Loading...
1g Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, and Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Peterson arrived after the Consent Agenda. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Matt Saam, Bob Generous, Bruce DeJong, and Jill Sinclair Public Present for All Items: Name Address Wayne Fransdal Judy Meier Bruce Feik Deb Lloyd Jan & Jerry Paulsen 6200 Murray Hill Road 695 Pleasant View Road 1773 Valley Ridge Trail South 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Tristan Heights, R{dgehill'Road, Lundgren Brothers: 1) 2) 3) Final Plat Approval Approve Utility Plans & Specifications and Development Contract Approve Revised Joint Powers Agreement b. Approval of Bills. C. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 29, 2001 - City Council Minutes dated May 29, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated May 15, 2001 do Approval of Private Redevelopment Agreement, Lot 2, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition, Steiner Development. e. Approval of Temporary Beer License, Chanhassen Rotary Club, Fourth of July Celebration. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. City Council Meeting - June 11, 2001 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT LOCATED IN TRACT D, RLS 18 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE, 695 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, THOMAS MEIER. Matt Saam: Madam Mayor, Council members, thank you. Staff has received a request from Thomas Meier, property owner at 695 Pleasant View Road in Chanhassen. His request is to vacate a portion of a roadway easement. The impetus for his request is his wish to construct a garage in his front yard area. Any proposed garage in his front yard would encroach into the city's current 30 foot structure setback requirement. As such he would like us to vacate the easement. In reviewing his application, there are two main issues that staff considered. First, future access for the property to the north. Property to the north of 695 Pleasant View 'is a large lot, approximately 1 acre in size. It has the potential ability to develop in the future. It's current access is off of Pleasant View Road. I went out and looked at the site for a potential access off of the cul-de-sac. The northerly lot is approximately 8 to 10 feet higher in elevation than the current cul-de-sac so it would be virtually impossible to construct a public city street to our current standards because of 7% slope grade requirement. The second issue we looked at was emergency vehicle turn around capability in the existing cul-de-sac. The existing cul-de-sac is currently substandard in nature. Very narrow. The Fire Marshal and I went out to the site and his basic opinion was that currently fire trucks cannot turn around in the cul-de-sac as it is today. Whether or not we vacate the easement, that would make no difference. As such, staff is recommending approval of the vacation of the easement with the conditions outlined in the staff report. I'd be happy to take any questions. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Councilmembers, any questions for staff at this point? Seeing none, this is a public hearing. If you'd like to address the council on this issue, if you would approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, we'll bring this back to council. Any discussion council? Okay, otherwise if I could have a motion. Councilman Ayotte: So moved. Mayor Jansen: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Resolution g2001-35: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating a portion of the existing roadway easement located in Tract D of Registered Land Survey #18 as defined in the attached vacation description, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing public watermain. 2. The front, rear, and side lot lines of the applicant's lot shall be identified as follows: Front lot line - east property line. Rear lot line - west property line. Side lot lines - north and south property lines. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner, Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Project Engineer COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Jansen Public Present for All Items: Name Address Janet & Jerry Paulsen Deb Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive OATH OF OFFICE: Chairwoman Blackowiak administered the Oath of Office to Bruce Feik. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 32,000 SO. FT. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING BUILDING (PHASE I) ON A 5.4 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK) LOCATED AT 2860 WATER TOWER PLACE, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2~ ADDITION, PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, does anyone have questions for staff?. You're nodding Deb. Why don't you step in. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a couple questions. Thanks for clarifying the impervious surface. I have that question, about the 75% and that must mean that the other buildings are way below if the average is still only 65% or whatever you said it was. Generous: Well they varied the least amount was 56.7% and the most was 75. Kind: And do you know what the applicant's reasons are for the number of parking stalls exceeding, let's see, I think it's by 26? Is that what it is? Yeah, they have 26 extra stalls. Generous: Not their specific reason. It could be that the safety in numbers. I'm not sure. Kind: I'll ask the applicant that. And then there's one other question and that had to do with your comment about the west wall. I've got to see ifI can find the page. I'm looking here. Let's see. I lost it Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Bob. Do you remember where that was when you were talking about the west wall and it's not adorned? Oh, it's in the summary part. Generous: Yeah, it's in the summary. It's also in the architecture. Kind: Well actually the question I have is, it's not included in a condition. The idea of using the three building materials on that west wall and would you be okay with that in as a condition? Generous: Yes. It's in the second paragraph on page 2. Kind: Thank you. The west elevation shall incorporate the three primary materials along it's length is kind of the language I was thinking about. