the garbage. That has nothing to do with I guess the building of the property. Right now i
deal with a lot of garbage from the Holiday Station. It's, I'm on constant pick-up and so I know the
garage is still going to be on that end of the building and it will be inside which helps immensely. I know
it's outside right now so it has the tendency to blow around everywhere but we're on constant pick-up of
everything that blows over so, those are my concerns I guess° If you want to yell back at me or have any
questions on some of my concerns I guess.
Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, can we talk to him a little bit about the drainage issues and also the
mechanical boxes? I don't know who.
Aanenson: Sure. I did speak to Mr. Ramsey about that too. As far as the drainage issue, there is a
problem already on his site and I guess we would ask the two property owners to get together. Obviously
you figure landscaping behind it is tight with the mechanical equipment, and maybe both problems could
be solved if they worked together to try to go back and retrofit so the water isn't going into Mr. Ramsey's
building. As far as mechanical boxes, I believe Bob has put a condition in there as far as wing walls. It'
is a pitched roof. We wouldn't want them on top, but also we want to mitigate the noise and if we can
work that with the landscaping or wing wall or something like that to screen that, I think that's certainly
achievable and I believe the other condition on there, in there Bob on that. And then the other one as far
as trash, I guess I'd leave that up to the Holiday. I think this building does have the enclosed trash in the
building, which help alleviate that so.
Mike Ramsey: The mechanical boxes, when you say screen, what kind of wall?
Aanenson: It'd be like a, something to match the building. A brick wall or something to match the
building so we'd muffle that noise.
Planning Commission Meeting - May I, 2001
Mike Ramsey: It wouldn't be just a fence or a boxed in or would it be bricked in or?
Aanenson: We would like it to match the building. Something that's durable.
Generous: If it's brick. Otherwise it'd be, the other way to screen it is through permanent landscaping.
Evergreens.
Mike Ramsey: I just know that...to the property line in the building, we're going to be 30 feet apart with
two buildings as it is and then you put those, it will be about 15 feet apart. And if there's a patio out
there, I know I wouldn't want to be sitting on the patio drinking a coffee or that so.
Aanenson: I think it'd be helpful between now and City Council if the two parties could get together.
Make sure, if they have to get cross access to get landscaping and the like to work some of those issues
out.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's a good idea. Okay.
Kind: Madam Chair, if they do add a wing wall, would that meet the setbacks?
Generous: We'd treat it like a fence. But you can build up to the property line.
Kind: So you can encroach?
Aanenson: Yes, right. Right. But I guess my intention, ifthey'can work to see what's best for both
parties, that works well. Reduce maintenance so they're not crossing each other's property, whatever to
solve kind of the drainage problem overall.
Karlovich: So will staff mediate that? It appears as though the entire site in front of the building all
drains towards Great Plains Boulevard so I'm assuming there's going to be gutters that are going to go
out in the front and then it will drain away from the building. So drainage doesn't seem to be a huge
issue. The landscaping though looks like.
Saam: It's on the other side.
Aanenson: It's on the back side between the two buildings.
Mike Ramsey: The west side.
Aanenson: Historically it has been draining that way. I guess that's what we said and Mr. Ramsey's
building came in second. Again I'm not sure what the final elevation or the final grading was there, but
we're saying here's an opportunity as long as the Holiday is going in and grading, that maybe the
problem can be resolved in the best interest of both parties, and we'd be happy, if we need to, to mediate
that meeting. Set something up.
Blackowiak: Would anybody else like to make comments in the public hearing portion? Seeing none, I
will close the public hearing. Commissioners. I'd like to hear comments. Rich, why don't I start with
you.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Slagle: Well I again think it's a pleasant proposal. It certainly looks very nice. I just have a concern as
voiced by a couple of comments I made regarding trees. It's unfortunate those 3 large trees will have to
go. I don't know if there's any alternatives with that. And I think I heard from Mr. Ramsey that noise is
also a concern. Possibly equal or more than the site lights of seeing the boxes so I hope that's addressed
in your discussions. And other than that I think I'm okay with
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli.
Sacchet: I think it's very appropriate use of that location. I think it's well designed for that location. I'm
glad to hear that all the conditions the applicant is fine with. The only comments are more of an
editorial, when we get to looking at actually a motion but basically I'm fine with this proposal.
Blackowiak: Okay. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I too agree. I really like the site plan. I think it's greatly improved over what's
there right now. It always kind of bothered me, the building orientation. The way it is now and I think
this improves upon that a lot and will be a nice addition to our city.
Blackowiak: Okay, Jay.
Karlovich: For the record I think the only comments I have is that the council may want to see windows
on at least the south side of the building. With regards to landscaping screen with the adjacent property
owner, if you look at the utility plan it appears that there is, I don't know if they're going to be able to put
landscaping. They'd have to be putting them in right on top of the water and sanitary sewer. I guess
maybe the mitigation there is if the adjacent property owner allows them to put some landscaping on
their property to do the screening. It would appear as though' staff already recognizes that. Otherwise I
think it is a very nicely done building and will be an improvement to the community.
Blackowiak: Okay. My comments are fairly consistent with what we've heard so far. I do like the
building. The main concerns I had were the 250 foot separation and the reasoning behind that but I'm
comfortable with that now. The retail building is staying approximately the same size, and as long as we
don't have a Shorewood type canopy, I feel very good about that. I think the building orientation is a
huge improvement and I generally like this project. So with that I would like to have actually I believe
it's going to be 3 separate motions or condition.
Generous: Two.
Kind: And just a procedure question Madam Chair. Under the first recommendation the numbers start at
6. What's the reason for that?
Generous: The computer.
Kind: Oh, okay. There isn't a reason. Okay, so I'll renumber those in my motion. And same with B.
Same deal there?
Generous: Yes.
Karlovich: Prior to the motion are we going to make the findings of hardship or how are we going to do
that?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Well I think, that was I guess my question. That the variance, doesn't the variance, and I
guess I'm asking you Kate. Okay so the conditional use permit with a variance, okay. So it's wrapped
into one. Alright, and then Findings of Fact are attached? Procedurally Kate I don't think we need to,
can we reference that or do we need to specifically?
Generous: You can reference it.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: With the Findings of Fact.
Blackowiak: Okay. Jay, would you be comfortable with that?
Karlovich: You know, I think you can adopt at least the findings that are here in the staff report and that
would be enough of a record for an undue hardship if we feel the need. If there's going to be any other
type of opposition or create more of a record, that's something else but the city staffhas put together, as
long as this is adopted as part of the motion I think them are some, appear to substantiate the variance.
Blackowiak: Right, and also we do have the Findings of Fact attached.
Karlovich: And it's not so much, we're just making a recommendation but the City Council just adopts
our recommendation.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well with that, I'd like to have two motions please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional use
Permit #2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot variance from the 250 foot
separation requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels based on the
Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. And then I do
have one correction for the Findings of Fact, I think that apply to this which is point number 8. The
finding should be reworded to say the proposed vehicular approaches to the property do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Blackowiak: A motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I second that.
Blackowiak: Okay, any discussion?
Sacchet: Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to make sure we wind up most of the comments in the
attached Findings of Fact part that goes to the council. I'm trying to figure, this is the variance part.
That also has the wrong numbering and plus for the first bullet on page 13 of the variance which is
currently numbered number 6, which should be number 1. That first half of the paragraph is a carryover.
A cut and paste apparent mistakenly. That should be taken out. Are you with me Bob, what I mean?
Generous: Yes.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Sacchet: Okay. And then I would further like to request that the finding number 8 on that page, which is
really number 3 should read the same way as the finding in the staff report, okay? That's my comments.
Kind: I'I1 accept those friendly amendments.
Blackowiak: Okay, so we have a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot
variance from the 250 foot separation requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps
of individual parcels based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
3. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles shall be permitted on the premises.
4. No public address system shall be audible from any residential property.
5. No sales, storage, or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles,
snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.
6. Facilities for the collection of waste oil shall be provided.
7. The Findings of Fact in the staff report shall be revised to amend item number 8 to read as
follows. The finding should be reworded to say the proposed vehicular approaches to the
property do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public
thoroughfares.
8. Finding number 6 on page 13 of the staff report shall be amended to delete the duplicated
portion.
9. Finding number 8 on that page 13 of the staff report, which is really number 3 should read
the same way as the finding in the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Craig Claybaugh abstained.
Blackowiak: Now we need a second motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Site Plan Review #2001-3, plans prepared by Insites dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25, 2001,
subject to the following conditions which should be 1 through, oh here comes math.
Kind: I think it's 23.
Sacchet: It will be 23. And I would like to make a couple of changes besides just numbering it starting
at 1. Number, what is currently 14, what should be 9. After rock construction entrance, I'd like to
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
specify for the construction. What is labeled number 15, what should be number 10, add silt fence
around the construction site. I'd like to add, and will be removed after construction. And I believe that's
my motion, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second?
Kind: I'll second that motion and add one friendly amendment to number 23. Old 28. Change the
sentence to read, and/or south of the building.
Sacchet: That's certainly accepted. Can I amend myself?.
Karlovich: If it's friendly.
Sacchet: I would like to propose a number, what would be 29 with this numbering which will be 24 I
believe. That the applicant works with the neighbor to screen the mechanical boxes. That's probably
specific enough. Yeah, I'd like to add that as another condition. And I accept that.
Blackowiak: Uli, could I just add something too?
Sacchet: Sure.
Blackowiak: On that number 24, this is new number 24. Applicant works with neighbor to screen utility
boxes and address the water issue between the two properties.
Sacchet: You can add that with it, yes. That's fine.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, so it's been moved and seconded.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
Review #2001-3, plans prepared by Insites, dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25, 2001, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance ora
building permit.
2. The developer shall increase the number of understory trees and shrubs along the southern
property line to fully screen the parking lot.
3. The pin oaks specified in the plant schedule shall be changed to white, bur or bicolor oaks and
will have a minimum size of 2 ½" diameter.
4. The Austrian pine in the plant schedule' shall have a minimum size of seven feet.
5. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year storm event.
6. Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 5203, 5207, 5300, 5301, and 5302.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Revise existing catch basin invert elevation on Great Plains Boulevard.
Add rock construction entrance for the duration of construction.
Add silt fence around construction site, and removal of the silt fence at the end of
construction.
The developer shall revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the General Notes add, "All connections to existing manholes shall be core-
drilled".
d. Under the Sewer & Water Notes add, "All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
26".
e. Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer.
f. Add a storm sewer schedule.
g. Revise the 8" storm sewer to a 12" RCP pipe.
The developer shall revise the grading plan as follows:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Add a legend.
c. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
The existing flagpole must be relocated on the property at least 12.5 feet from the property line.
Canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy. Such lighting shall not project beyond the
bottom face of said canopy.
A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is
permitted on only two elevations.
The mechanical equipment on the western side of the building must be screened.
The retail store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The west wall and the west portion of the south wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction as it is closer than 20 feet to the property line.
The accessible route and accessible parking space must be located as close as possible to'the
building entrance.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
21. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
22. The developer shall revise the roof drainage on the west elevation of the building to
discharge to the north and/or south of the building.
23. The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to screen the mechanical
boxes and address the drainage issue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Craig Claybaugh abstained.
Blackowiak: Kate I have a question. It says City Council date is May 29th. Is that Memorial Day?
Generous: It's the day after. It's a Tuesday.
Blackowiak: It's a Tuesday, okay. That helps. So City Council is Tuesday, May 29th. Don't come on
Monday, there won't be anyone there. Alrighty.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY
O_...F.FFICE BUILDING (8,450 SOUARE FEET} WITH A PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL, LOCATED AT 7811 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, BURGER OFFICE BUILDING, DERRIL BURGER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Fred Richter 3610 So. Co. Rd. 101
Den"il Burger 18001 Highway 7
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff. Jay, do you want to start?
Karlovich: I'm going to pass for right now.
Claybaugh: Yes, I have some questions for staff.
Karlovich: I'm sure you're going to hit everything that I was.
Claybaugh: I'm just going to take it in the order that it comes up on the documents. I don't want you to
read into my priorities I guess. First thing that jumps out is the existing 24 foot oaks. Those 2 that are
there. It seems like you compromised with respect to the number of peninsulas that were going to be
required and you're only asking for 1 when the ordinance requires 2.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
AI-Jaff: The ordinance requires a 10 foot island. In this case we will gain a 30 foot island. We talked to
the City Forester, Jill Sinclair at length about this. It was her recommendation that if we are to get a 30
foot island around the existing 2 oaks, that would be the preference.
Claybaugh: Yes, agreed. So what you're saying this compromise was relative to size.
Al-Jarl: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. And the forester has looked at that and is comfortable with the drip line on those
trees?
AI-Jaff.' Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. How's the health of those trees during construction going to be monitored?
A1-Jaff: We will have construction fencing, the orange fences around them. The City Forester
typically...
Claybaugh: Specifically my question is not to be suspicious but things happen during the construction
process and don't want to get to a point where we go oops, it's too late. The trees are dead. We might as
well take them down. Okay. It needs to be monitored during the construction process. I just want to
know what's in place to, that pertains to that. That would be one of my concerns. The other question I
have, they identified the parking was adjusted to reflect 1,000 square feet of warehouse storage, is that
correct?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. Maybe a question for the petitioner but was anything raised with respect to wanting
to expand office space in 2 years, 5 years, whatever that's a typical thing that we say is, you know we do
this to meet the requirements for parking or because there isn't a great demand for it but 5 years down the
line or whatever the time table might be, it's convenient to finish off that warehouse space and it's cost
effective, at which time the parking's over burdened so I just want to make sure that the staff had
addressed that on some level.
A1-Jaff: We would have to come back. If they decided to convert this space, they would need a building
permit and...
Claybaugh: Yes, I realize that but when people come back later, 5 years down the line, it's a lot easier at
this stage to head it off and say, you need to be cognizant of the fact that if we are going to make
variances at this point now, they're not going to be redundant variances down the line. Rather than
having them back in front of us in 5 years, not that we'd all be here but, rather than postpone it til that
time and it seems to me to be easier to address it at this point and get a firm recommendation from staff
with respect to that because I don't see any room for expanding the parking lot.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, can I just jump in? I did some quick math while you were making that
comment and it appears that if we have 1 stall per 1,000 for warehouse and we require 4.5 per 1,000 for
office, if that were converted, they would need an additional 3.5, okay. At this point the requirement by
ordinance is 35, and they have 38 so they'd be halfa spot short.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,200 !
Claybaugh: I'm lacking on the 38 because I'm seeing 33 and 2. I've got 35. So help me out, correct me
if I'm wrong.
Blaekowiak: Oh, the total is 35. That's what I'm looking at right now. So if we have 35 total and we
needed another 3.5 to meet the ordinance requirements then we would need 38.5.
Claybaugh: Okay, is that accurate?
AI-Jaff: Yeah.
Blackowiak: So I think that's not.
Aanenson: That was our position.
Blackowiak: That was your position?
Aanenson: Right, and also the city has a parking lot next door and there's always a potential the city can,
depending on the frequency do a lease or something.
Blackowiak: Okay, I had the same question so.
Claybaugh: Okay. Yeah, I didn't pick up on the 40 down here. I picked up on the 33 and 2. Can you
comment on the 24 foot wide drive aisles in lieu of the 26 feet and with that configuration of parking,
that's one of the pet peeves in some of the developments that's been done within the city limits is the
tendency to be excessively flexible with respect to aisle widths and parking stall widths and number of
parking stalls so on and so forth so. DO you, you said that the minimum standard here, if I'm reading
correctly is 26 feet. They're looking for 24 feet, is that correct?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. How big a concern do you feel that is or isn't?
Aanenson: I don't think it's a concern at all.
Claybaugh: Okay. What are we running over at Market Square for aisle widths over there? Does
anybody happen to know off hand?
Aanenson: Well I think the difference there would be frequency and the volume of trips there as opposed
to this. When you've got a single tenant and a single user as opposed to that would be.
Claybaugh: I'd agree with that with respect with an inlet and an outlet but you have one inlet,
combination outlet with this parking lot so that kind of gets that. So that's why I would be concerned
about 24 foot width. Okay. Are they able to increase that to the 26 foot and still meet some of the
requirements for parking stalls and setbacks, or does that?
Aanenson: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. I guess I would just comment that a lot of the elements are there to capture a lot of
the historical elements with respect to the type brick that was selected and the rest of it, and the extensive
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
use of brick certainly lend itself to the historical character, but I didn't get the impression in looking at
the elevations, at least at this stage, that they really capture those elements. I think that the materials are
there, but I don't think that it's articulated in the design. At least to the degree that I would personally
like to see. Besides that I like how the building sits on the property. I like the elements of the lot being
out front. I don't have any problems with the setback off, needing a variance for being setback off the
street for the parking. That's a minimal concern to me. I think they've incorporated fairly extensive
landscaping. I think that how, like I said, sits on the site and how it would be perceived off Great Plains
Boulevard, I like the look of that so. I simply restrict my comments to that at this time.
Blackowiak: Deb, do you have any comments?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Going back to the 24 versus 26 foot. I'm struggling to find a condition for
that. Did we leave that out or are we okay with the 24 foot?
Blackowiak: Number 8. Condition 8.
Kind: Thank you Alison. Okay, and then my question is, how important is that? I'm worried about
encroaching into the trees more and making it more difficult.
Aanenson: The ordinance is 26 feet so, I mean it's.
Al-Jarl: You would have to grant a variance.
Kind: And what is our experience with 22 foot drive aisles. Is that adequate for a smaller parking lot
like this?
Saam: I guess I would recommend 12 foot lanes is a standard design. So that's 24, yeah. However like
Kate said, the ordinance is 26. That's strictly all I'm going by. I'm just checking that it's per ordinance.
It didn't meet the ordinance. That's why it was mentioned in the staff report. Sure, 24 would work.
Kind: And then do we need to, if we prefer the 24 foot, do we need to actually grant a variance as part of
this process?
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: Yes, okay. I'm just concerned that, I mean 2 feet doesn't sound like very much but when you're
talking about oak trees, it's a lot. And that would be pushing it more into that root system of those
important oak trees. Also my question, I do wonder how many city owned parking spots there are and if
we can give them more relief on total number of spots because they're city owned parking right there.
A1-Jaff: I believe there are 87 parking spaces. They're entitled to 2 parking spots that they lease from
the city. Now one of the concerns would be, should the city ever decide to develop the property on, we'd
be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Kind: By counting too many spots for this particular building, yeah. Okay.
A1-Jaff: We just want to make sure that the city leaves it's options open.
Kind: So the size of the lot right now is what you're comfortable with, or deleting those 2 spots.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: Okay. Let me quick check to see if there's anything else here. Materials wise there's no sample
of the roof. You know Roofs are Deb. And I mean one little piece of fiberglass shingle doesn't help me
too much. Can I be reassured that this is not a fiat shingle that will ripple in the heat?
Aanenson: We can pass this around. This is a sample.
Kind: And I'll ask the applicant that. That's it Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any questions?
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have a brief comment and a couple of questions. You know it sounds
awfully good on that page 3 when you talk about the historical part. I'm glad you addressed that
Sharmin. But you call this thing a building in the Jeffersonian style. That's an awfully big term. I mean
it's a nice building but when I hear Jeffersonian I mean I see columns. I see a dome. Yet, the rest of the
building is brick and has windows and so does this one but Jeffersonian is a little bit of a stretch there.
My question for staff is the following. You say they can only have one wall mounted sign so they cannot
have a sign on both sides of the building, is that the interpretation of that? I want to be clear about that.
Al-Jaff: The ordinance states 1 sign per street frontage and at this point they have 1 street frontage
facing Great Plains Boulevard.
Saechet: That will be the north side or the west side?
Al-Jaff: That would be the west side.
Sacchet: The west side, okay. Okay is that, I was a little fuzzy there. Then I have a question of, can or
can't they use the existing sanitary sewer and water service? That's a question for you guys because in
the condition it says it's possible and that doesn't do anything for me. A possible. Can they? And then
they should. If they can't, they can't.
Sweidan: We see it that they can.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. That answers my question.
Sweidan: ...that is possible because we see it that they can.
Sacchet: I'm going to ask it to the applicant too. Okay. And then I have a little bit of a disagreement
with staff here on the statement that there's a lot of buffering to the cemetery. I was just out there and I
was actually struck by the lack thereof. And I was a little disappointed because it reads real well and it
looks good on the map but if you go out there, you're basically parking in the cemetery. I mean to me
that's obnoxious. That doesn't work for me. So I mean yeah, there are some trees that are awfully big
and a couple of them get hurt by the parking lot and I specifically would want to ask those two big trees
at the southwest corner. I mean there's not even a parking spot. It's just a part of hard top so cars can
turn around easier. Is that necessary? I mean would they be better to keep the trees?
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Al-Jarl: That's one of the points that we discussed with the applicant and again they are open to that.
There is some tweaking we need to do to the plan and we believe that we can do all of that
administratively at staff's level. By the time it gets to the City Council, all those issues will be resolved.
Sacchet: Okay, and has there been a consideration of putting some significant screening buffering to the
cemetery to the north as well as to the east?
Al-Jaff: We could do that. I mean you're granting a variance.
Sacchet: Well maybe I should ask that of the applicant then. It looks like the applicant has something to
say when we get to that so I'll save that question for them. That's fine, thank you.
Al-Jarl: Thank you.
Sacchet: That's it Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any questions for staff'?.
$1agle: Just a couple. We noted, or it was noted in the proposal that there'd be a couple of spots, parking
spots in an effort to save the two 24. The trees. Inch trees. My question is, is it one on each side?
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Slagle: Okay, and have we gotten an opinion from the city.
Al-Jarl: Forester.
Slagle: And that's sufficient?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. Okay. And then one last question. In the paragraph talking about the historical value if
you will, it mentions the structure built in 1888 as a carpentry shop. Is that what is termed as the shed?
Or as I drove the lot I saw.
A1-Jaff.' There is an existing shed in addition to the building.
Slagle: Okay. I think that's what I saw. My question is, what is the plan with that?
AI-Jaff: They intend to remove both of them.
Slagle: ! saw that but I'll just, I guess ask the applicant. I'm just curious if there's any plan to save that.
A1-Jaff: Relocate?
Slagle: Yeah, relocate or something like that. And then lastly, the site plan fails to show the trash
enclosure location. Has that been resolved?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Slagle: Okay. That's all.
Blackowiak: Okay. Great. Sharmin, I think I just have a couple quick questions. We have a cemetery
that's zoned RSF. Is that, I mean it just sounds rather humorous. I'm sorry, I should be a little more
serious about this but, we went through the glitch ordinance. Is there, should this be rezoned in any way,
shape or form or do we leave it or what are our options here?
Aanenson: It's permitted in the A2. That's what our other cemetery is. It's my understanding that the
other property owner in the area has sold his, there's a house on West 78~, and has sold his back to the
church so it's my understanding that they'll probably come back and do a master plan for that area, and
maybe it should be office, you know institutional because it relates to the church. But A2, and I'm not
sure that's the appropriate zoning either so, something that we could put on the list to look at but I think
it will resolve itself as it comes through the master plan.
Blackowiak: Okay, well I guess I'm not that concerned but it just, that seems to be driving the 50 foot
setback and I was just curious if there was another tool that we could use to.
Aanenson: Yeah, A2 wouldn't be any better.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, well that was I guess my question. And then on the old, I say old, old St.
Hubert's. Do they have wood shakes on there? What is the roofing material on that?
Aanenson: Yes. The city put new wood shakes on there.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then the old village hall, what is the roofing material on that? I'm sorry I'm
asking, I can't remember. I drive by all the time and I just.
Al-Jarl.' I don't remember.
Aanenson: I don't think it's wood shake but I don't know.
Blackowiak: I didn't think it was either but I just, I wasn't sure because the pictures I saw of the
Counselor building, I believe this is the one up on 101, was a wood shakes and it's a very nice look and
to make it consistent with the old, old St. Hubert's, that might be a thought. But I'll save my comments
for later. This is a public hearing. Oh sorry, did you have some?
Karlovich: I formulated some...
Blackowiak: Good. Jump right on in.
Karlovich: When I was looking at it and looking at it before, on the Certificate of Survey,. can staff
'possibly explain who owns what rights to drive over the other lot and I guess the city owns the lot next to
it.
Aanenson: Correct.
Karlovich: Do they have an easement in there? Do they need additional easements from the city? On
the Certificate of Survey it looks like the old alignment of West 78th Street. It doesn't say that it was
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
vacated but I assume it was vacated. I just have no understanding as to who owns what access rights and
who is acquiring what access rights.
Aanenson: I don't believe it's on the survey. I believe there's a cross access agreement with the city.
Karlovich: A cross parking agreement with them or how does that work?
Aanenson: It's not parking. It's access. Mr. Klingelhutz might be able to answer that better, if you want
to ask him that.
Karlovich: We can reserve that for him.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, this is a public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry, I'd like to hear
from the applicant. Yes, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please
come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Derril Burger: My name is Derril Burger. I'm at 5925 Woodland Circle in Minnetonka for the last 38
years. 5 miles and 2/10th from where we're sitting. I know Chan very well. I don't have, I'm happy to
answer some questions and for the gentleman here, I'd be happy to donate that building to you if you'd
like it. I'm serious. I mean you were talking about saving it in some way. If you have some method of
doing that, I'd be happy to talk with you. We worked very closely with the staff'and we've basically
been in agreement on almost everything and where we aren't in agreement we've come to an agreement.
And they've been very good to work with and we think we're going in the right direction. I'm excited
about the project. It's a single use building. I have a comment, well I guess I'I1 hold it for later but the
comment relative to the use of the lower level. It will never be used in any other way during my tenure
there. It is, I need that storage space in that lower level. It will not be converted to office space while I
own it. I really haven't anything to say but when the appropriate time comes, if that's now, I'd be happy
to answer any questions you'd have of me and what I'm doing~ And then I would turn it over to my
architect from Steiner Development, Mr. Fred Richter.
Blackowiak: Okay, are there any questions?
Sacchet: I do have questions for the applicant but I don't know which one of the two I should address
them to.
Blackowiak: Well why don't we, since he's up here, why don't you ask him. He can always defer.
Sacchet: Why not start with you and then you can defer if need be. Now you already heard from staff
that the trash enclosure and the rooftop equipment and mechanical shielding's been taken care of. I guess
you're going to address that when you look at the architectural piece. This thing about the 30 inch oak
on the west side, you're fine in putting in a retaining wall and rerouting the sewer?
Derril Burger: That seems to be the most appropriate thing to do, yes.
Sacchet: You're fine with that? And do you think it's practical to give it that 30 feet diameter safety
zone under construction? That might be more an architect question, but I think in principal it's more one
for you.
Derril Burger: 30 feet, it's roughly 30 feet between there and the building.
22
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
Sacchet: So you think it's doable?
Derril Burger: It's doable but it's going to be very tight between the building and the tree.
Sacehet: That's why I'm asking because I do believe it will be tight. And on the other hand it's also
important if the tree needs to have a chance. You're fine in using the existing sewer and water lines?
Derril Burger: Yes. In fact I had my sewer and water person out there last evening looking at it and we
think that it will work. And that's what they're saying, we will think it will work also.
Sacchet: So you agree with staff that it's doable and you're fine with that.
Derril Burger: If it's not totally doable, we can do a gravity from the upper level and the lower level has
very little use and we can do...ifit's, it's debatable, it's real close I think as we looked at it but it's
doable yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Giving up the southerly access, are you fine with that?
Derril Burger: Yes definitely.
Sacchet: Okay. Now the thing with the parking spaces, you just made a statement that you think the
lower level is just going to be storage so.
Derril Burger: The part, excuse me, the part designated for storage, yes.
Sacchet: So I mean that, I would tend to conclude from that statement that there is really more parking
spaces than you need.
Aanenson: Can I give a comment on that?
Sacchet: Please.
Aanenson: While we'd like to think Mr. Burger will be there forever, we always anticipate that a
business can come and go and ultimately.
Sacchet: And it will.
Aanenson: Yeah, and so we try to look at ultimate Utility of the building.
Sacchet: So it would possibly be a proof of parking be a workable idea? Maybe, just maybe? I'm just
exploring.
Derril Burger: Relative to parking, while you're looking, I have talked with the people at the church and
if they remain there for a period of time, we indicated to them, we've talked at length that, I am receptive
to the idea that they may use part of my parking lot on Sunday.
Sacchet: So there would actually be a use for it that way.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Derril Burger: Yes. Sunday's one of my busiest days in my business but I indicated to them that they
could use it. Actually half the parking lot on Sunday during their services.
Sacchet: That's a good comment. In terms of the signage, I think the drawings that I've seen you had a
sign on both sides of the building. Now according to what staff is saying you could only have one or the
other. No problem there for you?
Derril Burger: One sign is fine. However I would prefer to have it on the south side. The west side you
can't see it. I'd prefer to have it on the south side so when you're coming up Great Plains Boulevard you
can see it. The way the building sits at a slight angle from the street, it's not perpendicular.
Sacchet: And two more quick questions. In terms of putting some screening to the cemetery. I mean to
me that seems absolutely essentially personally. I mean after having just looked at it a few minutes ago.
What's your thinking about that?
Derril Burger: We do have a plan for that and I think I'll let Fred speak to that.
Sacchet.' He can address that, okay. And in terms of having those two trees that kind of on the southwest
corner of the parking lot, which is just really a turnaround. It's not even a parking spot. ! might address
that with you also.
Derril Burger: Southwest?
Sacchet: You have to back in to get out.
Blackowiak: That's east.
Sacchet: Oh it's east, not west.
Derril Burger: You're talking about those two big boxelders?
Sacchet: Yeah. Well it's boxelders I know but.
Derril Burger: Those are garbage trees.
Fred Richter: They're big though.
Sacchet: They're big garbage trees. Okay. Yeah, that's my questions of the applicant. Thank you.
Kind: Madam Chair? I have a shingle question.
Derril Burger: Sure.
Kind: The quality of this is such that it will not ripple in the summer?
Derril Burger: I guess I can't guarantee what a shingle's going to do. I can only guarantee what I'm
putting on there. We've been building for 20 years and we've used this shingle many, many, many times.
This is a 30 year shingle. It's a, what kind?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Fred Richter: Timberline heavy texture.
Derril Burger: Timberline, heavy textured Timberline and it has a nice look to it.
Kind: And would you consider wood shakes to coordinate with the old, old St. Hubert's?
Den'il Burger: I really don't want wood shakes. The answer is no unless I were forced to and then I
don't know what I'd do. I don't want them. I don't like them. I guess that was pretty clear. So was your
question.
Kind: Thank you. That's ail Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Does anybody have any other questions for this applicant? Rich.
Slagle: Just a couple. Mr. Burger, I appreciate your offer of the shed. I think I'd have to talk to the boss
at 7411 Fawn Hill before I accepted. But I'm wondering if there's some city group, you know historical
society or something that has had a chance to look. I just drove by it. I can't tell you if it's in shape to
even move it but I'm just wondering, since it's 1888, I don't know if any group would want it or not so I
just throw that out to staff if that's a possibility. I noticed on the plans that there was a door on the lower
level, I think on the east side. Are there any plans for like a patio or anything down on that, lunch tables
or anything like that?
Derril Burger: No.
Slagle: It might be an idea, I don't know. That's all I have.
Claybaugh: I understand your opposition to wood shingles, whether they're machine split or hand split.
And you brought in the Timberline 30 year, which is a heavy textured shadow shingle. Nice shingle. If
you're not open to wood shingles, would you be open to different types of heavy textured shingles that
are of an asphalt composition, similar to that but provide some different architectural options?
Derril Burger: Such as?
Claybaugh: I'd have to pull together some samples for you but.
Derril Burger: I've looked at every shingle on the market.
Claybaugh: There's GAF but there's Owen Coming and a number of different manufacturers that have
their comparable or little upgraded type, slight upgrade to that. That might be on there. That might be a
little more fitting or suitable so I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to explore that if they were not of
a wood material.
Derril Burger: I'm not opposed to it. No, I'm not opposed to looking at that. However, I have explored
it very carefully.
Claybaugh: Right, I understand the cost and...maintenance applications of the wood shakes and they
look nice but that's kind of where it ends. But there are a lot of nice thicker, heavier textured shadow
lined shingles that are out there that have some different design options to them beyond the Timberline
series so.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Derril Burger: I'm open to looking again. I have looked and I prefer this particular Timberline shingle.
That's one I've used many times. I'm tearing the shakes off of my office building in Minnetonka today,
cedar shakes and I'm putting this shingle on.
Claybaugh: I noticed that when I drove by. One question I guess it wouldn't be for you, it'd be for staff.
You may know the answer. Is this building going to be sprinkled or is it required to be sprinkled or not
an issue?
Fred Richter: Below the requirement.
Derril Burger: It will not be sprinkled, no.
Claybaugh: Below the requirement, okay. Okay, so the existing stubs for sewer and water have been
sized adequately so, okay. Okay. That's all I have sir. Thank you very much.
Karlovich: Excuse me, is it Mr. Burger?
Derril Burger: Yes.
Karlovich: Mr. Burger, I just wanted to, as with the last building Ijust wanted to make the comments at
least for the record. I think it is another beautiful building. Beautiful brick building. Nicely done. I
thought you did a nice job of using a walkout on this kind of railroad property remnant and positioning
the building farther away from the other historical buildings and then there's more parking in there. It
looked like a beautiful structure and at least well done there and so I just wanted to give you some
positive feedback in addition. I also found it kind of at least humorous in your report, how do you feel
about the gas line and them wanting their setback. I thought that was just kind of an interesting.
Derril Burger: Well first of all, I spent a lot of time with Rick Pylon of the, one of the Chief Engineers
with Minnegasco on site and off site and the gas line runs, the building. There's quite a bit of distance
between the southwest corner of the building and the gas line. That's about 60 feet maybe or something
like that I think. I'm not sure, but then on the southeast comer, it's down to 10 feet which they didn't
like but we find it acceptable.
Karlovich: And then I guess, just my question from before. What is the status or the legal status and the
reason I'm asking and I'm not criticizing it but just trying to ask the questions and create a record for the
City Council to look at with regards to easements or cross easements or cross parking. Is there, do you
know that or maybe your architect can answer that question.
Derril Burger: I'd defer to the city and to.
Aanenson: Maybe I can take another stab at it. This property has a lot of historical change to it. Owner
of the property was a former mayor of the city. I believe that there's handshake agreements along the
way. There is a condition in here that says there must be a cross access agreement in place. We've
spoken to the applicant. We are willing to do that. Again, as we look at the development, as Sharmin
had mentioned of the other property, there is a church use looking at it. Whether it's a church that buys it
or if we look at the development of the Pauly-Pony-Pryzmus site, something else will come there, there's
an opportunity to use some of this parking. I guess that's kind of why we looked at, not that we want to
maximize or over park it but if there's another use that might be tight on that site, it does provide when
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
we've got the cross access easements and we found that to, instead of over parking, you know benefit
both sides and they're willing to do that and it is a condition number 9 that there is a cross access
agreement in place. That will be part of this when it goes forward to the City Council so, and it has been
used that way in the past.
Karlovich: Alright, thank you.
Derril Burger: I'd like to introduce Fred Richter from Steiner Development who is my architect and you
can ask him the more technical questions.
Fred Richter: Let me just try to go through some of the answers.
Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Richter, can I get you to step up to the microphone so everyone can hear
you, thanks.
Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. I'm the architect on this project. My address
is 3610 South County Road 101 in Wayzata. There was, first question was about the buffer. Our
landscape plan showed actually an arborvitae hedge that runs between the cemetery and the parking lot.
We think it's very appropriate. Arborvitae kind of have a relationship with cemeteries. I think the, Mr.