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, any other commissioners questions? Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. I'm wondering Bob if you could explain how the loading docks will be screened. I see some wall extensions and I guess berming and landscaping is a concern because the building site is really perched up at a high elevation and it will be visible from 5. Generous: I need to go to the grading plan. The site, it will be higher than, significantly higher than Highway 5 and that in itself acts as a berm so the site views will be over the top. You won't see the base of the building specifically from Highway 5, and the loading docks themselves are actually lower than this elevation. There will be a 3 foot berm. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. Bob, the building will be significantly lower than Highway 5, right? Generous: No, it will be higher. Kind: Okay. Generous: But the loading dock will be lower than the edge of the property so it will be sunk below the sight line. The 3 foot berm in this area of the property and then the site runs down and I don't remember the finished floor elevation. Maybe Mr. Richter knows what they're going to put. In the future there will be additional buildings to the north. There's the 20 acre piece on the comer will have a corporate headquarters site so there will be significant buildings there. Additionally right on Highway 5 we anticipate more commercial type uses. Hotel, maybe a restaurant. Office building up there so those will help to screen the back side but the specific screening would be the landscaping berming on the north side of the property. Sidney: And the applicant is aware of that and will be screening as much as possible? Generous: Yes. Well they've seen the staff report. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have a few questions. Can you point, you're requesting additional parking peninsula's. I mean peninsula's in the parking. Could you point out where they are for clarification please. Generous: One on the north end of this eastern parking lot and then two additional ones on the north parking area. That basically is 1 every 100 feet that our ordinance requires. It's a good rule of thumb that we use. Our vehicular use areas require a landscape island for every 6,000 square feet of area and so that's, because it's a 62 foot general width, that's every 100 feet you should see one. Sacchet: Thank you. That answers that one. Then my second question, there seems to be some unclarity in relation to the Bluff Creek Overlay District. In a report you're making a case that it appears that it is within the secondary corridor of the Bluff Creek Overlay, but then you go on explaining that you think well the line is really not applicable anymore because there was some wetland alteration. And that the second rezone should be pushed to the other side of the street there, whatever the road is called. Which all sounds fairly reasonable. My concern however is, who decides where those lines are? I mean it does seems to me this Bluff Creek Overlay boundaries shouldn't just that easily be pushed around wherever we want them or don't want them. So my question is, who decides where those lines really are? Aanenson: That's a good question. This project came in under an area wide review. An environmental assessment document was done on this project. All the wetlands and the forest and inventory was done and a plan was put in place that they are following. When the overlay district was put in place it ignored the fact that this already had an environmental assessment document done and they are following that and that is really the guiding document for this. We already allow these, there's a wetland to be altered with the plan so those have' already been removed so the problem with the overlay district ignored that. We believe that the way the rules are in place is what we should be following and that's the environmental assessment document so that's the guiding document. The environmental assessment and it did contemplate the wetlands. All the things that would apply to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and that's why we incorporated saving those properties. These two large wetlands and leaving those as open space, and alteration of those fingers. So it's already been altered is what we're saying. The overlay district. Sacchet: And it was altered by the assessment? Aanenson: Correct. That was the overriding document, so that's the document that we're following. Sacchet: So to answer then the question who decides where these lines are, who makes those environmental assessment sheets? Aanenson: We did when we adopted their environmental assessment. We approved that as part of this PUD. So that is now the framework that we're following. So the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The City Council adopted it and those are the guiding principles that we're following. Sacchet: So it went through the whole due process in terms of city approval, council, input from the residents, what have you? Aanenson: Correct. Correct, and how we manage the storm water. Which property we would preserve, etc. Sacchet: Because I think that's a very important point. If we have this Bluff Creek Overlay and we can just shift those boundaries around whichever is convenient or inconvenient, they're useless. I'm 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 reassured to hear that there's a process to make sure that it done in a proper way. I have a few questions that then go into actually the conditions that were attached here. I know it's premature to address those. What's the difference between condition 14 and condition 28? They both require professional license in State to sign the plans. Is that actually two different professionals or? Generous: No, one was. 28 was building officials