Burger wants to also have a subtle separation. Although we appreciate the open space, I think the
cemetery relates well with the setback to the building. We think this is kind of a happy compromise to
make a good neighbor. The other thing I'll add is, there's a lot of mature trees up in the cemetery so
there's tree coverage here, all the way through and then we're keeping the oaks in here and now the
boxelders over in here so there really is a mature line and now this understory basically arborvitae hedge.
The other question that came up, this is an updated diagram that kind of just summarizes all the
comments. And one of them was preserving the trees. I mean that's our goal is to preserve the trees.
One person brought up, ways and means of construction. We'll have to pay attention to those. For.
starters, we've pulled a small, almost landscape retaining wall to have no grave disruption around that
large oak. At the same time during construction we'll have to stake it and make sure ali subcontractors
don't drive machinery over it and we'll do what we can. Unfortunately there's no absolute guarantees.
We are going to be trenching for footings and that but we are a good distance away so we're optimistic.
Same thing in the large island. Here the issue is actual grade increases but we'll have a mulch over it so
that should keep the root structure intact there. As far as the parking spaces, and I've been a little
confused. We have always laid out 62 feet in a parking lot in Chanhassen. That's curb to curb, 18-24-
18. They work just fine and we've got thousands of parking spaces over in Arboretum Business Park.
Now we are increasing this to 26 drive aisle and that's something that I think is appropriate. So I think
our dimension should be fine in the parking area. The other item, I'll just kind of run through them. We
mentioned the catch basin at this end.. Our water is draining this way and this way. This storm sewer will
be rerouted either in the catch basin to the west, or over here to catch this one on the east side and out.
We won't bring it down as drawn through the tree structure. We talked about the easements to the
adjacent property. We do, are calling out the shoebox type light standards with the flat lens on this side,
lighting this way. This is the trash enclosure. That's replaced what was that turnout here, saving the
large boxelders. The trash enclosure will be detailed with the same wood siding as in the projections of
the building. The sanitary sewer and water service...comments of the staff. I think this has been a good
process where Mr. Burger's been very open minded and cooperative and staff brought up good
suggestions and the building's gotten better as we've incorporated things. We are going to put this
building, the only mechanical will be residential scale condensers and they'll go on the south side of the
building. And the preferred wall sign will be on the south side. We are calling out a monument sign in
this location. And I think that pretty much covers it. There were, there's one question about the
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Jeffersonian quality of the details. I think the Jeffersonian was a sincere effort to describe the basically
the dark brick, a lot of white wood. Some columns. We are detailing the building with natural wood that
will be painted. Mr. Burger will understand the maintenance responsibilities. I think a Jeffersonian
describes a building in a green landscape, very rural. You think of Charlottesville, Virginia. University
of Virginia. Granted it's not a dome and things like that but it is kind of in keeping I think with what that
style is. This is not a storefront building with a zero setback. It really is a historic building with
landscaping and green area. I think when you get the trees around it and all, it should actually fall in
place pretty well. As far as detailing, these are schematics. The drawings are CAD drawn but I think we
will, with the actual lap siding, the wood columns and all, we'll be you know genuine high quality detail
so we'll do that little extra touch. Which really won't be much different from the houses in this area, so
that, unless there's other questions.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions.
Kind: Madam Chair I do have a question. When you take out that turnaround at the east end of the
parking lot, how do cars back out to get out?
Fred Richter: They make just a little more careful turn but it really just impacts the one.
Kind: That one?
Fred Richter: Yeah.
Kind: I hate that parking spot. Why don't we just get rid of it?
Fred Richter: Well if you were there and it was the only parking spot there.
Kind: You go eh, eh, eh to get out.
Fred Richter: It works. We had the same situation in our own building.
Kind: And nobody parks there, right?
Fred Richter: No, people park there.
Kind: Okay. And then the tree protection diameter, I am a little unclear about that. In the staff report I
believe it's the city forester who recommends a 30 foot diameter. That would mean 15 feet on each side
so if that oak on the west side of the building.
Fred Richter: This is a, I'll call it a specimen oak. This is the one we're probably most concerned about.
Kind: Yep.
Fred Richter: And this building's designed to use, this gable with the columns and the...was designed to
have that oak tree in front of it. This is 35 feet, the setback.
Kind: Oh to the street. Or to the property line, I'm sorry.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Fred Richter: So the 30 foot is in there but we're going to be very close on the eastern edge of it when
we.
Kind: So the tree is not 30 feet from the building?
Fred Richter: No. The tree is.
Kind: Right in there.
Fred Richter: Yeah, probably 15-20.
Kind: Yeah. And then there will be no grading in that area, or very minimal. How about up in the
parking lot, the two oaks. The 24 inch oak. Is it possible to use a lighter weight equipment when, in that
area for your final grade?
Fred Richter: Well I, and I'm not a, and this is a ways and means of construction but it's my
understanding that we'll be the contractor is we want to minimize any vehicles going over at all. This is
kind of just a no zone to use heavy equipmeni over it. And this grade will stay as is. This grade actually
gets raised just, curve around it and then we'll mulch over it to bring it up to the height. And...boxelder
it is back there. They are, I was very surprised how big boxelders can get and those are trees very worth
saving. We're glad to...
Kind: Thank you. Rich?
Slagle: Madam Chair, just one quick question. You mentioned the condenser boxes would go on the
south side. Is there any thought to having them on the west side? I'm just thinking aesthetically.
Kind: The east side would be.
Slagle: The east side, I'm sorry. East side.
Fred Richter: Actually the east side is secondary sidewalk with the grade will drop off considerably...
This is the east side and this is an exit and this is the drop off'and we are going to do a small retaining
wall down here just because of the severe grade. This is the west side.
Slagle: Fair enough.
Blackowiak: Craig, any more questions?
Claybaugh: Not really any more questions, just a few comments. I answered the last question with the
grade changes. I was concerned about the grade changes around the existing trees. Sounds like you've
addressed that. I'd like to get a little clearer on what the staff's intent is or what the historical
perspective is with respect to the building there. What are we really trying to achieve or where are we
setting that bar at for that particular site. When it's introduced in that fashion, and maybe that's part of
why I'm getting hung up. When it's introduced from the historical perspective, and we're trying to
achieve this, this and this exactly where.
Aanenson: The historical perspective, just to bring up the fact of the existing building. That it was a
landmark identified. There is no city ordinance regarding historical perspective. Just as a point of
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
reference, we did show you what was in the area to talk about the materials that we used just so blending,
which is common practice. Was it our intent to make this a historical building? No. Our intent was to
match the materials, yeah.
Claybaugh: I realize it's not that far reaching but I just wanted to.
Aanenson: Right, just to blend you know. I think the other question, Sharmin showed the original St.
Hubert's church, just to show you the materials and brick and that was our first condition that it had to be
brick because that's in that area.
Claybaugh: Yes, now I like the red brick. The texture of the wearing on it...
Aanenson: Right. And from that we just kind of worked with the architect a little bit.
Claybaugh: The other one that's there, the buckwheat provided a nice contrast to it. Still provided some
attention to that brick. My biggest concern was just at the details for the gables at the front entry. That's
been one concern. Of greater concern is the roofing material because of the scale of the roof so, but
otherwise like I said, I like how the site is laid out. You're getting the parking width and not to belabor
the tree issue but I don't know if anything's been discussed for provisions if any of those trees do die
during construction. What will go up in their place, or if anything will go up in their place.
Aanenson: There's a standard for security for landscaping which is in place and there's a requirement
for canopy so they would have to replace caliper.
Claybaugh: Alright.
Blackowiak: Any other questions for the applicant? Jay, anything else you wanted? No? Okay. Well
this is a public hearing so I'd like to open it up for a public hearing. Anybody who would like to
comment on this proposal, please come up to the microphone. State your name and address for the
record. Mr. Klingelhutz, you don't want to?
A1 Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz, present owner of the building. I live at 8600 Great Plains
Boulevard, Chanhassen. I hear a lot of talk about the historical value of the building. It's an old, old, old
building. There's been a lot of dollars spent on the inside to stabilize it and keep the floors level. In fact
there's a few, it settled so much on one side that we laid 2 by 6's on the floor and cut them down 6 inches
on one end and down to about an inch on the other end just to get the floor back to level. The foundation
under it is large rocks. They're in the ground about oh 6 inches. I think they were laid virtually on top of
the ground. A lot of the beams under the outside walls are in very poor condition. I think if somebody
really tried to restore the building they'd almost have to tear it apart and rebuild it to make it a stable
building. I remember in 1998 when the committee was on that part of Chanhassen, one of the ladies on
the committee said well what are we going to do with that ugly building? And it kind of jolted me a little
bit that somebody would say about an old building because that's probably some of them were built that
way that many years ago but it isn't the best looking building but it served it's purPose. We've been
using it for office space and the longest tenant we've had in there since we took over the building, he's
been in there for 24 years and that's Willie Torbald the accountant. But I think the plan Derril's come up
with really does something for that lot. I like the way the building is set on the property. It's set back far
enough so that even coming from up Great Plains Boulevard you don't spoil the view of a lot of the
church. You probably noticed that on there and saving the major trees was something that I talked about
when he offered to buy the building. I said I love those oak trees and I don't want to see them destroyed
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
and he really complied with some of my wishes on that. Somebody brought up the cemetery being zoned
single family residence and that was a surprise to me. When it's probably the most densely populated
area of Chanhassen... When they purchased the land from the railroad, we definitely made a very
thorough search of anything in the Carver County recording about the property and there wasn't even a
gas line easement on the property at that time. So to tell you the truth, the gas line to this day has not got
an easement on the property, unless Mr. Burger gives them one, I think they should be pretty happy about
it because I was often think that they would shut them off and make them move it. But those are some
things that happened when the railroad and the gas line company, which are both big companies work
together and forget to put an easement on the property and it should be there. I guess if you have any
other questions about, from me about it. I've lived in Chanhassen all my life. Former mayor here. City
council member but that don't, don't use that as any part of your decision here. Thank you. But if you
have any questions, just ask.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions? No, thank you sir.
Al Klingelhutz: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Is there anybody else that would like to come up and comment on this proposal? Seeing no
one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's now time to make your comments. Jay, would
you like to start?
Karlovich: I think I've made all my comments. I think it's a very nice building. I like the fact that the
building is kind ora walkout and put a distance away from the kind of the historical area. Otherwise I
don't have any other comments except that to the fact that this is only a site plan review and I guess, well
there is a variance but the variance seems kind of a drop in the bucket so I think our review of this is
somewhat limited and be mindful of that. That's all the comments I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig.
Claybaugh: No new comments. Just reiterate the old comments. I think they've gone a long, long ways
to select brick of integrity and I would strongly encourage them to go just a little bit further with the roof
soaping on there and try to tie it in with some of those same features and character.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I too like the building. I think it's attractive. The design's pleasing. I'm fine with
the 30 year Timberline shingle. Being the shingle woman on this commission, I think that's acceptable.
I also would support a variance to grant the 24 foot width aisle. I prefer having the shrubbery on the
north side as a buffer between the cemetery and the parking lot so I would support that variance.
Blackowiak: Okay, Uli.
Sacchet: I do believe it's a good plan. I also agree about, I mean it sounds awfully nice when I read the
report and it says this building was built in 1888. I thought wow. But you go out there and You look at it,
and I think it's time for something to happen there. I certainly agree with that. However when I went out
there, what really struck me is the proximity and the openness to the cemetery, even though there are all
these mature trees. There is really not much buffering so for me to really feel good about this I think
there needs to be very mass of significant buffering and obviously you've looked at that to some extent
and I agree with Deb that increasing that, those 2 feet more green space, if that can be used to do a little
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
more buffering. I'm very much in favor of that. In terms of the specifics, we say if possible utilize the
sanitary sewer. So we can say they shall use the sanitary sewer in condition 6. In condition 14, as large
as possible is not a good term for me and it looks like they can accommodate the 30 feet diameter space
with that oak so I would want to spell that out for them. And I would want to add some condition
requiring very significant buffering to the north as well as to the east side for the cemetery. In
conjunction with going with the variance at the 24 foot drive aisle. That's my comments.
Blackowiak: Rich.
$1agle: Just tWO questions. More for staff than anything. What process do we use in this, just
educational for me, for tree protection? If let's say a 30 inch tree were to die. As an example I have huge
oaks in my yard and one in the back yard has some rock that was done maybe 15 feet away and it is
dying. And I'm just concerned, what is the process? And I apologize ifI should have read this
somewhere but I'm just curious.
Aanenson: As a general rule, it's a tree fence, as Sharmin indicated, put around. And all subdivisions
are walked and engineering looks at them too before they're given an order to proceed. With commercial
development, they are asked to put a fence up and they are inspected and the building inspectors do the
most work for us. They're out in the field and let us know that the fencing is down. It's also incumbent
upon the developer to use best management practices. That they're making sure that the fence stays up
and people aren't taking shortcuts with the fence down, but it's the city's job to make sure that it's up.
And if it does, if the tree does die within the landscaping requirement they do have to replace it on a
caliper per inch basis.
Slagle: Okay. So as an example, where the island is, or where the island is on the north side you would
have a tree fence but obviously they'll be grading for the parking lot.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: And again I'm just concerned that where that fencing is, just 1 foot or 2 feet away could be a
root.
Aanenson: Right. We've tried conditions saying it has to be hand dug and the like, and the fact of the
matter is, unless you're standing there, you know, the developer, the builder of the site, the applicant is
trying to save the trees and again, you're relying on who's ever out there that day. Who's ever delivering
lumber. Who's ever loading the Bobcat to be responsible. And that's their job too to let their people
know you know what the practices are going to be out on the site.
Slagle: Okay. And please, to the applicant, this is not directed just to your project. I have to think about
that in the sense that I just want to think about a process that I would be comfortable because right now
I'm not comfortable with what I call the vagueness of that, and I know the intent by all is good. I'm just
wondering so let me keep wondering, thank you.
Claybaugh: Question/comment for staff here. Building on what Rich said here. A lot of times there's
the issue is belabored in meetings like this. By the time it gets out to the job site those people know
nothing of what went into it and I guess one of the things that I would like to see is that there's some
weight assigned to it so the people that come on site know what, as a matter of fact, and that if necessary
there is some teeth incorporated into the verbiage of it. Because I've seen it go both ways. I've seen
elements like this very strongly and aggressively protected and I've seen other times where it's been
32
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
discussed at length and exhausted and come out a week later to the job site and they are running circles
around trees so, to build on what Rich started here, I'd like to see some language, a little less vague that
would at least provide some degree of comfort that it was going to be followed through on and that would
be an ongoing process.
Aanenson: I don't mean to belittle your point but we certainly want to do that. We can put whatever we
want in there, but unless we're out there, unless they're responsible, you know we try really hard to do
that.
Claybaugh: Well maybe whether it's in, this is clearly too far reaching but I'll say it anyways. Whether
it's how the subcontracts are written or whatever, but make a concerted effort to make sure that
subcontractors and suppliers know what's at stake. How that's achieved, that's the development
builder's option. But it is of concern, I agree with Rich because it doesn't make it in the translation and
to say that it's difficult to do it, I realize how difficult it is to do. It's what I do, but I also know that a
difference can be made just on how that front end, how that job is set up and how people coming on site
perceive the level of importance of those trees so, that's it.
Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, ifI might add. I think I heard staffalso note that the caliper is
replaced if in fact we lose the trees, and I'm also hearing the applicant having the same concern as staff
and the commission so I think having the applicant as sensitive to this issue as everyone is here, it's not
as if it isn't a shared concern. So I think I am hearing that it would be translated out into the field and if
in fact it doesn't occur, the counter side is the replacement then of those trees which isn't the ideal. We
all realize keeping the mature tree is the best, but on the downside there is the replacement factor.
Claybaugh: Right, but the replacement factor is basically unachievable for these trees. They can
increase the caliper dispersed around the site.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Claybaugh: So it's not something that can be duplicated and that's where the additional concern comes
from.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Blackowiak: Jay, did you have another comment?
Karlovich: Yes, I apologize Madam Chair for kind of having my comments coming when I did review
this it was late and ever since I had my children I've been tired the rest of my life but, the staff report has
done well and very lengthy but one thing that I recall when I was looking at' this was the sidewalk shown
on the site plan on A2 is outside the limits of the property, but I think if you look at the Certificate of the
Survey. Who's going to have to reconnect the sidewalk so that it kind of, right now it stops at the north
side of the property and then kind of you have to cross across the parking lot and hook up farther to the
south along the-street. Does that need to be a condition that they're going to install the sidewalk outside
the property limits as shown on the site plan? Maybe a question for staff. Do you see what I'm talking
about? I mean I guess technically if you approve a site plan, do they have to put the sidewalk
improvements outside the property limits? Or who's doing that?
Saam: Yeah I guess we would like to see them replace that sidewalk. One of the conditions was that this
southerly access would be removed so curb would be placed there. This pavement would be ripped out,
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
sodded and if you're talking about continuing this sidewalk in a north/south fashion, I guess that's
something I'd like to see the applicant do and the city would grant easement or whatever to do that. I
haven't checked that with the city attorney yet but that was kind of our thinking.
Karlovich: I don't know so much that they need an easement, just as long as they install it.
Saam: Yeah.
Aanenson: Doesn't the sidewalk exist there right now?
Saam: Well I'm not sure if we're looking at the right, same spot.
Aanenson: On 78th.
Saam: Yeah, Great Plains.
Aanenson: Great Plains, sorry. Great Plains going up. It's there right now, just not where the driveway
is.
Saam: Okay, I'm no sure if we're looking at the same spot but.
Karlovich: What I was looking at was A2 and then the Certificate of Survey next to each other. You
look at the Certificate of Survey, you can see where the, it appears to be a sidewalk that ends at the
entrance into the property and then it starts again and goes along the cemetery and then on the site plan,
they nicely show it being kind of rebuilt and their own sidewalk connecting into it on the south side of
the parking lot. Yeah, it stops there and then if you look at the site plan on A2. It's on city property
outside and I just was wondering if that needs to be a condition. They show it nicely being rebuilt in here
but I think it's going to stop here and stop here. Who's going to build this segment of the sidewalk is my
question? Is it just going to get chopped off here and the city's going to have to install the rest or...
Saam: Mr. Commissioner, since it was shown on the site plan, I didn't feel it was necessary to include an
additional condition saying that he will do this. It's already shown on the plan. We can sure add one on
there since it's not shown, and I see your concern on the grading plan or on any other plan. It was our
feeling that the applicant would be installing that since it's shown on their site plan.
Blackowiak: Well I think we can put a condition in, if that would, it sounds like that's what you're
looking for.
Karlovich: Well I just, I think that would be the high road to take.
Blackowiak: Yes exactly, especially since it's outside of the property line.
Karlovich: Right.
Blackowiak: That the applicant owns, correct. Okay. Are there any other comments? Well I'll just add
a couple. Generally I also like the building. Regarding the drive aisle width question. I think I disagree
with Deb when she says she wants to put the drive aisle down to 24 feet. I knew that would get your
attention. I think that we could leave it at 26 feet and request that the applicant explore the feasibility of
24 feet. I think there's some work yet to be done on the buffering on the north and east sides so ! think
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
we need to sort of look and see where things are going to shake out and before we start going in and
changing drive aisle widths, let's bring it up to the minimum, which is 26 feet. Keep it at code and if
council wants to change it, they can do that but let them look at the whole picture instead of us going in
and changing before we have the other components. I am also a little concerned about the buffering and
again that's going to have to be a component that we, we're going on good faith that it's going to be
taken care of before it goes to council and that there will be a sufficient buffering between the property
and the north and east areas adjacent to the property. I redid some math on this parking stall thing and I
misspoke when I said they were 3 short. Or a half short. They're actually about 4 short because it seems
there are 2,000 square foot of warehouse approximately so they would actually be short 4, if indeed that
ever got totally converted, but I guess as Kate said, it would have to come in for a building permit so I
don't have any problem leaving the parking as is, as long as there's a mechanism to address that issue, if
and when it should ever come in for a building permit. The bottom line is I do like the project. I think
it's a nice use of the site. I think it's rather a tricky site, but I think the applicant has done a nice job. So
with that I would like to have a motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I move approval of Site Plan #2001-4 for an 8,450 square foot
office building with a parking lot setback variance to allow a 5 foot setback along the north and a 10 foot
setback along the east side of the property, and a drive aisle width variance to allow a 24 foot width aisle
as shown on the plans dated received April 4, 2001, based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and
subject to the following conditions 1 through, how many are there here?
Sacchet: 21.
Kind: 21. And I would like to add, let's see. I'll add condition number 22. That landscaping plan shall
be revised to show plantings on the north side of the parking lot to buffer between the parking and '
cemetery. And revise condition number 7 to read, 30 foot diameter tree protection fencing shall be
installed around all trees in the construction zone that will remain. Final grade shall be done with 10w
impact equipment in the treed areas. And then condition number 8 would be removed with my variance
in my motion. And number 9, I would like to add a sentence that says, and relocate the sidewalk to the
north entrance. Number 14. Change to read as follows, establish a tree protection area around the 30
inch oak near the western property line. The area should be, shall be 30 feet in diameter and no grading
or other construction activities will be allowed within it. Let's see, number 6. The applicant shall utilize
the existing sanitary sewer and water services for the new building. Get rid of the words, if possible.
And I think that's it.
Karlovich: I just have one question. Was your modification to number 9, was that designed to get in the
sidewalk issue?
Kind: Right.
Karlovich: Okay.
Slagle: Two more questions if I may.
Sacchet: We need to second first.
Blaekowiak: Yeah I was going to say. There's a motion. Let's have a second first and then we'll have
discussion.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Sacchet: I second the motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Now is there any discussion.'?
Slagle-' Just two quick questions. You mentioned the 30 foot diameter protection for the tree, but ifI
understood the east, the western area, western side of the building is actually closer than that.
Kind: It was 30 feet diameter around the tree.
Slagle: Oh diameter, 15 feet and we're sort of comfortable that that's okay.
Kind: That's what the forester said.
Slagle: Okay. And then you are going with 24 feet?
Kind: Yep.
Slagle: Okay.
Kind: That's my motion.
Sacchet: Are you done Rich?
Slagle: You bet.
Sacchet: I'd like to make two picky amendments. I like to use the exact wording that the City Forester
proposes for the 30 foot diameter that actually reads, at least 30 foot. And even knowing that you only
have about 30 foot, 35 feet to play with. I know it's tight. But just to give it a little more umpl~, I would
like to add that wording, at least. And also like a little more umph in condition 22 about the buffering.
I'd like it to say massive buffer planting and screening because I really think it needs a lot for me to feel
comfortable with it. It's a great proposal but it needs massive buffer plantings and screening.
Claybaugh: Could you be more clear than massive?
Sacchet: A lot. Solid. Tall.
Kind: 100%?
Sacchet: Yeah, I would consider that from the parking lot, you should not be able to see the cemetery
and vice versa. I mean I'm just, I'm not so much concerned about the people in the parking lot as I'm
actually concerned about the people that go out there in the cemetery and they feel like they're in a
parking lot. So yes, I would require 100% buffering. Is that specific? Thank you.
Blackowiak: Did you accept those?
Kind: I accept those amendments.
Blacgcowiak: Amendments, okay any other comments?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Karlovich: I just want to say for the record, I don't have the sufficient I don't think building or
background to know if24 or 26 are necessary but it seems as though I'm just going to defer to the rest of
the commission on this one.
Kind: Point of clarification Madam Chair. Matt said that 24 foot would be sufficient but our code is 26.
He said 12 feet either direction so I'm going with his comments on that.
Saechet: And if I may clarify Madam Chair. The reason why I accept that 24 foot is in view that the
additional 2 feet gives more room for buffering. To the north, which to me is very important.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-4 for an 8,450 square foot office building with a parking lot setback variance to allow a 5
foot setback along the north and a 10 foot setback along the east side of the property, and a drive
aisle width variance to allow a 24 foot width aisle as shown on the plans dated received April 4,
2001, based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
2~
Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 2001, 3101, 3107, 3108, 5203, 5215, 5234, and
5300.
3~
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Grading within the drip-line of the 30 inch oak tree shall be minimized through the use of a
retaining wall on the north side of the tree.
5. Reroute the proposed storm sewer along the west side of the 30 inch oak tree.
6. The applicant shall utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water services for the new building.
o
Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees in the construction zone that will
remain. Final grade shall be done with low impact equipment in the treed areas.
8. Deleted.
e
Remove the existing southerly access and utilize the existing access to the north. The shared
portion of the access drive, which goes across the city owned parking lot, must be contained
within a private easement, and relocate the sidewalk to the north entrance.
10. Any offsite grading will require temporary easements.
11.
On the utility plan:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the Sewer and Water Notes add, "All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
26."
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
d. Add a storm sewer schedule.
e. Show all existing utilities with invert, pipe size, pipe type, etc.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing utilities.
b. Show all existing and proposed easements.
c. Add a legend.
Enlarge the parking lot peninsula to a minimum 30 foot in width by removing parking spaces on
either side of the peninsula.
Establish a tree protection area around the 30 inch oak near the western property line. The area
shall be at least 30 feet in diameter and no grading or other construction activities will be
allowed within it.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed
24 square feet and a height of 5 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be
permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the
building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage
must meet the following criteria:
bo
do
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject
to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
All signs require a separate permit.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural
accent to the building.
Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section
south of the site.
Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign.
The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign
plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff shall be provided prior to
requesting a building permit.
Building Official Conditions:
Co
do
Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing the existing structures on the site.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
The access aisle between the accessible parking spots must be a minimum of eight (8) feet
wide.
The plans were reviewed for allowable building area, exterior wall protection and basic
exiting only. Detailed building code requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans
are submitted.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Meet with Fire Marshal prior to building permit submittal.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
18.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by
ordinance.
19.
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened by a
wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes require
that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be
dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5.
The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space
required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection
space should be contained within the same enclosure.
20.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must
be screened from views.
21.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
22.
The landscaping plan shall be revised to show plantings on the north side of the parking lot
to provide 100% buffer between the parking and cemetery.
All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 2.
Blackowiak: Motion carries 4 to 2. Rich, would' you like to make a comment on why yoUr nay vote was
there for the record.
Slagle: Sure. The buffering. I think it might be just a tad excessive. And then the second thing was, I
really am trying to stick with the ordinances as much as I can. I don't see a reason enough to go to 24 so
just those two things.
Blackowiak: Yep, and I agree with what Rich said that I feel we need to stick with our ordinance and if
the applicant comes up with a plan that substitutes a lot of buffering on the north side, I would probably
be willing to give that 2 feet but until I see that plan, I really feel it's important to stick by the ordinance
and that's the only reason I voted no. I love everything else about it. So motion carries. It goes on to
City Council on Tuesday, May 29th.
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY
TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7305 GALPIN
BLVD., PID tt25-0101300 AND 25-0101600, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, questions of staff. Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have questions Madam Chair. Some clarification about the four options. The first
option, if we change it to the medium density. That could basically mean that then density transfer could
happen on top of that, is that correct?
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Then to option number 2, we would be basically putting a frame around it as very
specifically similar as Walnut Grove.
Generous: Right. We would prescribe the development.
Sacchet: However, at this time we have no indication from the landowner that that's what they want to
do.
Generous: I'll let him speak to that.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that will be a question for the applicant. Or maybe you don't have an applicant.
You have a landowner. That's one thing I'm struggling with, okay. Then the third option, we basically
wouldn't have good way to protect the Bluff Creek, correct? I mean there's no density transfer option so
they would possibly have to cut in more into the trees and into the creek.
Generous: The city would need to provide him a variance to encroach further into the primary.
Sacchet: We would be more limited in terms of being able to protect the Bluff Creek.
Generous: Yes. But there are more issues involved in that. I think the primary zone is the primary zone
and it's a setback requirement from that. However there are some questions about are we over stepping.
Sacchet: We would have less flexibility to mitigate basically, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: And then with the fourth option, we'd be making a step that is really general city wide. It's not
specific to that site. Do we have read what kind of implication overall that could have? Because we're
looking at one site and we're talking about making a change to the overall framework. Do we have a
sense of what that's going to bring overall?
Generous: As part of the update to the comprehensive plan we did have the GIS information for the
primary zone and so we did incorporate that. We have a sense of the number of units that could be
developed within those utility expansion areas. We don't know exactly how that will shake out in every
site. An issue that we had before within the Pulte development for instance. The north half of that
property was guided low density residential. We needed to do a land use amendment to permit them to
do the density transfer, yet we maintained the 4 units per acre as a cap on that. Had the PUD been
amended they could have done that development without the land use amendment.
Sacchet: So we actually have been simplifying a little bit.
Generous: Yes. And the Met Council wouldn't have had to be involved in the review of that project.
Sacchet: Then two other quick questions. In the drawings, the two last ones you attached just to clarify.
Can you specify which option you're actually depicting with, I presume that the zero lot line, the
Craftsman style homes, that would be relative to, is that Option 3?
40
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Generous: No, that could be done as part of either the land use amendment and rezoning to PUD, or if
we amended the planned unit development. Because that comes in under 4 units per acre.
Saechet: So it would be option 2 or 4?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: And then the last one, the townhouses one, that would be under.
Generous: Option 2 only.
Sacchet: Option 2 only.
Generous: You could do townhouses if we amended the PUD but the number of units would have to go
down to 10.
Sacchet: It would have to be less units?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that answers my questions. Thank you Bob.
Blackowiak: Deb?
Kind: Madam Chair, yes. Currently our PUD ordinance does not allow twin homes in single family
detached PUD's.
Generous: Correct. Under residential low density you can only have detached.
Kind: And if they went as a straight subdivision you could have a twin home?
Generous: If they rezoned it to R-4, correct.
Kind: Which is what this property is guided for?
Aanenson: It's guided Iow density.
Generous: Which, the R-4 is one of the zonings that would be consistent with that. RSF is another one
and the planned unit development is a third so there's 3 different zoning options to actually implement
the low density residential land use.
Kind: And what's the intent behind our PUD ordinance not allowing twin homes in it? Do you know
any background about that?
Aanenson: Well at the time that the Planning Commission, this is in the early 90's, was revisiting the
PUD ordinance, there was concern about if they lowered the minimum lot size or allowed that, then
everything would come in that way. So there was a feel of going less than 11,000 and making an
average and that number bounced around quite a bit and eventually landed on 11,000 square feet. And
not doing attached.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Kind: And would that be a concern with option number 4? That all future development in the yellow
areas on our guided map would come in as cluster attached homes?
Generous: Within the Bluff Creek corridor, maybe.
Kind: This would apply to everything that's yellow on our map.
Generous: When we recommend a PUD we want to see a benefit to the community. If they don't have
it, that's a rezoning. The. city has it's greatest power, if you will, in the zoning process.
Kind: So there has to be significant environmental reasons to grant.
Generous: Right or something significant benefit to the community to grant the PUD.
Kind: Okay.
Blackowiak: Rich, do you have any questions? Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I had some questions. I thought number 4, right from the get go was too broad. I
think it'd be very difficult to answer the questions here today what the future ramifications of a decision
like that could be. I need a little guidance, I'll give you some parameters in the form of adjectives. Don't
want to invite people to come in and when you say that they would have to go through this process and
this process and show this hardship so on and so forth, I'd like to select something that doesn't invite that
process. If that makes any sense. I don't want to encourage people to come in and do those things. If
there's an alternative to it. We fix halfa problem and create possibly another one with respect to they
come in individually with a little different dress in here and so on and so forth, and appear a little
different and it becomes harder and harder to differentiate where to draw the line so I'd like some
guidance with respect to that. I know you used the term wildcard on one of them. I'd like to know which
one that was.
Generous: The first one.
Claybaugh: The first one, okay. I can take that off my list because I didn't like that. I guess so with
respect to the statement I made with encouraging or inviting people to come for different variances or
would come to us under a different pretense, what selection would be best to mitigate that in your mind?
Generous: This specific property, the one that would provide the most surety would be the land use
amendment and the rezoning to planned unit development with the design parameters.
Claybaugh: Okay, and why did you feel, just because the wild card is just with respect that you don't
know what would be proposed for that area because there's no applicant at this time. What would be the
possible, what would be the scope of what someone could come in with if we did opt for Option number
1, the land use amendment? What things could we expect to see?
Generous: Whatever the density they could get on the site. I assume that the 2.9 units, or 2.9
developable acres and so that times 8. So they could stack townhouses. There's a lot of things they can
do.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Sacchet: Madam Chair, ifI may address that for Craig just briefly. I don't know whether you were a
part of us when we looked at that before once and the concern that came up in that context, and I think
it's important for you to be aware of it in case you weren't there, is that if we change the density
assignment of that area from low density to medium density, then with it being partially the Bluff Creek
primary corridor, they can make a density transfer and effectively it could become high density. So that's
the concern there.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's very much my concern.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Jay, any questions?
Karlovich: I just kind of question the process here in which we've got something before us where we
don't have any staff recommendation. I just think as a commission we should be reviewing staff
recommendations and also with regards to the zoning, there's no application by the land owner. I don't
understand why we're doing anything but, the other thing too is I would like to see the staff empowered
and come up with their recommendation as to if they want something different than the current, that's
something that the commission should be reviewing instead of I guess the commission doing the staff's
job. It's just a general observation.
Sacchet: May I ask a question in that context?
Blackowiak: Certainly.
Sacchet: Because I think it's a very valid point that you're bringing up Jay. I'm trying to remember what
exactly the framework was when it came up first.
Aanenson: We did bring this forward with a recommendation and.
Sacchet: I think you did come with a recommendation and we turned it down.
Aanenson: There wasn't consensus. So what we tried to do is break it down into bite size pieces and
give you more options and explain to you with some design parameters. Also the reason why we're
doing this is that it is inconsistent, the zoning in this is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The
zoning and the comprehensive plan are in conflict and we identified those land uses that we were going
to go back and change. So we can leave it in conflict, that's certainly an option.
Claybaugh: So that's the motivation for addressing it at this point is that the two are in conflict?
Aanenson: Yeah. Well we had brought a report back probably 2 months ago. A staff recommendation
and there wasn't consensus.
Generous: And then back when the original Walnut Grove development came in, there was an
impression or direction from council that that should really be part of this project. So now we're
bringing it forward.
Sacchet: I think it's important to see it in that context. I mean it's not like they're asking us because we
didn't like what they brought us last time.
Karlovich: Well that explains it. I was confused about the background.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Sacchet: And the reason is to try to make it consistent.
Generous: Which was, and it was the first option originally which we didn't go beyond the land use
amendment.
Blackowiak: Go ahead, I'll just.
Sacchet: Are we taking comments?
Blackowiak: Well actually I'd like to just ask a couple questions and then, do you have another question
Deb?
Kind: I do have another question.
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Kind: Bob, when I was boning up on my PUD ordinance and reading this section I noticed that each
PUD shall have a minimum area of 5 acres.
Generous: Unless it's adjacent to another planned unit development.
Claybaugh: So there's exceptions you make.
Kind: You're right.
Generous: Thank you.
Kind: Correct as usual. Thank you, so this does.
Generous: It would fit under the criteria for rezoning if the city wanted to.
Kind: Okay, thank you.
Generous: That's an instance where it might make sense to rezone to planned unit development.
Kind: I'll save my, we're in the questioning stage. I'll save my comments for later.
Blackowiak: We're in the questioning, thank you. Okay. Well I just have one question. What is the
advantage to the city of rezoning it? Rather than just leaving it in conflict. I mean I realize we can leave
it in conflict. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Aanenson: Well I think the advantage of the rezoning it now is similar to what Walnut Grove had, which
is our intent at the time and Mr. Hennessey didn't want to be part of that at the time, which is fine. But I
think what it does secure, is that people know what that property is going to be. The people at Walnut
Grove know what it's going to be. The surrounding land uses across the street know what it's going to
be. And we have the design standards put in place so it kind of erases the question mark. We're not
saying when it has to develop but we're saying when it comes in, this is our expectation. It's going to be
this type of units and it's going to look like this.