comments and he'll deal more with the building itself and the utilities that serve the property. The other one is with the grading from the civil plan. Sacchet: So it's two different people? Generous: It could be the same person but two different issues they have to address. Sacchet: I gathered it came from different departments but I also gathered it could be the same person. There's another one that's worth asking at this stage. Condition 17 talks about manhole 1. That that is basically where eventually the building will be expanded in the future so why wouldn't we put that in a different place from the start? Is there a reason from your end? I'll ask the applicant actually that question but I wonder whether staff had a comment about that. Saam: Planning Commissioners, I can comment on that. Yeah, I would recommend we ask the applicant. It's my guess that the reason they put it there is because that's where they want the service for the building addition to go in, so they'll just remove that pipe when they add the new building in, but again we could ask the applicant. Sacchet: Thanks. That's all my questions Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Rich, do you have a question? Slagle: Just one question Madam Chair. On the map that was on the overhead screen just a minute ago. Not that one. The one that showed the streets and the lots that had, or the locations Kate. Yeah, there we go. So based upon your comment that a lot of this has been pre-approved in the previous PUD with the Planning Commission, that would say then that we're going to have another lot, I don't remember which one. It may be Lot 1 up above that Outlot A that's going to have the same thing. Where it's been, there was a wetland or something that was understood that we would. Aanenson: That's correct. When this PUD was put together there was a list of uses that could go in there, and then there were design standards that were put in place. There was a wetland alteration. There was also land dedication. The extraction, trails. All that was negotiated as part of the PUD so as each site plan comes in, and Bob has attached for your review, those original framework discussion points so this is what we're measuring that up against. Slagle: And based upon what I saw in seeing this, there's one lot left that will have the same situation where it falls within the Bluff Creek but had some grandfathering clause or something like that in it. Generous: I think that it' s the properties to the east that were in the Bluff Creek Overlay. Slagle: East of Coulter, right? Or east of Century. Generous: Century. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Slagle: Yeah, I think this one right up here I believe. Generous: The north one and the south one would have to receive conditional use permit approval because they are still within where the Bluff Creek, we believe the Bluff Creek Overlay District is. Slagle: Okay. Okay, fair enough. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, any questions of staff?. Feik: No. Blackowiak: I just have one I guess clarification Bob on, Deb touched on the western elevation. Three primary materials but if you read down and look at the final paragraph on that same page, it talks about the post expansion elevation having at minimum 2 building materials. So is it 3 or is it 2? I guess what's your recommendation? Generous: Well 3 would continue the material from the other 3 sides of the building. That was just my take of what that elevation looked like. They had the base block and then the brick above and they didn't continue the striping and I would suggest that they continue that striping across. Blackowiak: Okay. It's a wording thing I guess. Fine. Alrighty. We have no more questions. Will the applicant or their designee like to come forward and make a presentation? Please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Joe Roth: Good evening. My name is Joe Roth. I'm employed by Park Management Corporation. Right now I live in Medina, Ohio. I'll be relocating to Minnesota this month or this summer I should say. I'm here with some other people. Jim Chokan is our Operations Manager out of Chicago. And Victoria Shen and Cintia Ulloa. Sacchet: Welcome. Joe Roth: Thank you. Fred Richter's here as well is our developer. Fred Richter: And I'll probably speak to most of the questions. And if you'd like me to just give you, I think the staff's done a good job of giving an overview but I can kind of clarify several things. First off, on the overall plan, I guess I wasn't aware that the Planning Commission really hasn't seen our rendition on a larger color overlay. I just want to give you a little overview. This park went through the city PUD AU. Aanenson: AUAR. Fred Richter: AUAR for '97. It became then a development contract with the city that we would follow certain guidelines and so on. It was a very elaborate process and in that process certain wetlands were actually intensified. NURP ponds were created. We have a central storm water drainage and then the city followed through with several utility and street projects. One of the features of the Arboretum Business Park is it's topography. It steps from almost 50 feet from the lower area here up to the top. The terrace is, which impacts this one. This building will be set at 993. For your reference, Highway 5 at the intersection of 41 is about 990. It raises up to a point about 997 where it intersects with Century Boulevard and then starts to dip down. And that actually becomes the new grading project which... So Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 to answer your question 5 for the most part is on grade with this project. One of the features of the park building 2 is quite a bit lower. I don't recall the exact elevation there but it's probably 15-20 feet lower than this building and hence this lot here will be about another 15 feet higher. The highest point is 1015, which is right by the water tower. So you can kind of get a sense of the topography. One of the things then from a landscape feature, these sloped areas will be heavily landscaped and