44
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Blackowiak: Any disadvantages? For example let's say that it gets rezoned to one of these options.
Wouldn't it be possible for an applicant to come in and request yet another change?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Blaekowiak: So I'm just wondering what advantage we get by rezoning now when there's a potential for
future rezoning. I mean aside from property owners possibly knowing what it's going to be. I don't
know.
Slagle: I've got one question regarding what the adjacent property owners would know it to be, if you
will. Would that not require an issue ora public hearing? -
Aanenson: Yeah, we're just looking for direction tonight. We'd come back.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well this is not a public hearing tonight but I would like to have comments from the
landowner if you would like to get up and give us some ideas of what he's thinking. I don't mean to put
you on the spot but. Yeah, come on up to the microphone, state your name and address and if there's
anything you'd like us to hear about this, now's the time.
John Hennessey: Hi, I'm John Hennessey, 7305 Galpin Boulevard. In reading the notes and the work
that Bob has put in on this, it seems to me that he's leaning towards option 2. I have no problem with
that. At the time that Walnut Grove did go in, we got it on the record, the council said that they would be
hard pressed, in so many words, to withhold medium density on the property but at some point in time
probably in the fairly near future we're looking at selling the prOperty and just leaving. I have no
intentions of developing it myself. Just put it on the market and let it, whatever happens. It'd be very
nice if it were zoned in advance. I see a benefit to the city is that you do get rid of, by zoning to option 2
you get rid of 2 curb cuts on Galpin. You only probably showed 1 on the plan but in my title I do have 2
curb cuts on that property coming off of Galpin, which is not a desirable thing. Especially for me coming
out of there in the morning. I didn't initiate this process. The City did. It's to my benefit and I
appreciate it.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
John Hennessey: Any other questions?
Slagle: Just a quick question Mr. Hennessey. I live in Longacres area. Was it for sale recently? I
thought I saw a for sale sign somewhere?
John Hennessey: Oh we stuck a sign out there a couple years ago to get a feel for what was out there.
Slagle: Just wanted to make sure I had the right property. Okay, thanks.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Well, I guess the commissioners maybe should make some comments right
now. If you've got any comments, because I guess what staff is looking for is direction. I mean what do,
what would we like to see. So let's start with Uli, you look like you're ready to go.
Sacchet: I'm ready to go. I'm definitely ready to go. I'm very clear about this one. I appreciate your
comment that you're fine with the PUD type of solution, option 2 and I think with my questioning I made
45
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
it pretty clear that option 1, I really oppose. Vehemently. Number 2...we don't have an application. I
mean we're out of our league as far as I'm concerned, and we're not in the right place. Now number 3,
leave it as is. Well that doesn't solve the problem that we're trying to solve in the first place and I think
there's an additional reason why to go with number 4 because what we're trying to solve is a more
generic problem. We're not trying to deal just with that one property. Where going with option 4, we're
putting something in place that promises to be beneficial in other environments as well. Now yes, I agree
there was a concern that there's a fear that that might be a proliferation for people to then come and want
to do all these density transfers and then we get higher density than we want, but I really don't think
that's an issue. That the PUD system itself entails that we have a say and there has to be justification and
reasoning why there is an increase of density. And if we're looking at the Bluff Creek corridor, it's so
important to have these tools in place that we can do in a smooth way these density transfers and I do
think it will be for the benefit of the city overall if we have that tool in place that we can do a density
transfer into a Iow density environment, which in this particular case then would effectively allow it to be
medium density in the buildable part, and would allow us to protect the Bluff Creek corridor piece and by
leaving it as such as low density zoned right now. That to me seems like it means all the ends in the best
way so I'm very clear that I'd like you to explore number 4 in this context. That's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Rich, do you want to add anything?
Slagle: Not right now.
Blackowiak: No? Okay. Deb.
Kind: I agree with Uli to a certain point. I want to emphasize though that if we do go with option
number 4, we would not be increasing density anywhere. The density guidelines would be the same as
what's in the comp plan. They would just allow for transfer of it but the overall density for each
individual parcel would remain the same. If I'm understanding this correctly.
Generous: That's the intent. To allow in the Iow density to use the 1.2 to 4 units per acre.
Kind: And the control that we as a city would have would be, we would only grant these types of cluster
housing in areas that, where we get a large benefit by preserving primary zone of Bluff Creek or some
significant natural feature. Large stands of trees or that sort of thing.
Generous: Correct.
Kind: I would support exploring number 4 more for those reasons.
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich.
$1agle: Just a quick question on number 4. In the sense of what allows the city to have control over,
would that area that you guys have been sort of asking about, would there be merit to having the city
attorney just review that so that what we believe the control would be and what not isn't vague or
potentially could be challenged by someone successfully? And I'm being vague because I'm not totally
up on that but I'm just, it sounds like we're asking for some use of tools or whatever and I just want to
make sure that they're enforceable if you will.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Kind: And Madam Chair, I also forgot to comment. I would be in support of, if Mr. Hennessey came
through with some sort of proposal as an applicant, I think number 2 is a good solution for his particular
project but I'm uncomfortable approving that without having an applicant.
Blackowiak: Okay, Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I guess it may be a reflection of being new to the council but, as stated previous
number 4 is too broad for me. I think the intent is good, but I'm very uncomfortable with exactly where
it would fall legally if challenged and if some of those transfers were brought forth. Item 1 I didn't see as
an option. Item 2, for lack of an applicant I don't see as being necessary to consider at this point. I
would be in favor of item 3 at this time.
Blackowiak: Jay.
Karlovich: I'd like to start out with just some, a couple questions for staff. What did the staff
recommend before?
Generous: We've done the PUD amendment and that was pulled off. Originally we were just going with
the medium density, which we did look at the implications that yes, once they had it in place he could
walk and someone could come in and then they have the density range 4 to 8 units per acre. If they
complied with that, we'd have to, we'd grant it.
Karlovich: What are some of the pitfalls of number 4?
Generous: You're not certain of what properties are going to come into the development when they're
guided low density right now. Right now you're very limited in the options on that. So if it's guided low
density, it's either a planned unit development with 15,000 square foot average lot sizes, 11,000 square
foot minimum lot size, or they can come in and rezone it to R-4 which would permit twin homes, or
single family detached on 15,000 square foot lots. Or the strict 15,000 square foot minimum lot size.
We'd lose the ability to do any density transfer or cluster or attached housing.
Sacchet: That's with option 1, excuse me for interrupting.
Generous: Without amending the PUD, right.
Sacchet: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: And if Madam Chair, if you don't mind my interjecting as part of your question, though
you just said that you lose that ability. It just adds a step as you had said. You'd have to go to the Met
Council in order to do the land.
Generous: Correct, land use amendment.
Mayor Jansen: You can still do it, as we did on Pulte. It just entails another step. Okay. And one other
option that I was just looking at as a few of you were leaning towards number 4, is you conceivably could
amend that just within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, correct?
Aanenson: Yes.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Mayor Jansen: Versus having it be thc overall PUD ordinance. You could just do it within the Bluff
Creek ordinance. Then you know you're just affecting that segment of the zoniong.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Sorry. I didn't mean to jump in on your time.
Blackowiak: Jay, do you have any other comments?
Karlovich: No I just, I don't see the need for, without an application in front of us and for doing anything
at this point right now. You have a guide plan and you have some zoning that does not agree with the
guide plan. You're not rezoning it, not in conjunction with the guide plan. I think I'd kind of wait to see
what would come in on an application.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I agree. I still wonder why we want to, if there's not a pressing need for us to
change, why we want to go ahead and rezone. That aside, I don't like number 1. Option, if there's going
to be a change, I mean it looks like options 2 or 4. I like the idea of option 4 specifically in the Bluff
Creek corridor and no other area. But I'm of the same mind as Jay when he says you know we don't, if
we don't have a reason, we don't have an applicant, why are we, and we still have the intent. We still
know what our intent is. That we want to have it medium density basically. I mean isn't that kind of
what we've been saying all along? And if anything else came in it would have to go through a zoning
change and public hearings and I'm just curious why we want to go through a public hearing process now
when that indeed might not be the ultimate zoning on the property. So I guess I don't know, if anyone's
got any more comments. I don't know what to tell you Kate, I'm sorry. It seems like we have some that
like 2 and 4, and we have a couple that don't want to do anything. I think you can definitely cross 1 off.
So if that will help at all.
Claybaugh: Maybe that's how we need to do it. Come at it from the back end.
Blackowiak: And I don't know what the direction is. Do you talk to Roger and find out the legality of
number 4? Can we restrict it? Can you talk to him and find out if there are advantages or disadvantages
to, I mean legally are we going to protect ourselves a little bit more if we rezone? I don't know.
Aanenson: Well I think this is kind of a micro problem of a macro issue, which is the Bluff Creek
Overlay District, which I think the mayor brought up a good suggestion, and maybe we look at the PUD.
If we want to use the tool of the Bluff Creek Overlay District, we don't have an ordinance to make that
happen. So we've indicated the problem with the PUD but maybe we go back and do analysis of doing
the PUD only in the Bluff Creek area and maybe that solves some of that problem. So by doing that, that
might solve this problem so maybe step back a little bit at a macro scale instead of the micro. Because
there's still the problem with the PUD. It is a complex issue.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, if I may. I agree that we don't have an application. We don't have a need.
driving it from an application side, and on the other hand we've had situations before where we were
limited by not being able to consider density transfer in the Bluff Creek area-into a low density
residential zoning. So I think it's important for us as a Planning Commission to look at this really from a
planning viewpoint, not from a viewpoint of recommending approval or denial. Or recommending denial
of approval of a particular application. Because this falls into the overall planning framework and it's
kind of being triggered here by, because this is a, it's a large context of trying to resolve some of the
conflicts between land use and zoning in the city. It brought up this thing, and as Kate said, it's a small
48
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
example for something that's really applicable to the whole Bluff Creek corridor and so I would like to
seize that opportunity to put tools in place that will allow us to more effectively deal with it when
applications will come in front of us, which they will. That's for certain and then at that point, if we
have the tools refined, and possibly the conflicts between zoning and land use resolved, we're going to be
in a much better position to deal with it. So I would say in that context that there is definitely a reason to
consider this and I very much appreciate and like the suggestion of you Madam Mayor, to put this into
the context of the Bluff Creek corridor because that's where that applies. That's where we have that
situation. Where we have the framework where the density transfer becomes such an important tool to
mitigate between protecting the natural resource of the Bluff Creek and at the same time giving the
abutting developers enough space to do something that they want to do so I would like to put into that
context and take it out of the context of this particular property or due to the fact that there is no
application because it's a more far reaching context and it's an opportunity for us to put something in
place that we will be able to draw on in the future.
Blackowiak: Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have one other question of staff. In your opinion are the most significant natural
amenities yet to be developed all in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, or are there other areas that would
fall in that category outside of that area?
Aanenson: Well, Bob and I were just having that same discussion so, I think we said the word
incrementalism. But it's an interesting approach to start thinking on that way and then obviously the
PUD is to serve amenities. There's other significant wetlands.
Generous: Topography.
Kind: The seminary fen, is that all within the Bluff Creek?
Aanenson: Topography. Yeah, that's part of the overlay district but there might be some other ones but I
think it would capture a lot of them. We would still have the PUD by itself. You could still come back
and apply that tool but for the density transfer and how we can split.that baby, but I think we'll take a
look at that approach.
Blackowiak: Well I hope we've given you something to think about.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Generous: We'll bring another issue paper for you.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: I just have one thing, if that's alright. I'I1 pass these pictures around. They're pictures that
we took, the area down on 101 and 212. I just want to remind you that in the comprehensive plan that
area south of 212, we have stated that we do not intend to provide sewer to that area and municipal
services, and you can see why. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. It floods. The areas that were down
there, there was some sand bagging of some businesses. The golf which is down there, the nets stayed in
place. The house is above the flood plain as is the septic system so that wasn't a problem but we did look
at that. But there are some other issues, but just a reminder. As planners, it's a good thing to go look at
49
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
and observe and think about the implication of water movement. Whether it's on the river or the lake, it
does happen and we need to be thinking about that as we look at development patterns.
Slagle: Madam Chair, quick question. Is that salvage yard in the city's boundaries?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Slagle: Okay. You know, I just ask because obviously it looked like, from driving by there, it might
have been partially affected by the.
Aanenson: I'm more certain it was, yep.
Slagle: Okay. And I'm just asking from an environmental standpoint. Is there any concern by the city of
that?
Aanenson: Well I can give you a lengthy history on that but we have some other items to discuss tonight
but yeah.
$1agle: So the answer is yes?
Aanenson: Yes. There's a lengthy history on that.
Slagle: Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
April 17, 2001 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Blackowiak: Are there any ongoing items?
Aanenson: Just to remind you about the housing forum. Uli came to the one last Thursday. There's
another one that will be in this building, in this room, this Thursday starting at 7:00 p.m. Kit Hadley
from Minnesota Housing Finance. Julie Frick, Carver County HRA and Guy Peterson from the Met
Council talking about financing and doing projects so if any of you could attend, that would be great.
Blackowiak: Okay. We do have an open discussion for the design standards. However, I'm going to
adjourn the meeting first and take a 2 minute break, if you have something?
Kind: When would you like me to give my City Council meeting synopsis?
Blackowiak: I was thinking in open discussion unless you can do it right now?
Kind: No, that's fine. I'll do it in open discussion.
Blackowiak: Uli, did you?
50
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Sacchet: I'm a little torn. There's just one thing I wanted to ask, which I actually wouldn't mind if it's
recorded in the minutes. It happens to me each time I go to Europe, to Switzerland. I think I see these
roundabouts and I don't see any roundabouts here and it seems such an incredibly efficient, low cost way
to handle traffic crossings.
Aanenson: You would ask that after the engineers left.
Sacchet: I know, but I wanted to have at least it mentioned when it still gets into the minutes. It's a
riddle to me why we're not using more roundabouts. I mean they're incredible. I mean it's a little bit of
education that it takes people to get used to it but, and it took a while in the area where I see them used in
Europe but by now they're an incredible solution to, and it's low cost. I mean it's fantastic with the
speed. It's fantastic to get through the crossing. You don't want to wait. It's safe. It doesn't cost
anything. It's something to think about.
Slagle: Madam Chair, so we'll continue the meeting after the break?
Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll adjourn. We'll take about a 2 minute break and then.
Chairwoman Biackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. An informal
open discussion on design standards was held after adjournment.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
51
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 2001
Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jan Lash, Jim Manders, Rod Franks, David Moes, and Mike Howe
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Lash: l just want to have it be said that I can tell when I'm not here running the meeting you guys can't
carry on a complete conversation. You go from one topic to the next from page to page. It's all messed
up. Therefore l will never be absent again.
Berg: I promise I will never lead another meeting.
Moes' I thought it flowed rather well.
Berg:. Thank you. We had a little problem at the beginning.
Lash: Did you read the minutes?
Franks: I just want to say, I have a comment about the minutes. This is probably the most intelligent
thing I've said all year and I was surprised that I read it.
Lash: Do you want to say it again?
Fran 'ks: Page 25 from February 27th. And chocolate. There was not enough chocolate. I just think that
was a very important thing.
Hoffman: More chocolate.
Franks: More chocolate. I think this would be a happier, friendlier town if we just had more chocolate.
Howe: Did you see that movie...?
Lash: Okay, can you guys make enough sense out of this to approve them because I wasn't here so I'll
abstain so. Okay, is there a motion to approve the February 27th minutes?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
Moes moved, Manders seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission
meeting dated February 27, 2001 as presented. All voted in favor, except Lash and Howe who
abstained and the motion carried.
Lash: See, both of us are gone, they can't carry on an intelligent conversation.
Berg: We lost our continuity.
Moes: Those of us here followed it very well.
Berg: I guess we cared enough to be here, we followed it.
Lash: That's right. Okay, and then the minutes from March 27th. Is there a motion to approve?
Manders moved, Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission
meeting dated March.27, 2001 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Lash: And a motion to approve the minutes from April 10th.
Berg moved, Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission
meeting dated April 10, 2001 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO INSTALL FLAGPOLE AND PICNIC AREA AT LAKE ANN PARK; PAUL
PALMER AND NEXT GENERATION DEVELOPMENT.
Lash: Moving onto new business, we have a request from, who is it exactly?
Ruegemer: Mr. Paul Palmer representing the Chanhassen Lions.
Lash: Okay, for the flagpole and picnic area at Lake Ann Park.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Lash. Going through and having conversations with Mr. Palmer for quite
some time now, he did formally kind of put together a plan and submit some information to me to have
considered at the Park and Rec Commission meeting tonight. Mr. Palmer, as we said, is a Chanhassen
resident. Also a member of the Chanhassen Lions group that has perforined many projects for the city.
He is proposing a picnic area and a flagpole type of a project out at Lake Ann Park. As you see in your
packet, included in that, if you look on the back page, on the last page of the staff report, is the area that
he is suggesting as a possible location for this project and that would be by ballfields number 4 and
number 5 out at Lake Ann Park. By the little concession building and the drinking fountain as shown on
the plan. Does the commission need clarification as to.
Lash: Between 3 and 4 actually.
Ruegemer: It's closer to 4 and 5. Kind of where the new path comes in where the Lions monument is.
Moes: I was curious, I'm following the hand drawn diagram and I was trying to place it specifically on
this one.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
Lash: So would it be just south of the concession building then?
Ruegemer: It would be south of the concession building, correct.
Lash: Okay.
Ruegemer: Do you see on the third page, the Lake Ann, the map right there and you kind of see where
the concession building is noted between fields 3 and 4, and it gets you a little triangle spot. That's about
in that area that we're discussing this evening. Okay, thank you. Mr. Palmer has put in some time and
some consideration in developing this plan. It's important I guess for us to look at tonight kind of the
overall plan as to kind of what we're trying to achieve out at Lake Ann Park. The area in question, and I
stopped there again today trying to look at this particular area. This area and really any area up above
where the drinking fountain is, the playground area is very limited for this type ora project so to speak.
You know with really Mr. Palmer's ideas kind of behind this project was to kind of bring a sense of
family to events and more of a family atmosphere. Where mom or dad are playing softball for the night.
Grab some food. That sort of thing. Have a little bit of a picnic and really kind of have it in an area
where it can get together and enjoy some family time versus just dropping dad off or him coming by
himselfi That really was his idea behind this whole plan. But as you said, the area is very small and
really has some limitations. I had to discuss with Mr. Palmer if really the kind of the picnic area is what
we're trying to accomplish, why couldn't that happen under the concession building as it presently is
happening, which certainly is really kind of the way it is happening right now. I think he was really
concerned that there wasn't a grill sort of, a grill kind in that area where people can enjoy brats and
hmnburgers and hotdogs and that sort of thing so. As mentioned, being in that area, since it is close to
the bailfieids, there is some potential of foul bails going up in that area. If we're bringing spectators even
closer, I mean people do sit in that general area but if we put an asphalted, or concrete type ora surface -
in that area, maybe encouraging maybe some unsafe situations for people. Also I was also concerned
about the hot grills close to the children's area. We know how quick things can happen. If the
commission would like to do some type ora grill, maybe a better situation would be on the other side of
the little concession building or have that in the master plan of the concession, building if that ever does
get to that point where the commission does identify some CIP money and redeveloping that. Having
permanent restrooms and maybe at that time, maybe more ora picnic area could be incorporated into that
plan. In my opinion a flagpole really is the only option up there. I did talk with Mr. Palmer again this
morning in regards to you know what happens if the flag does disappear either through theft or maybe
it's worn out? He was checking on that information with the Legion Club just to find out who would be
responsible. The Legion's not going to be on the hook for the rest of our life you know to replace flags
every time one disappears. I mean that's not a reality in my opinion. So I realize it's something that
we're going to have to address. Do we just fly the flags on special occasions, on tournaments and the 4th
of July? And then take it up and down or leave it up in those types of situations and have the light on.
Shining on the flag. That may be an option that we should consider tonight. Because there is activity out
there. There's just a lot of down time and we did have a flag, as mentioned in the staff report, at the
entrance of Lake Ann Park that did disappear frequently according to our park maintenance staff so
something that we should certainly consider. And again, looking at Mr. Palmer's plan, it looks like he
did do homework as far as talking to the Legion about donation of the flagpole area. The electric
contractors about doing some of the service work. The augers, so it really, he really has done a lot of
work to get this to be kind of a free type of really kind of a pain free situation for this city. And it
certainly would enhance the park in my opinion so I'm going to, staff is going to recommend that the
picnic concept of the plan is not approved as tonight. As presented, but the Park and Rec Commission
does recommend approval of the flagpole project and can direct staff on working with Mr. Palmer and
the Lion's Club, the Legion Club on getting that project done as outlined tonight.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: Just a couple of quick questions for you Jerry. Can you think of some other place in Lake Ann
that would be more suited for another small picnic area? Or did they really want it there because it's
Lion's field right there?
Ruegemer: That is certainly part of it. And also kind of the family atmosphere of the ball. Paul is really,
his agenda really is to get more people involved in the over 40 league and softball in general because it is
a, I don't want to call it a dying sport but numbers are declining with that. And I give Paul credit for
xvanting to include family and having kind of a fun atmosphere. This just isn't the right place for it.
Could that be over between kind of the path area on the kind of the west side of the playground area
going towards field 3? Is that more ora suitable location? That's better than by the drinking fountain
and by the paths in my opinion.
Lash: Which area? The west area. West of what?
Ruegemer: It would be, if you're looking at the plan itself. Why don't I just step up to here. This is kind
of the area that we're talking about. It's kind of right in here. There's kind of a path that kind of leads.
Maybe there's that kind of a gradual hill that goes down a little bit right here. Maybe that might be a
better situation. Or we just say you know what? The best spot right now is under the guise of the
concession building. I mean there is picnic tables around that area. There is flat space...and additional
picnic tables and people can, which people are doing now. People are sitting at those tables and either
bringing a Subway or a sandwich or McDonald's or something like that so I mean that is occurring right
now and you knoxv.., it's really all that necessary that we do have a lot of picnic areas at Lake Ann that
aren't getting used.
Lash: Well that probably answers my second question because I wanted to know if you thought that he'd
be open to investing in something in another area and not Lake Ann Park. But you think he strictly wants
to stick with Lake Ann Park?
Ruegemer: In my opinion, yes.
Lash: Alright. Because I was going to suggest Memorial Park.
Ruegemer: Yeah, which may be a possibility. His position really was, you know that's fine. If it
happens, it happens. I really don't need to take on another project is kind of what his sentiments were
this morning.
Lash: Well if the over 40 league is kind of dying out, maybe they'd be more interested in a memorial.
Berg: Could we choose another word?
Lash: Okay, well that answers my question. Anybody else have questions?
Franks: Are you suggesting that there's room for a grill between the concession stand and like, if you
kept the tables in there to eat, are you thinking of placing a grill somewhere around the concession stand
at ali?
Ruegemer: That's something that staffcan investigate more. I haven't really looked at it in that depth
but there is open space I guess around that area if that's what the commission would like to do.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Moes: Probably move towards field 3?
Hoffman: Yeah, out in that grassy area so it has good sight lines so the kids, it would take a while for the
kids to get from the playground to the grill. People would notice that.
Franks: Okay.
Hoffman; The other thing to remember, this site at some point in the future will have sewer and water
and a larger picnic shelter right there in that location. That's always been the thought that we have the
utilities running right there and the water running right there to put an indoor restroom facility with a
larger covered shelter and that type of an atmosphere right there in that location. In doing that you would
eat up all of the available area at that location.
Franks: Would lie be open, would Mr. Palmer be open to, I'm feeling as if, if we can find a way to
support this idea of family involvement in that area, I think that we should do it. And if there's a simple
solution like throwing a couple more picnic tables under the concession stand and maybe this is not so
simple but cementing a grill into the ground of an appropriate number of feet back from the trail between
ballfield 3 and the trail there, maybe we can work with that.
Lash: Is there not a grill in the area of the little shelter?
Ruegemer: No.
__
Lash: Why don't we just ask hiln to take the money and put in a few more amenities to the shelter
temporarily and know whether it means adding onto the picnic area there and sticking a grill right there
and the flag pole right there and then it's all in one spot instead of having all little things all over the
place. I just think that would be easier for maintenance too.
Hoffinan: We'll just offer hi~n a proposal.
Berg: What does it cost to replace the flags, do you know?
Ruegemer: I do not know that Fred.
Lash: And did lie say that they would, if it was stolen, replace it or, that wasn't clear.
Ruegemer: He doubted that they would.
Franks: Is it their conception that the flag would be flying most of the time and lighted?
Berg: I'm wondering why we couldn't ask for a donation ofx number of dollars m~d then when that is
exhausted, then we'll cover the rest of the flag. The cost of the flag for that year. $150.00 a year or
something. Whatever, it depends on what the cost are. Maybe enough to replace it 4 or 5 times.
Howe: I don't think they're that expensive. I don't know. I don't know how big this flag would be.
Lash: Well it doesn't have to be like a Perkins flag.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Moes: 45-50 bucks.
Lash: Yeah, a good flag is. But can you put it up and then, I suppose that wouldn't work either. I was
trying to figure out how you'd take the rope, somehow get the rope down so that people couldn't be.
Hoffman: We padlocked the rope 12 feet up on the other pole.
Lash: People climb the pole.
Hoffinan: They just shimmy up there and rip them down. You'd obviously only fly them through the
summer season, May through September, October...
Lash: The Legion is usually good about helping about with flag things like that too so.
Berg: Would it be more or less likely to...further in the park? I mean it's not right on the road or where
it was before. Maybe it wouldn't be quite so appealing.
Hoffinan: Nice road right to it.
Moes: Hoxv much extra work would it be to take it down on whatever periodic basis?
Hoffinan: It'd have to be a daily basis.
Ruegemer: It'd be like opening up the Lake Ann gate every morning.
Berg: Hoxv much to electrify the pole?
Moes: That's a good idea. Just hit the switch when you leave and see what you catch.
Lash: It's xvhen the light goes on.
Hoffinan: Okay, you should probably put together a motion in that regards so we know what to include
in this proposal.
Moes: Just real quick. Is Mr. Palmer's objective to keep it by field 4 there, is that right?
Ruegemer: That seems to be, yeah. That's where he would like it to be.
Moes: Would there be any thought to entertaining, I mean doing something out past left field there or,
I'm trying to think of the terrain out there.
Ruegemer: Out by, I'm sorry.
Moes: Beyond left field on field 4. Kind of in the outfield.
Ruegemer: As far as aesthetics goes, that probably wouldn't be really the kind of the, everything kind of
comes into a head or a focus kind of in that area.
Moes: I understand. I was thinking a whole left field view but.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: Okay. How about if we make a motion here.
Berg: I move we recommend approval of the flag pole project as presented by the Chanhassen Lions
Club and that we direct staffto work with the Lions in terms of additional picnic tables, benches, along
with a grill. And that we also investigate the possibility of sharing in the cost of flag replacement.
Lash: And relocating it to a more conducive location by the shelter?
Berg: Well I'd leave that up to staff's discretion.
Lash: Is there a second to that?
Howe: I'll second that.
Berg moved, Ho~ve seconded approval of the flag pole project as presented by the Chanhassen
Lions Club and direct staff to work with the Lions in terms of additional picnic tables, benches,
along with a grill, and investigate the possibility of sharing in the cost of flag replacement. Ail
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
2002 PARK AND TRAIL ACOUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION.
Hoffinan: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the commission. I wanted to get a jump start On the 2002
CIP. I have some corrections for you and then I'm going to just briefly walk you through the first set of
materials. It's not overly complex because we have not identified a great deal of improvements. Just a
couple of big ticket items in the coming years. If you open your packet to the page 30, under the first
packet. There's a total page for the 5 year capital improvement project total. And you'll notice that year
2000 has $1,046,300 and that is due to the transfer or the allocation of $850,000 for the Highway 101
South, Shore Drive to Town Line Road trail. 2002, the number, $108,000 is correct. 2001. 2002, you
should change that total from $300,000 to $275,000. And that's the year we're talking about today and
that's a single item. That is the City Center Park warming house and shelter building. 2003, you need to
knock off one place. That's not $750,000. It's $75,000. 2003. I left on vacation when these numbers
came out.
Lash: So that was a typo, not a budget reduction?
Hoffman: Yes. Typo. Well it's some of both. Some of both. And then 2004 is identified at $185,000.
Okay, then turning back to page 2. You'll notice items with a line dashed through have been deleted as a
part of the 2001 capital improvement program process. Either by the council, the city manager, or the -
finance director. Items which have a check next to them have been completed in either 2000 or 2001.
Check mark ~neans they are either purchased or completed. The second.
Lash: Can I ask a quick question on that?
Hoffinan: Sure.
Lash: Under 2000, the 60,000 and the 900 have been crossed out.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Hoffman: Yep.
Lash: Does that mean it was eliminated or does it mean it's been completed?
Hoffman: Eliminated.
Lash: That xvas, so we never did phase t of playground equipment at Bandimere?
Hoffman: The $30,000 was purchased in 2001. And so $60,000 was not utilized in 2000 and 2001. This
year we purchased $30,000 xvorth of play equipment which will go in this summer.
Lash: Okay, so was our budget just reduced by that amount then?
Hoffinan: Yes.
Lash: It wasn't used somewhere else?
Hoffman: No.
Lash: Okay, and then how about the grills? Then we just didn't have any grills and it wasn't slated for
anywhere else?
Hoffinan: Yep.
Lash: Ever. And then the vending machine shelter, it's just someone's idea that that should just never
happen?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: Was that the City Council's idea?
Hoffman: I don't fecal! which one was which but it was between those three parties that I mentioned.
Lash: I guess I'd just be interested in what the thinking was. Was it because it's a vending machine
shelter or you know was it just no need ever for a shelter or what the thought was?
Hoffman: Again, I was not involved in those decisions. I don't know what they were thinking.
Howe: They kept us out of the restoration.
Lash: They what?
Howe: They kept us out of the restoration.
Lash: Well good. Actually I wish we could move that up. It's an eyesore.
Hoffinan: The actual CIP, 5 year CIP as approved by the City Council was the last document in your
packet. Then the middle set of pages are the master park plans which would identify all future
improvements or all potential future improvements at the different park locations.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: Can I ask you another couple questions? Okay. On page 10, City Center Park. So the hockey
board assembly, so we won't have hockey boards or was that moved somewhere else or?
Hoffman: That was deleted.
Lash: Because of the skate park.
Hoffinan: Yep.
Lash: Okay. And then how about the senior garden, because that is happening now isn't it?
Hoffinan: The senior gardens is the, well I'll show you. It's the plan on this side of the road. The other
one is the community garden.
Lash: Oh, okay. And so that's just been deleted? So the community garden's supposed to fill that need
then?
Hoffman: I haven't planned for it. I don't know if you're going to be requesting that to be reinstated. I
think it's a nice project.
Lash: I think there's some support from the seniors.
Hoffinan: I think the basis of the conversation is in 2002 do you want to dedicate or make a
recom~nendation that they include $275,000 of that project? Have your priorities changed since this 5 ~
year CIP was developed? One question I think was the trail which was deleted from Chanhassen Hills to
Bandimere. I still see that as a high priority. Where should that come back into the CIP?
Lash: Well ill 2000, yOU know the 101 trail for $850,000, who knows if that's ever going to happen.
Hoffinan: Don't know.
Lash: And Marsh Glen trail, did that not happen?
Hoffinan: That will happen.
Lash: It will still?
Hoffinan: We're working on it. If you've had a chance to drive through there, you can go through
Mission Hills and then take the cul-de-sac back and the developer' is still working on a couple of homes
there and once he drives that alignment loose to us, Dale and his crew will be putting the trail in. We
have Hoisington Koegler working on the design. The trail actually goes over the top of the sanitary
sewer. The Lake Ann interceptor so Thursday we'll excavate. Put down a foam insulation so that, when
you clear off trails and streets, the frost goes down much deeper because it's always clear all winter long
so we have to insulate that pipe so we don't freeze up the Lake Ann Interceptor so we'll be putting that
down. Putting rock down and then building the trail. And that includes a DNR and watershed
permitting process to get across Riley Creek. As the creek winds through there, we have to culvert that.
There are stone perlnitting issues involved and we're confident we'll get it done by the end of the year.
It'll be a nice connection. What we want to do is start aiming the trail, pointing the trail towards Eden
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Prairie. I've talked to Bob Lambert, the Director of Parks and Recreation in Eden Prairie. He's ready,
when the time comes, when MnDot, will negotiate with MnDot to acquire the additional trail easements
around that side of the lake. Just to complete it all in one shot.
Lash: I would agree with you Todd. I think that we thought that that trail from Bandimere to
Chanhassen Hills was a high priority and it was about the only project we even were really pushing for in
2001. So I'd be interested in why, you know what the thinking was behind why this would be deleted.
Hoffinan: Well we talked about it and it was actually a recommendation to the commission that we talk
about, if 101, there was a big push for 101 at that time but some of the funding was disappearing. If we
had to choose, if they were both to be built now, we'd want to put the money to 101 North. So I'm not
sure if that allocation would be $150,000 is going to stick through this next CIP cycle. I don't
particularly advocate using those kind of dollars out of the 410 fund to complete that project so then we
recommend that that be reduced and the 101 south trail added in or do you want to see the warming
house put on hold and use those dollars for the 101 trail?
Manders: I'd like to ask a question. In terms of funds that we have in the 410, or whatever other 10
you've got, how many dollars do you have there relative to what these projections, or expenditures that
we're looking at here. Are we pretty much self funded in all of these projected expenses?
Hoffinan: Cash on hand today is about a million seven and so you, if you did not earn any additional
dollars you can pretty much fund what you have allocated here.
Franks: Does that include any extra that would be necessary for purchasing, final purchase of the Fox
property or has that been?
Hoffinan: Hopefully what remains in the referendum fund.
Franks: Will cover it?
Hoffinan: Will cover that, yes.
Franks: Okay.
Hoffi-nan: If not, then those funds would need to come out of 410.
Lash: So what is it you're looking for us to do tonight with this?
Hoffinan: Talk it over and either come up with a plan or direct staff to bring back additional information.
Again you'll be making a recommendation for 2002. We also have to come back with a 5 year plan so
worrying about when you should be staging all these improvements can occur for another night. I just
want to get an idea about where your priorities lie.
Manders: One opinion I would have is that, I place a higher value on that trail to Bandimere Park than I
would on that park warming shelter.
Lash: Me too.
Howe: I think that's important.
10
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
Lash: I think we'd get way more use out of it. Having just looked at those reports last month or
whenever that was on the usage of the ice rinks. I think the trail would have way more usage.
Franks: ...warming house at City Center Park.
Hoffman: Picnic shelter.
Franks: I mean all summer, fall and spring this is what's happening up there. My only thinking too Todd
and maybe you can help with this question is what kind of a time line would there be if let's say we
decided to recommend moving forward with the park shelter for City Center Park? I'm thinking of the
library going in and ali of the happenings here and my feeling is it'd be really nice to have this whole
area completed. If we could work and the library coming on line and City Center Park really becoming
polished and finished off. All around the same kind of time. Really create this whole, entire package
together.
Hoffinan: Well if it was approved in tile budget in December, plans and specs could be done by this
spring and bid and then the project would be completed throughout the 2002 construction season for use
in the winter of 2002-2003 and then it'd be available for the following summer.
Howe: Would you gain any economies of scale, and you probably can't answer this but if the company
that builds the library did the shelter, is there any savings there? If the same company did it?
Hoffinan: There could be but i don't see any way of combining the projects.
Howe: You can't combine. They'd have to bid it like anybody else would.
Franks: l've seen some of the library schematics too and it looks like there's some push for a road.
Hoffman: From tile north?
Franks: To cut through and I'm wondering if that, if we'd want to see how that plays out before we look
at a park shelter, or put the park shelter in now to save the integrity of the park.
Hoffinan: The road was actually identified as a part of the planning process for City Center Park. So if
you look in the middle there, the Brower and Associates plan for City Center, this shows a modified thru
street to allow greater visual and then vehicular traffic access to the park site. The discussion about the
road or the access around city hall is, for those individuals living on this side of town, as you drive down
Kerber, they call it the race track in the snowplow business. You guys got the race track. And you're
trying to get to the school. Right now people go Coulter and then they cut back up. If they take Coulter
out and then you need to go all the way down to a stop light, through a second stop light and then through
a third stop light to gei back up to the school. That's going to cause some people to not do that and go On
Santa Vera, which is a residential street which is going to cause those people some hard times and so
there's discussion about, well there's post office and civic and shouldn't we have some way to get
through here and that's what that centered around. That conversation. It has not been a favorite topic of
discussion among the library group or the City Council so they don't seem real excited about it.
Franks: Oh, okay.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
Lash: Okay, anybody else have anything?
Ho£fman: The House Majority leader, Tim Pawlte spoke today at the Chamber meeting. Ed Oliver and
Tom Workman were still in session and parks and trails were made his top five list of bread and butter
issues in Minnesota so it was nice to hear and he recognized Chanhassen as having nice parks and trails
that provide good service to our community and to continue investing in those areas so he was a believer
in what you're doing as well.
Manders: Where is the proposed shelter for City Center?
Hoffinan: Are you at the diagram Jim?
Manders: Yeah.
Hoffinan: Right there at that hub.
Lash: If you look over to the right it says warming house.
Manders: Oh there. Okay, I got you.
Hoffinan: Obviously the one model that we do have is the shelter at the recreation center. It's about a
quarter ora million dollar structure as that sits out there today. So it's an expensive endeavor if you want
to go brick to match city hall and brick to match tile rec center. The Chaska model, which serves tile
function that they're using it very nicely is like at Pioneer Park and Friendship Park. You've seen them,
just a long ranch building with open truss design. Wood with some brick around the bottom so those are
probably $100,000.
Berg: It looks like a Quonset hut without walls. It's very unattractive.
Hoffinan: It's serviceable. It serves a purpose. It's not a long term investment.
Berg: This is probably getting way ahead of the game too, but having stopped up at the skate park the
last couple days, I'd be concerned xvith having the wanning house that close to there, the way they're
trashing that place. That's just an invitation to go over and start trashing there too. It was embarrassing.
To see what they're doing out there.
Moes: That is true. I mean that is close proximity.
Berg: I'm the last one that ever talks about vandalism and defending the kids but boy oh boy. That was
really something.
Ho£fman: It's an item on our agenda later.
Lash: So are there other?
Hoffinan: Other hot buttons?
Lash: No.
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Hoffman: Otherwise I'm going to go ahead and present, develop a 5 year CIP and 2002 recommendation.
Berg: Is the, for Meadow Green, the replacement of Phase I equipment is, I haven't looked at that for a
while. That's getting pretty bad isn't it? Can we wait til 2003 for that?
Hoffman: I was just starting at it the other day walking through and yeah, that's going to be a push. The
issue we're having is, what we don't want to do is, we can uproot and then replace it again and make it
last a few more years. We would just as soon stretch it out and then when it goes away, it goes away and
we replace it with another structure so. That's getting close. It's one of the playgrounds, well it's the
playground that we get the most complaints on. It doesn't match what's in our neighborhood parks. Not
up to date.
Lash: Well it's a very heavily used park.
Berg: It's also a unique neighborhood park. It's a community neighborhood park. It's not like Power
Hill.
Lash: ...with all the ballgames and stuff scheduled there, it gets some pretty heavy use. Was there
another one that we could flip flop?
Hoffinan: I'll go take a look.
Berg: Well if you think it's fine. I guess I'd appreciate just keeping an eye on it.
Hoffinan' 2003 right now?
Berg: Yeah.
Lash: So are we looking then for some kind of consensus on, do we want to have the wanning house in
for 2002 or the trail to Bandimere in 2002? Is that what you're looking for? Some type of agreement.
Hoffman: So far I heard that the trail takes priority.
Lash: Oh, I thought you were leaning towards the warming house?
Franks: Well I'd like to see them both in on 2002 personally.
Lash: I would too but.
Manders: Given a vote though I would go with the trail.
Berg: I would too because of the need for the trail and also the ambiguity with the warming house and
location, the library and skate park and everything else. There's just too much, to me there's to° much
mystery.
Moes: I think that needs to be settled a little more.
Franks: I just have these visions though of this great library and plaza and wonderfully getting finished
off, City Center Park and this trailer pulled up there for the winter.
13
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: It's just for a couple months.
Franks: You know we ought to go get that sussel garage, or whatever that was and bring her back you
know. Restore it.
Moes: The trailer is white and it blends.
Lash: Any other questions or comments on this?
Franks: Are we ever putting a bench in on the knoll? In Prairie Knoll Park?
Hofflnan: Can.
Franks: Was there ever any thought of doing that? I bike ride there and run by there and things so I
thought that'd be pretty cool.
Hoffman: We have money this year for benches.
Lash: Okay, anything else? No one? Okay. Somebody want to, do you need a motion?
Hoffinan: No.
Moes: I'm sorry Jan. Can I ask one more question?
Lash: Sure.
Moes: In moving, you were talking the park shelter, warming house. If we change components do we,
do you move the funds associated with them or can we, I mean if we push the park shelter and warming
house back, does the $275,000 follow that or do we have $275,000 to spend in 2002?
Hoffman: It would stay with the trail. So the money would switch over to the trail, the 101 south trail.
Moes: The 275 would or the dollars associated with the 2003 and the trail move forward?
Hoffman: 2003 the trail's not there. And so if the shelter moves over you'll allocate 275 to the shelter in
2003 and then in 2002 you need to allocate, I think it's 250 estimated. I'll update the estimate...
Moes: Alright.
Lash: Okay. Are we done?
Franks: Fred, I'm iust wondering how you'd feel about transferring the playground equipment from
Herman Field to Meadow Green. If we could just transplant them around.
Lash: Well I'm not interested in putting anything else at Herman Field.
Hoffinan: Neither is the neighborhood.
14
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
Lash: I mean it just gets vandalized.
Berg: What do we have allocated at Herman?
Franks: Nothing. I mean pull up the playground.
Lash: Oh!
Franks: And put it in Meadow Green.
Berg: I see what you're saying.
Lash: That'd be fine by me. They'd have to go a long ways to vandalize it.
Moes: Would we have to poll the neighbors to do that?
Berg: See I was going to say, do we have to.
Moes: That's something to explore, isn't it?
Berg: We owe them the courtesy of letting them know what we're thinking of doing obviously.
Lash: Due to a high level of vandalism we're removing it before it's totally destroyed.
Franks: And as a safety issue, it creates less of a draw to.
Lash: The vandals.
Franks: The vandals to come down there. It removes targets of their occupation.
Lash: We'll keep an eye on it for a while and then.
Hoffman: Okay, do you want a neighborhood meeting on that?
Lash: No, not really. Can you just send a letter? Do we have to have a neighborhood meeting or can we
just send a letter and say if, you know if you have any comments, e-mail you. And then if it looks like
there's some kind of a major uprising then we could have a meeting if we need to.
Hoffinan: That's fine.
Lash: If we call one, then they're all going to come in.
Hoffman: Talk to you about everything else.
Lash: You know we hate to have people come in and talk to us.
Hoffinan: We can send out a letter and then you can gauge that and make a recommendation to the
council.
15
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
Lash: What's over there? I mean is it something that would fill the bill?
Hoffman: Oh it's pretty nice, yeah.
Franks: Yeah, it's nice equipment.
Hoffman: And it has a second phase that would be completed.
Lash: And I know that you can very correctly phrase the letter saying, you know a lot of tax. Well it's
not tax money. A lot of city money has been spent on this equipment and with the rate of vandalism, we
need to protect our investment and we'd like to take it out for a few years and see how it affects the usage
of the park and then re-evaluate. See what happens.
Hoffman: There is a difficulty in managing that park. lfxve imagine the playground equipment is gone,
then all we have is an open field and a parking lot at a dead end and what is that saying? What have we
delivered to the community? A dead end party spot.
Franks: Well I'd like to turn that area into the free dog range. This is part of my master plan. Once it's
no longer being frequented by children, it creates a more safe area for people to have a free dog range
area. And when you think about Herman Field and how it's kind of down in a bowl, it creates a real
natural area to go out and train your dogs or let them run.
Hoffman: Think of master plan.., lucky to' get that one through the neighborhood. Take the playground,
give you the dogs.
Lash: Well don't mention that in the letter. No long range plans.
Hoffinan: I want bold thinking. That's bold thinking. I always thought of the dog park having to be in
line the community center, if we had one, but we really don't have a nice open field in out' community
center. Herman Field... Herman Field is a good lesson in what you get for nothing is not always. That
park came to us for nothing.
Lash: What you get for nothing is usually well worth it.
Berg: Are they still having all the problems with vandalism even though they've increased the
neighborhood watch and they went through all of the training and, it's still a problem?
Hoffinan: They call a lot. They call Deputy Potts a lot...
Lash: Well we may have to have some creative thinking about what then would happen there. Maybe
that will be a community garden or something. Who knows?
Hoffinan: Thank you.
Lash: Okay. So you don't need a motion on this? Okay. Let's move on to the recreation programs.
RECREATION PROGRAMS: EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT.
16
Park and Rec Com~nission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: Corey's not here but he's got his reflection here on the Easter Egg candy hunt. Anyone have any
cmmnents to pass onto Corey on this, besides me?
Moes: I think the, let's see the Easter Egg. He captured it, which was not the list the various start times
for the different age groups. Really just announce the one start time. I know the one thing I noticed, it
went very well. We got there on time and I had one in the 0 to 4 group and one in the 9 to 12 group, and
then it was the 5 to 8 so I mean, it was done in 15 minutes. What I did discover though is as we were
walking away, along with all the other people, that some people were just starting to come in anticipation
of the 10:30 start time for the, or 10:40 start time for the 9 year olds so.
Ruegemer: Yep. Yep, we heard a lot of feedback on that.
Lash: So they were late?
Moes: Yeah.
Lash: So you guys didn't stick to the schedule or what?
Hoffinan: No.
Lash: Okay. But you know this is, this has been an ongoing problem. And ! mean it's made a full circle
because I think before we didn't have times listed and then people would colne and they'd miss it. I
mean there's always people that.
Ruegemer: That's why we always had extra candy around for people that did miss it. We kind of did our
own little thing afterwards so I mean we tried to address all the angles and we're not going to be putting
any times on the flyers.
Moes: Because I think, I mean last year and then this year I mean it xvas, it was all done within 20
minutes. So it's not like there's a long lead time for anybody.
Ruegemer: We had to come to tile realization that people are there. They don't care about the Splatter
Sisters. They want tile candy.
Berg: Chocolate.
Ruegemer: As long as the commission is okay with that, that's the way it is.
Lash: I guess that was my...with the Splatter Sisters. I mean it's been very popular so do we want to,
you know screw around with it and go with something new or stick with what's?
Ruegemer: Oh I think for a little variety it probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
Howe: There's always a big crowd in there.
Ruegemer; Oh, they're very popular. It's just as far as, you know are we getting caught in a rut? I mean
good kids groups like this are kind of hard to find too.
Lash: I was going to ask if you need suggestions, there's a couple.
17
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Ruegemer: Definitely.
Lash: One is called the Flyers.
Ruegemer: The Flyers?
Lash: A husband and wife team. I think they're local. They're very good. And have lots of
participation. A lot of songs the kids know. And Trisha and the Tunes.
Ruegemer: Yeah.
Lash: Have xve had them before?
Ruegemer: Oh yes. We had them 3, 4, 5 times but I think Corey had called her and she was like big time
money.
Lash: Oh, so she's made it big.
Ruegemer: It was like $800 or $900 I think it was.
Hoffman; Hit the big time.
Lash: Well we're having the Splatter Sisters come to my school...
Ruegemer: I mean they're great. They're wonderful to work with. They've very friendly and very
receptive.
Lash: The Teddy Bear Band is popular too but they've been around a long time and.
Ruegemer: That's something too that we can talk to our local sponsors you know, for the sponsorship
program. Byerly's do you want to, we've done that before. Where do you want to underwrite the cost of
the band? And a lot of them wilt do that and then we can splash their name.
Lash: Or who's the guy that goes to the ACC, Mr. Jim or something? They have him right at the end.
Does that ring a bell with you? You don't probably read your...
Ruegemer: Jim Miller?
Lash: No. Isn't it Mr. Jim or Mr. Jimmy or he does a concert. I can't remember, but it sounds like he'.s
from a popular. Okay, and then I, being the early childhood educator that I am, I would strongly
encourage you to drop the idea of adding a 2 and 3 year old age group to the coloring contest. Just
because, just because I would. I think if you start with 4, that's plenty early to ask a kid to try and color
and stay in the lines.
Berg: I thought the same thing.
Lash: And having judged many years I would say to go with the age, on the coloring sheet. The age on
the front. The name on the back.
18
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Ruegemer: Well, 1 do agree with you but my wife couldn't even follow simple directions at my house so
here I am with whiteout.
Lash: Whiting out the name? Because she put the name on the front?
Ruegemer: Yep. I had a little word with her but, she's pregnant. You can't reason with a pregnant
woman.
Lash: Yeah, try and help get her straighten out before your daughter starts kindergarten would you
please.
Franks: There is physiological truth to that statement.
Lash: Well I just had...chicks today so I'ln hormonal. We also did paper mache.
Berg: Okay, good job Corey.
Lash: Okay. Sounds like it was fun.
4TM OF JULY CELEBRATION UPDATE.
Lash: The next thing is 4th of July and oh my gosh you got Dippin Dots.
Ruegemer: We got Dippin Dots.
Lash: I read that and I let this, go Corey.
Ruegemer: Corey put that first.
Lash: I knoxv. I know. I can't wait. Come on 4th of July. Sounds great.
Ruegemer: The 4"' of July is rapidly approaching and Corey's been working very hard on getting
concessions. As you see Todd just did hand out kind of the vendors that are secured and xvill be there.
There's I think 10 vendors. The Rotary is not on here and they'll be doing refreshments and beer.
Corey's just in the process of kind of getting that together at this point but we do have some interesting
varieties of food. You can review that at your leisure and let us know if there's any other things that you
would like to see on there, but it does seem like there's a wide variety and hopefully with dinner types of
items that will spread the lines out. That's kind of what our hope is and, there's only one ice cream
vendor but Dippin Dots, but we'll see how that works.
Lash: Them will be a great, big long line for that.
Ruegemer: But that's just kind of an FYI for the commission. Corey did do that today. I was kind of
interested as to where he was and he's doing a great job of getting those vendors secured and we're going
to keep, we're going to get the Chanhassen Boy Scouts out of the main area of the tent and put them out
on the street to free up tent space. We're working on the Rotary as well. It's hard when you get a big
tractor trailer in there as far as the beer and that sort of thing but we're working on making things flow
better within the side of the tent.
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: I think, didn't we make a suggestion last year, and I'm sure you have tile notes, but of moving tile
prize board to the back or something? Didn't we, so that it wasn't right in the center. Right, with the
noise and traffic and that kind of stuff, and then also be sure for the beer thing that they set it up in some
kind ora square where they can have 4 tables going and accommodate people more than just in one line,
and they should maybe invest in more pitchers. Did you hear that? More pitchers.
Ruegemer: More pitchers?
Lash: More pitchers.
Franks: Oh people were, you could buy pitchers from people just to get one. I mean you had to pay
them.
Lash: You know and if they want to put a little you know, deposit fee. You'd have to pay something for
the pitcher the first time when you get it and then you'd get it back when you turned it in or whatever.
However they'd want to work it but it would save a lot on that many people going up there if you could
bu.5, a pitcher.
Franks: And don't go with fewer Port-a-Potties then you had either. Definitely. More would probably
be better.
Ruegemer: Do you guys like the hand sanitizers within, inside? Or is that not a big issue9
Lash: I don't touch anything when l'm in there so I wouldn't want to touch a hand sanitizer. You would
want to touch it?
Ruegemer: The hand sanitizer?
Lash: Yeah. Okay, xvell just think about it. Okay, who's hand just touched it right before you put, you
know?
Berg: Well then you wash the hands and open up the door with the 25,000 people that haven't used the
hand sanitizer. So it's a moot point anyway.
Lash: Yeah, you just kind of use your elbow for everything in there. I don't know what you guys use...
Berg: Talk about party expert.
Lash: I've been married 21 years.
Manders: You can be part of the entertainment.
Ruegemer: If you look on the back here it says, it's our new schedule of events and anything else you'd
like to see. We're kind of the, Corey and I didn't really talk about the kind of physical arrangements of
everything. So we're just trying to make it all work with where our power source is. If we stretch
vendors all the way down City Center Drive to the west. Where we need some additional power kind of
down that xvay so we'll be working on getting that arranged and figured out so.
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: And then I know every year we talk about this, trying to I don't know, get a local church or the
PTC or the Snowmobile Club or whoever is interested in fund raising to set up some carnivals. Or I
mean, not carnivals. More games, more carnival games. Now they're always looking to make money.
It'd be an easy way to make some fast money for PTC.
Franks: Well was the hockey association successful last year?
Ruegemer: They made some money doing what they're doing, but I know Susie Blank just had another
baby not too terribly long ago so I don't know how committed she would be but it's worth a phone call.
Lash: No, even if the PTC from Chan.
Franks: I was just saying if they were successful that'd be like an example of how to do something that
was really entertaining. I mean that was busy all night long.
Lash: What did they have?
Ruegemer: A goal with hockey players and then you try to shoot the points in the goal.
Lash: But when you think of PTC, they already have from the family...that they have you know and ali
the, l mean they already would have so much of the stuff and they probably have an extra supply of
leftover prizes and everything that would cost them practically nothing to set it up and they would make
hordes of money.
Hoffinan: We'll get a list of contacts and we'll send a mailing.
..
Lash: For Bluff Creek too.
Ruege~ner:. Clarification. PTC.
Lash: Parent Teach Child. PTA. PTO. What do they call it here?
Ruegemer: You know I think we've explored that possibility in the past, and I thought there was with the
summer break.
Hoffman: It's just always tough to get people on July 3fa. Really tough, but we'll send a letter to those
organizations.
Lash: Check Bluff Creek Elementary too and see. I don't know who's.
Hoffman:' Ail the clubs.
Lash: Or Girl Scouts. And then do we have the, because I don't see Jacob's Ladder on here. Did that go
away?
Ruegemer: No. That can happen.
Lash: Okay. And how about Bingo? Didn't we kick around setting up Bingo too? Oh wait. Oh yes,
usually St. Hubert's is up for that. I think that's who used to, or the Rotary used to do it but St. Hubert's
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
used to have it at their big chicken fry thing. Again, easy way to make money. How about the people
working on Roundhouse?
Ruegemer: Roundhouse?
Lash: No, I'm not kidding you. I'm not. You know, they could go to some outfit and either rent a bingo
set-up or.
Hoffinan: You have to have a license of some sort.
Ruegemer: It gets into the gambling commission.
Hoffman: But they could do something else. Run games.
Lash: They could even have a little booth set-up you know by, and make a, I don't know. Whatever they
can come up with.
Hoffinan: Roundhouse game.
Lash: Okay. Sounds fun.
Manders: Small question. How much do we spend on the Casa Blanca?
Ruegemer: Oh, it's like 35. I think it's at $3,500.
Lash: Do you think that they charge more because it's a peak night than say like if they just went and did
a gig some Saturday night at some club?
Ruegemer: I do not know° We can ask.
Hoffman: We'll call Chaska. See whattheyjust charged.
Lash: Yeah, because they were just there in December and there just weren't that many people there and
we sat there that night and thought, how can this place pay them $3,500. They had to have lose money
with what they're charging cover charge was 5 bucks a head and there's maybe 100 people in there tops.
So ! thought they, not to say that they're gouging us because I enjoy having them but I just thought it was
kind of interesting.
Hoffinan: I can't believe you didn't get that information right that night Jan.
Lash: I did go up there and I talked to the band after but I told them I was a groupie.
Hoffman: Chanhassen groupie.
12sh: Yes, that's exactly what I said. Okay, anybody have anything else?
Berg: I've got a comment but I'm not going to say it.
ADMINISTRATION: SKATE PARK.
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Hoffinan: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the commission. Tile skate park is again this season just
incredibly popular. We've been dealing with random incidents there. With mostly inappropriate
behavior. Kids hassling other kids. Provoking fights. Under aged smoking. Those types of things. The
litter issue just almost exploded the weekend that the park opened so Monday morning people went to
work. They came to City Hall. 'They went downtown, and I spent about the first half of my dad
consoling people that thought this was the worst thing we ever did on the face of the earth because our
downtown looks like.., calling and stopping in and they just couldn't believe how we could operate such
a facility that would generate so much trash. Lots of good ideas obviously and what I came down with is
that, to be successful the users really have to take some responsibility for the facility. I've threatened to
take it away. Taking it away. Fencing it off. Doing those type of things. Sure, I could take it away. It's
going to, the trash is going to go away but it's not what the skate park is about. The skate park is about
providing a service to an under provided for group of our citizens in our community. So I wrote the
letter. I sent this letter via e-mail. I don't know, you probably received it in the e-mail. It was published
in the Villager. I received 3 calls from residents thanking me for writing the letter, having some of the
same feelings. For about a week then I went over there on a daily basis, handed the letter out the
participants at the skate park and they started talking to each other. There has been some increased level
of care at the skate park, but it certainly has not stopped the problem. Saturday morning, Sunday
morning there's still plenty of trash. Jerry was out there cleaning it up. I was out picking it up this past
weekend. So if you got up there on a Saturday morning, there's no park maintenance personnel on staff.
The trash is laying out. Generally, right on this bank right here where the people drive by near the school
or church or the post office and it doesn't present a very good impression of the skate park and the kids
that are using it. So they recognized that. These other issues have been handled either by Jeff Mexter,
the CSO. No surprise thatthe deputies are not paying a great deal of attention. As much as we request
that they do, it falls fairly low on their priority list and they're just not spending time there. Not to
critique or criticize the contract, but that is one of the things that you lose when you contract for public
service. If these were town cops sitting in the town city hall, I think they are going to pay more attention
to it than a user program such as the skate park. So that's the realities that we face. We continue to
receive increased heat about the skate park and the activity levels there. Many of these kids come from
out of town and I don't particularly think that's a bad thing. In fact the supermarket over here things it a
great thing. You probably generate about 15% of their revenue. So it's a popular event. Very positive
for the most part. Tile one tiling we can look forward to is that as Shorewood and Eden Prairie, Victoria
bring on their skate parks, it's going to disperse the use. Just FYI, the reviews on the Victoria skate park,
~vhich is Ramp Tech which is cheaper. That's why they went with it, have not been good. The kids do
not enjoy skating at Victoria. The ramps are very small and that's the reason they're less expensive. If
you recall Ramp Tech had a lower bid for the second phase of our skate park. Shorewood is very close to
putting their park in. Chaska's experiencing problems with their skate park, even at a higher degree than
our's because of it's isolation. Where it happens to be located.
Lash: Where is this?
Hoffman: Lion's Park. Down in the east end of town. So I place this on your agenda simply to keep you
up to date and to ask that any ideas or management philosophies that you may have. One thing we're
talking about, maybe bring this forward. One thing we're talking about is fencing, continuing that fence
line around this just for security. The steps will go in. The covered shelter area will go in for adults,
spectators. And then in the winter we don't have to put a temporary fence up. We just close the gates to
the fence that is there. By completing the fence, if we choose to do that, it also creates two entries so
bikes and the other apparatus that are finding their way into the park are more difficult to get into. It's
easier to say, right there at the gate you post bikes are not allowed. That what causes some of the tension
23
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
bem, een the users that are there. Kids that want to protect the use for the inline skates and the
skateboards and then the bikes show up and they start hassling each other. Hey, no bikes. Get the bike
out of here and stuff. The kid on the bike is bigger, there starts to be some conflict there.
Lash: Would there be, I'm just thinking out loud...but would there be some type of a warning, like a
written warning system or something that we could try and implement just so that, and I don't know who
would write them out. It could even be posted as rules or something, that if you see people violating and
you want to rat them out, call city hall and rat them out and we'll write them up a warning and say, you
know it's been reported that you were using the park inappropriately and if we see your name coining
through again, this will be referred to you know, I don't know. Some kind of power or, I don't know.
Manders: Like put up a camera and ,,h~,,,, -ope
Hoffman: Yeah, it's tile identification that's going to be tile biggest tiling because the people that are
going to call are going to be the 15 year olds and once they get called on it, they're going to call on six of
their other buddies so.
Berg: The worst is going to be the parents that get upset because their little kid doesn't have the same
opportunities that the 15 year old has.
Manders: I mean it's just like the bus. You know they put a camera on there and do you have more
respect or less chaos on the bus because they thing the camera's, there xvhen there is no camera?
Berg: Usually there isn't.
Manders: But I mean if you did out here, you'd have something to.
Lash: But you don't know who they are.
Manders: True.
Hoffman: You don't know xvho they are. You have to back it up with action and nobody's going to sit
and watch you video tape for 8 hours.
Berg: I don't think we can make a threat that we can't follow through on. I'd like to see us complete the
fence. And if things get out of hand, just say we're going to close the park for a week and if it happens
again xve're going to close it for 2 weeks. And you have to start policing the area. When I was up there,
I was first of all incredibly impressed with the caliber of the people. The skateboarders. Holy mackerel.
I'm happy to stand up. I mean they were doing just incredible things, and there is an etiquette. You were
right. You said that a long time ago. There is an etiquette to how they do these things and when they let
the kids go and all that and they had taken one of the blue barrels and it was not chained anymore so they
were doing barrel jumps, and I went over and ran, they were smaller than me so I could intimidate them
and I just said, you know you're not supposed to be doing this and all that. Well it was here. And I said
well it's just not supposed to be done. And so I set it back up and they were very nice and I sort of
stalled around and waiting, looked around the corner and they had left it where it was supposed to be and
all that. There xvasjust a lot of litter. I didn't hear any of the swearing. I kicked some bikes off. There
were 3 kids on bikes that had to leave but I didn't hear the swearing and the other things as much as it
xvasjust hard to skate sometimes because of all the litter. Especially on this end. I ran into a parent
xvhen I was leaving and she tried to tell me that she would be happy to coordinate a parent volunteer
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
group that would self police the area because she was concerned that her kid wasn't going to get to come
up here anymore.
Hoffman: That's one of the more popular ideas.
Berg: I told her in as nice a tone as I could, that I didn't think it was a very good idea. Just because
parents do a lousy job of policing. They're the worst at chaperoning dances and everything else because
they'll take care of their kid, but they're never going to go up to another strange kid and say, would you
please not do that because they're intimidated by kids. Most adults are. Many adults are. So I told her
I'd suggest that and I can even give you her name if you're interested in talking to her sometime. She
said she'd be happy to organize it, but I was trying to be as gentle as possible in suggesting that it's not a
very good idea.
Lash: Yeah, but if they could just write them up. They wouldn't have to confront them.
Berg: Well even if they could just be there, maybe that will make the difference. Maybe they don't have
to. They didn't know who I was and they were very respectful to me. Maybe just having an adult there
would work. I don't know. If they want us to get involved and start writing things up and then whatever,
I don't think they will. But maybe just being there and walking over and policing a little bit and saying
hey, do you want to help me with this or whatever. And then just, if they don't take care of it, close it up.
That's what we do with our kids at home. If you don't do what you're supposed to do, you lose the
privilege.
Franks: I had an idea along the stone line. That if the neighborhood watch is successful, skateboard
watch is something along the same model. Although it's used so heavily throughout the day and every
day, that having someone there all the time is not really viable. But if we could have it developed on
intermittent schedule, which is the schedule which reinforces behavior to it's maximum, which means
that there's no real defined schedule when the neighborhood or skateboard watch person shows up, it
reinforces the behavior that that person is trying to institute more strongly than a defined schedule.
Hoffman: Yeah, it's 112 hours a week that the skate park is open. When it first got going there was a lot
of talk about a CSO should be there. We should schedule for that. A park police person should be there,
because if you put ! or 2 volunteers there, I would think it would have to be 2 volunteers. Most of these
kids recognize that I'm somebody coming out of city hall when I go over there and most of them that you
approach, because they're having problem behavior, could really care less and they're there to take you
on because that's just where they're at in their life. Similar experience with Councilman Labatt,
Hennepin County Deputy Sheriff. Big guy. Approaches these kids and says you know I think it's about
time for you to leave and their response back well, I don't know who you are that's going to make me
leave this place but I'm not going anywhere mister. And until he pulls his badge and says well if you
want me to pack that up with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, I'll go ahead and do it. You get, you
don't get a response that you want out of the disciplinary action. And so if we have a parent group, what
are we going to do? They're going to have cell phones or radios there and consistently be calling for
back up. There is a tendency in that atmosphere, when you go over there, that they escalate their
behavior.
Franks: My second thing is, I would agree with the fencing because it creates a defensible space by
having it completely enclosed and that's one of the other things in urban planning is when you have
problems with space and unwanted behavior and you create a defensible space and fencing is one thing
that does that.
25
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Howe: It's not a lot of the kids. It's a small minority I would think, right? Everybody might litter but.
Hoffman: Last week we had, there was kind ora fight brewing and then some alcohol, but not at the
location but kids that had been drinking and then Jeff Mexter and the CSO handled that and it left that
site and went off to another park site and there was some, kids were taken in and some things confiscated
and stuff. Some of that stuff happens and it's kind ora focus for a little while.
Franks: My third idea xvas that periodically if things don't clear up, the fire department could
inadvertently xvhile cleaning out their pumper trucks have a mis-spray issue. I'm thinking that would
cool things down.
Lash: You mean while they're in there?
Franks: I'm sorry?
Hoffman: Yeah, if we fence it we have a very definable point of entry where you can post messages that
are easily recognized.
Manders: Is the trash stuff, is it where they're taking barrels and just dumping stuff out or it's not even
getting to the barrels?
Hoffman: A little of both but mostly it doesn't get in the barrels.
Berg: Mostly it's just sitting on the ground next to the barrel.
Lash: Inside the park itself, or is it all over everywhere?
Hoffinan: It blows all over:
Lash: But if it's fenced in it wouldn't blow all over so, then they have to skate around it. Eventually that
gets to be not fun.
Hoffinan: That was another idea. Just let it pile up.
Berg: That's another thing this woman was saying that she could help maybe coordinate or whatever is
get some volunteers to go up there and just clean it in the mornings. She said she goes up there at 7:00 in
the morning so that her kid...
Lash: Yeah, let's make sure all the parents are going up there and cleaning up the trash after these kids,
yeah.
Hoffman: Scheduling.
Lash: Yeah, you post a sign and say. These are some of the issues we're dealing with right now. If
these don't stop, it's going to be closed for a week.
Berg: A week to clean it up.
26
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
Franks: I'm hesitant to get involved in starting a power struggle with groups.
Howe: How else you going to do it? I don't think there's any other choice.
Lash: That's not a power struggle. That's a natural and logical consequence of their behavior. If they
want to use it, there's minor things they have to do. There's very few rules they have to follow. I know
you're the psychologist.
Franks: I'm not saying not to go there. I'm just suggesting that. If there are other options to try before
engaging in.
Lash: Hose them down with the fire truck?
Berg: Well I think there's ways to present it.
Franks: Cool them down.
Berg: There's ways, the way you present it can maybe help avoid the power struggle too. If you come
on like a storm trooper, they're going to react that way. But if you come on with a velvet glove and
appeal to, you know there are consequences for our actions. We don't want to do this any more than you
do but.
Lash: We've been experiencing, I mean your letter, I mean we've been experiencing difficulty with
litter. What else?
Howe: Profanity.
Lash: Profanity.
Manders: Fights.
Berg: Inappropriate actions.
Lash: Fighting, you know whatever. And our goal is to keep this open for you, and if your goal is the
stone as our's you'll follow these simple rules. If these rules are not followed, the following
consequences that it will be closed.
Hoffinan: One of my fears is that the individuals that choose not to act appropriately are also ones that
don't react very well to making the threats and then you.
Manders: They'll do it just to close it.
Hoffinan: Well yeah, you're affecting the majority which does not have the problems in an attempt to, as
society change behavior of the minority which, it's a tough spot.
Lash: But then you've got a lot of peer pressure there too.
Franks: Well anti social types don't really care too much about peer pressure. I mean maybe there's a
way to assert peer pressure and you, you're out there and you see kids behaving appropriately in Subway
27
Park and Rec Commission Meeting- April 24, 2001
or McDonald's or some of the other businesses that are benefiting from the skate park by keeping skaters
off their sidewalks and bothering their customers and out of their establishments, you know kick in with
the coupons like they do for the school kids and it's like hey, you know what you're doing a good job out
here. I saw you throwing away your trash. Here's your 6 inch sub coupon. Tell your friends. You know
this is what happens and I mean there's, I'm just, I would like to spend some more time. If it gets to that
point where you know more drastic type behavior is needed that we.
Hoffinan: Just since this little campaign there has been some increased peer pressure and tile fringe kids
will be affected by that. The ones that are easily swayed back towards tile positive because these kids,
once they get this in their hand. They read it and the ones that were there yesterday and the day before
that got it, they all go oh, we know what that is. If we don't keep our park clean they're going to close it
down.
Moes: I heard Todd you mentioned fights and then alcohol related, what age group was this? I mean
was it a wide age group or was it.
Hoffinan: Oh probably 17-18.
Moes: Okay, so there are 17 and 18 year olds that are frequenting the park now?
Hoffinan: Sure.
Moes: Is that becoming a bigger percentage of participants?
Hoffinan: That's another good question is, I would think xve may want to make that a no Smoke
environment. No smoking environment. Just propose that rule.
Berg: That should be an automatic.
Hoxve: Yes, absolutely.
Lash: Inside the fence. Well yeah, because it's all kids in there isn*t it?
Hoffinan: Well there are adults skating in there as well.
Lash: Well they can step outside if they need to smoke.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS: None.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET:
Lash: I noticed we had a blast from tile past here with Eric Rivkin pesticide.
Hoffinan: Yeah, isn't that something. Still out there. You notice the soccer fields going away?
Franks: Yeah.
28
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - April 24, 2001
Lash: Thank you for sending the note to the environmental commission.
Hoffman: You're welcome.
Lash: Did you hear anything from Jill or anyone?
Hoffinan: They just had the, those brush days are ovetwvhelmingly, just very, very busy.
Lash: But it sort of makes my point doesn't it?
Hoffinan: Sure does.
Berg: Did we send a note to Instant Web thanking them for all the years of letting us use that area for
soccer?
Ruegemer: I don't think we have done that yet. We certainly can.
Berg: I think that would certainly be nice.
Lash: Do we have any kind of other official something you can send?
Berg: In this day and age it's nice to have a corporate leader who's community concerned.
Lash: You knoxv like if we had a nice aerial picture of their place that they wouldn't have or, I don't
knoxv, a plaque or something... Okay, anyone have anything else? No?_ Okay, is there a motion to
adjourn?
Berg moved, Moes seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted
in favor and the meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffinan
Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
29