the park has kind of a built in break-up of the different industrial buildings so it gives it character through the terracing. In addition to the landscaping and streetscape that is part of it's own package. As far as this project is concern, the two major images, the back corner probably viewed as people enter on Century and then as people come up Water Tower, the real front entrance of the building, which becomes the rendering. So this is the approach coming up Water Tower Place. Front entrance of the building. This is the east elevation, and there's been some discussion about the west elevation. The west elevation, the owner desires an expansion. Well Parker Hannifen is a large corporation that's investing in Minnesota. Making this a major part of the worldwide enterprise and they want this one to expand. As stated we're going from the original 32,000 square feet to 64,000 square feet. There was one question about parking numbers. A lot of that has to do with, we kind of over built the parking to begin with, so their concern is to be able to tear that wall out and integrate their factory expansion. If you look at an elevation of that west wall, we have on the corner the same fagade elevations that are to the south and southeast corner and that is the dark burnish block going up to window head height with a brick band and then going into a banding of the burnish scored...about 44 feet, and then we get into the expansion wall which has been detailed as all burnish block. It'd be very easy to accommodate the contrasting colors. So we could make this dark and on top. I think after that adding the brick bands, given the life expectancy of the wall, approximately 5 years, would be kind of a waste of money. And then one other I think mitigating circumstance in this building. This building will be blocked by another building that will come between it and 41. It also steps down so there' s a landscape terrace of this wall. It' s really not viewed by the public to any great extent and it already has, by virtue of this corner, the three materials at this point. The owner did want to go with metal panels...would be easier to tear down and expand. But they're willing to accept the fact that the PUD and other things don't accept the panels on the basic construction of the building... Other than that we've talked with staff and except on the east faqade, the owner is willing to look at a trellis or some recall of this plan over the break area. And then we' 11 do some more vertical landscaping, larger landscaping between the cars and the building to meet the break-up of that east wall. Other than that, kind of just try to get you started. There might be some other detail questions. There was one engineering question, and I think we'll have to work that out with staff because it gets pretty complex. That manhole 1 gets pretty technical. It has a lot to do with building expansion. Having the right invert for future toilets and so on and they, Parker has in-house engineering. We've already looked at an option of doing it another way but the intent there is just to make sure this building...needs to be expanded. I think the other things, storm water and that are pretty straight forward on this site. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. Question about, what does Parker do? We didn't hear about what your capacities are. I heard factory. I hear manufacturing, and I thought I read hydraulics but I wasn't quite sure if I saw that correctly on the sign. James Chokan: Yes, exactly. Parker Hannifen Corporation is located it's headquarters in Urban, Ohio. We're a $6 million company in the Fortune 500. We have 258 locations throughout the United States, and 34 countries and what...we purchased a company at this location in Chanhassen up here about 5, roughly about a year ago. The acquisition was called Commercial Intertech which they purchased a smaller company, CEC about a year before that. This place was actually going to be on the chopping block 6 months ago. A decision was to bring this location back to Chicago and at that time we came up Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 here, took a look at the operation. Saw what this was and decided to move it up to this location. The bought building is leased right now is too small. What we actually manufacture is a metal and steel aluminum block, and it' s cut. It' s formed and then it' s actually shipped all over the world. It' s not heavy machinery but it's hydraulic blocks that we have to ship customers like John Deere, Catepillar... That's the type of product we manufacture. Sidney: One question about, do you require any special ventilation or, I'm thinking about rooftop assemblies or whatever that might be different. James Chokan: In this operation we won't need that. Sidney: There will be standard ventilation type equipment. James Chokan: That's correct. There won't be any burnishing or... Sidney: That's what I was wondering. Blackowiak: Questions for applicant? Sacchet: Well actually you did an excellent job answering the questions. One of my key questions was how soon you would be planning to expand and you said it's going to be about 5 years. James Chokan: It's going to be about 5 years. Sacchet: You're pretty confident about that9. James Chokan: I'd say, my boss wants it in 3 years and I'm hopeful. Sacchet; You think 5 is more realistic though? James Chokan: ...5 year span. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, and then how to make the east elevation more interesting. You addressed that already. There's quite a big chunk with landscaping requirements. You're fine with that? James Chokan: I don't have a problem with that. Sacchet: Landscape, those peninsula's in the parking lot...an issue for you guys? Fred Richter: Let me point out, and I didn't mean to speak here but what we showed on the plan, I'll just call your attention to it. This was really proof of parking. They probably won't use it. And I think in the interim they would prefer to have the truck maneuverability. If we start to get the islands in there. James Chokan: We actually didn't really want any parking spaces along this line here so that's probably where the extras have come from. We wanted this to be open. Generous: If you pave it you need to put the islands in. If you leave it green, then you wouldn't have to. James Chokan: I see. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Fred Richter: You'll have to fine tune those dimensions to make sure the trucks can make the turn. If we do at the same time...setback and try to get that berm in there and I tried to...as I stand here...those islands are going to help the situation but. Other than that Bob, we were okay on the islands on the south. Generous: There was one on the end to protect that last stall. Fred Richter: Yeah, okay. Blackowiak: Uli, more questions? Sacchet: Actually I'm almost through here. The two details. One is the thing that you can have wall signage on one of the walls. I think on your drawings you had it on two of them. I don't know whether that's an issue for you guys. Fred Richter: We labeled them as alternate signage. They would like to, once the building is up, depending on, they have the monument sign, I'll go back to the site plan. They have the monument sign here which is in the rendering. And there's an image out here that kind of, as people come into the business park on Century from Highway 5 and whether or not the sign is going to be in our best interest here or over here, so that can be just one sign depending on how it works out. Sacchet: That's just a detail. And you touched on the manhole. I mean I'm not an engineer but it just seemed funny to put a manhole where then you have to remove it but I' 11 stay out of that one. Blackowiak: Good. Fred Richter: It happened at the base... Blackowiak: Rich, do you have any questions? Slagle: Just two questions Madam Chair. First, Bob are you then comfortable with the peninsula' s? You'll work that out? Generous: Yeah, they'll work it out. Slagle: Okay, good. And then sort of tongue in cheek but just want to make sure. So if I look at this nice rendition of the building and you're going to expand in 5 years, we won't have this many trees. Fred Richter: You will have that many trees. Slagle: Okay. Now will those be in danger of being? Fred Richter: No. Again Bob, you've got to understand Arboretum Business Park is, in the metropolitan area and I say this in all seriousness, a very unique industrial development because most industrial land ends up like down in Shakopee or in fairly flat areas. This was a very hilly, so those trees that are in that rendering are on this hill right here and we can't disrupt that basically. Even when they expand they've got, well I guess right now we're requesting this 64,000 square feet and all that but they would be in the retaining walls and a great deal of expense to maximize it too what basically would be the setbacks. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Then I think when we really get into our floor area ratios and our green coverage, it all works in this park. It kind of grade to these terraces. If you look at our latest building across the water tower to the south, we basically graded to the terraces and everything that falls off of that, you get to the edge of the parking and so on. Slagle: Now is that Heartland America? Fred Richter: Well Heartland and then behind that is the Arboretum... And that whole hill behind Heartland has vegetation growing and will become a bigger feature as time goes on. Slagle: Okay. Well good. Blackowiak: Deb, you have any questions? Kind: Yes I have a question about that parking situation. If you just remove those stalls along that, is that 26? Is it 26 stalls? I mean you've got extra so why not just get rid of those if you need turning radius. Aanenson: That's what he's going to do. James Chokan: There's 30 there and so those weren't even planned. I mean you...so those 30 can go away. Kind: So that would maybe solve your problem and you still meet ordinance with the 82. Or close to it. Maybe you need a few on the side there. And then I have a question about the west elevation. The temporary wall that will be there for 5 years, hopefully less. It's your prOposal that to create more interest on there to actually paint the block? Fred Richter: Oh no. No we are, jUst so you know, we're doing integral colors all the way around the building. I'm saying what we could do, and I'm looking out for their interest cost wide. We could do the banding with this on the lower and then this on the upper. And that's the same thing. What I'd like not to have to have them do is insert the brick banding we have on the east wall and south wall. And I think it's logical because first of all it's removed from Water Tower Place because the building wraps around 44 feet with the windows and the recessed windows and the raised parapet and the other things that they've done to make the building meet PUD guidelines. It is down that terrace from 41 and then 41 will have a building we're hoping within the next year so it really won't be noticed. Kind: My concern is the short term. We don't know how long it's going to take to get a neighboring building and granted you're optimistic that you'll expand in 5 years, but it could be 10 years. It could be never and so I want to make sure that that building looks good for the short term and perhaps the long term. So the net net, if I was to craft a condition, how would I describe that? That it' s 2 of the principle building materials as opposed to 3? Because I think that's reasonable to leave out the expensive stuff or whatever it is but I do think more interest needs to be created on that long expanse. Okay. I think that's it for the applicant. Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions of the applicant? Feik: No, thank you. Not today. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Alrighty, I just had one quick question I guess for Mr. Richter. You talked about Lot, I believe it's Lot 1, Block 1 that you're hoping that it's going to happen within the next year, is that correct? Fred Richter: That would be what I refer to as. Blackowiak: Immediately to the west, correct. Fred Richter: And there has been, just for your knowledge. There was, was that 2 years ago? There was a site plan review that basically was the same as what's currently All About Lights building. And that was...and had the same materials. That was approved for that site. Unfortunately the economics didn't work out. They didn't move ahead with that purchase agreement. I suspect that type of building represents what the market would probably be best for that location. Blackowiak: Okay. Now what is the elevation change between that Lot 1 and is it 15 feet did I hear you say? Generous: It seems like it's 10 feet. Fred Richter: Yeah, it looks like it's 10 feet here so it probably goes, we're 983. That would be 1003. It's probably 1005...AI1 About Lights is about 115, and the Arboretum...is 1015. The base of the water tower is about 1020. Just a little bit of trivia here, it was about 1036 and that was all graded down and then moved to make these sites and ultimately a lot of the dirt was moved to what is called the 5 and 41 comer. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess that's my question for now. So if there are no more questions, this is a public hearing so if there's anyone that would like to get up in front of the Planning Commission and make any comments, please do so. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you have any comments to make. Deb, why don't I start with you. Kind: Sure, if I can start. First of all I think it' s a lovely building. I think it will be a nice addition to our town and with the conditions that staff has outlined and a couple minor tweaks that you could probably guess where I'm going on those. So welcome. I think it will be really nice. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Do you have any comments to make? I realize this is your first meeting. I don't want to put you on the spot but I don't want to ignore you either so. Feilc Don't want to leave me out? Blackowiak: That's right. Feik: No, I've been up to the site. I've looked at this site and the neighboring site buildings. I think it will be a comfortable addition to what's up there now. It will fit in well. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I'm satisfied with the plan. My questions were answered. I think it looks good. 10 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: I like it. Blackowiak: Short and sweet. Slagle: I do too. I guess I have to compliment you all for being here with respect to what's happening downtown tonight between the Twins and Indians. It might be a harder night. James Chokan: I was trying to figure out how I could do this meeting and hit the game. Slagle: Well I think you might be done pretty soon. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I really don't have much new to add. My main concern I guess is I think I tipped my hand a little bit, is the west elevation. I agree with Deb when she says you know, she hopes that the expansion, proposed expansion is in 5 years but I don't want to leave a side unadorned in hopes that something will happen. We have to think about you know our responsibilities to do what's right for the community now so I just want to make sure we're all comfortable with what's happening on that western elevation and I do feel that with a little added interest on the east elevation, that we're going to get a very nice building. So with that I' 11 entertain a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair I' 11 make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-6 as shown on the plans prepared by Steiner Development Inc. dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings in the June 5~h staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through, oh let's see. Sacchet: 33. Kind: 33, with the following additions. Number 34. The west elevation shall incorporate two of the primary materials along it's length. Number 36. Any future building expansion shall incorporate the three primary materials that are the same as used on the first phase. And number 37. Bob, you can help me here. Maybe this is in one of these conditions but I couldn't find it. Proposing a 37 that says the metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD requirement. I couldn't find, it's on the site plans right now that there's a metal material and there's nowhere in our conditions that prohibits that. Generous: Well in the design standards it prohibits the applicant. Kind: I'll leave it as a condition just to make it really clear to the applicant. Yeah, that primary material. The metal, the primary metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD Agreement. That's number 30. Slagle: 6. Kind: 6, thank you. And then I would like to amend number 15. The condition that talks about the handicap accessible parking spaces. I want to just change it to be more flexible in case you change the amount of parking spots to simply say the applicant shall comply with state guidelines regarding handicap accessible parking spaces. Blackowiak: Okay I have a motion. Is there a second? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Sacchet: I second that. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-6 as shown on the plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated May 4, 2001, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. ge The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the eastern building elevation. A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements shall be submitted to the city prior to City Council approval. o Additional landscape peninsulas shall be located in the northern parking lot (two additional) and at the north end of the parking spaces on the east side of the building. Trees shall be added in each of the landscaping peninsulas. If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be installed. 5. All new landscaped areas shall have irrigation system installed pursuant to city ordinance. 6. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. o A decorative, show box fixture 20 foot tall, 400 watt metal Halide lot light with a square ornamental pole shall be used for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded with a 90 degree light cut off. Any wall mounted lighting shall be shielded from direct off site view. . A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lames, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. , Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section #904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 10. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 11. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 28. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The applicant shall comply with state guidelines regarding handicap accessible parking spaces. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. (It does appear however that exiting from the office area does not comply with the code.) Utility Plan: If the addition is built MH 1 would have to be relocated and piping materials must comply with the code. The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance at the time of building permit approval. Grading on the west side of the proposed building needs to be revised to avoid ponding water on the future building site. Move the proposed sidewalk to the west side of the driveway. Also, show this sidewalk on the grading plan. The developer shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Watershed District. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. Revise the site plan and grading plan to comply with the minimum driveway entrance width of 26 feet. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event prior to building permit approval. The rock construction entrance shall be increased to a minimum of 75 feet in length as per City Detail Plate No. 5301. On the detail sheet, show the revised 2001 City detail plates for Nos. 1004 and 5207. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 29. Show the location of the existing street lights along Water Tower Place. Also, show the location of the existing catch basins in Water Tower Place, west of the sanitary sewer stub to the site. 30. Show a benchmark on the grading plan. 31. The site plan needs to be revised to show a proposed 5 foot concrete sidewalk following the main entrance out to the southeasterly comer of the site. 32. The existing water stub to the site is an 8 inch service. As such, an 8" x 6" reducer will be needed. 33. On the site plan, label the drive aisle and entrance widths. Also, show the proposed curb radius at the entrance drive. 34. The west elevation shall incorporate two of the primary materials along it's length. 35. Any future building expansion shall incorporate the three primary materials that are the same as used on the first phase. 36. The primary metal building material shall be prohibited per the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 610 AND 620 CARVER BEACH ROAD, CREEKWOOD, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Guy Swanson Jon Lang Randy & Bobbie Schlueter Jeff Kleiner Phil Hanson Andrea & Paul Eidsness Karl Romportl Marty Campion Bill Coffman 610 Carver Beach Road 640 Carver Beach Road 580 Fox Hill Drive 655 Carver Beach Road 621 Carver Beach Road 630 Carver Beach Road 620 Carver Beach Road Otto Associates Coffman Development Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Are there questions of staff?. Feik: Madam Chair, I do. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Go right ahead Bruce. Feik: I had a question regarding the 60 foot right-of-way versus the requested 50 right-of-way. It seems to me that 60 feet is significantly larger than what's currently in that neighborhood and I'm just wondering what the long range justification of that is for having a small road to this nature if it doesn't conform with the rest of the neighborhood feel. Al-laff: We wanted to show you a subdivision that meets ordinance standards. The fact that there isn't a hardship basically dictated that we recommend a 60 foot right-of-way appear before you. Aanenson: Maybe I can just add a little bit more to that. Staff wanted to bring you, we had a lot of consternation on a previous plat on Lotus Lake. We wanted to bring you a subdivision that met city ordinance. If you choose to do a 50 foot, I guess my position would be that the recommendation come from you and the City Council. So it certainly could save trees but we brought you a plat that meets ordinance. The only question was, there seems to be some ambiguity on the bluff interpretation and we've asked for additional survey on that. Feik: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb. Kind: Yes, I'm sure I have some questions. I had that question too. I think that's a good point. Did staff encourage the applicant to pursue a PUD because this is such a beautiful wooded area. It seems like it would easily meet our requirements for a PUD. Al-Jaff: Yeah, we talked about a PUD at length. We presented them with the PUD ordinance and we thought this parcel fit the definition of a PUD. There are numerous ways to develop this parcel. Aanenson: Let me add to that again too. There's, we talked about a beachlot. Again based on some past experiences I think the cleanest way and the feeling that some of the developers are getting is just to bring a straight subdivision. It gets convoluted and complicated unfortunately in the negotiation process and we like to see that flexibility. Unfortunately it comes back to staff that we may be giving things away so we came, we asked the developer to bring a straight subdivision that met all the city ordinances. Kind: An option that might be kind of halfway between the PUD and a straight subdivision might be in our control would be to relax the rules on that right-of-way. That 50 foot right-of-way or perhaps front yard setback or both. That kind of a thing. I certainly think this site is worthy of saving more of those trees so, but that's getting into my discussion so I'll skip that. Let's see. Sharmin you mentioned in your presentation that you calculated, or you or the applicant, anyway there's 80 by 80 foot pad for tree removal. I thought our ordinance had 60 by 60 foot pad for tree removal. : AI-Jaff.' What, and again we just wanted to make sure everything was covered. Kind: So suddenly we're requiring the applicant to replace more trees than what really our ordinance says? A1-Jaff: What we did was, assuming that you have a 60 by 60 house pad, and assuming that you're going to get that 60 by 60 house, then you need to have equipment that can maneuver around the 60 by 60 house and we thought 10 feet on each side so that gives you an 80 by 80. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Kind: So that's even expanding our ordinance, because it clearly says in the tree preservation part of our ordinance it says 60 by 60 for calculating tree removal. Got it. Aanenson: Right. That is clearly for calculating tree removal. It doesn't mean that's where the house is going to exactly go. It gives us a formula to what percentage could possibly be removed. Kind: We all know about that 60 by 60 foot pad so I'll move on. Oh, at the 50 foot easement from the creek is something staff is requesting and the applicant is being amenable to that but there's no requirement for that. I just want to make sure I was understanding that clearly. Oh, lakeshore setback. I think this is an interesting test of our new recommendation which I wasn't there for in our last meeting but I did read the minutes and it was very interesting. Wow, I think this is a good example of why we should stay with that 75 foot setback that the DNR requires. Just my two cents there. I'm getting into discussion again. I hate that when I do that. Page number 5, for anybody that's trying to follow along. The structure on Lot 7 must be set back further than required by ordinance. Show me what you mean by that. Can you show me on the drawing for the plat? A1-Jaff: Okay, this is Lot 7. The structure far exceeds the 75 foot setback. If this structure went in first, am I following? Kind: No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. The question, let's see. Page, I should probably have read the whole paragraph. There is no setback requirement from the creek. However staff has requested the applicant maintain a 50 foot setback from the edge of the creek to maintain the integrity of the creek. In order to meet staffs request the structure on Lot 7 must be set back further than required by ordinance. I couldn't figure that out there. Sidney: From the creek. Kind: From the creek? Sacchet: From the creek instead of. A1-Jaff: What this is referring to is the 70 foot setback. Kind: Oh so it's further than 75 feet from the lake? A14aff: Correct. Kind: Ah. AI-Jaff: To maintain the 50 foot setback from the edge of the creek. Kind: I get it. Yep. So that house is actually more than 75 feet back. A1-Jaff: Substantial, yes. Kind: Okay. I'll have to ponder that for a minute. Let's see if I have anything else? Oh, on page 8 under the street section. The second paragraph talks about the current right-of-way for Carver Beach 16 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Road is 40 feet in width. 20 feet on each side of the street. I'm assuming that you mean 20 feet on each side of the center of the street. Saam: Correct. Kind: And then, if my math is right, here we go. That most of the streets in Carver Beach are around 20 feet, and that' s generous probably. So if you have a 40 foot right-of-way, 20 feet of pavement, that means there's 10 feet of grass that is city right-of-way on each side of the pavement. Saam: Correct. Kind: And is that about how much is needed for utility easement? Saam: 10 feet will work. Kind: Okay. Just checking. I think that's it. On page 11, number 5. This is in the findings. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. I always, I have trouble with this as being part of our findings. Obviously if you're taking some trees out there's environmental damage so wouldn't you say that the finding is more that this proposed subdivision will minimize the environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: That sounds better. Aanenson: Okay. So maybe I'd like to amend those findings when we get there if that's cool with you. And I think that' s it for staff questions. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Just one question Madam Chair to staff. If I can ask, what was the applicant's response to the PUD? Suggestion if you will, or should I wait to hear from them? Actually I'd like to hear your viewpoint as well. ^l-Jaff.' They felt it would be easier to go through a subdivision, straight subdivision than it would be through a PUD and having to justify. Aanenson: We would concur with that because the way we've been processing lately, it's become very burdensome for the staff too. Unfortunately and that' s something I think we all need to work on but we struggle with trying to justify certain things. Slagle: So in your opinion the cons of a PUD outweigh the pros in this situation? Aanenson: No. No. I think it's the process that we go through. On how we look at things. There's a perception that they're getting more. They're getting something. And we've always perceived it, or the staff has tried to do it in the fashion that we're trying to save something but for some reason there's the perception on the other side. Slagle: Perception on the other side meaning the applicants or this? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Aanenson: Planning Commission or the neighboring property owners or interested parties that maybe that the balance isn't there. That we've done too many PUD's and we haven't necessarily gotten anything out of, by letting them save a few trees or go closer, we maybe not have gotten enough on the other side so. So, and we've learned that by some of the single family subdivisions so on single family subdivisions we tried to move away from doing that. Certainly there was other applications in this project but we try to say that PUD' s are really what they were intended, and that' s more of a mixed use project. An industrial park, multi family, which is really the true intention of this. With this project, this is a good question because we struggled with this when they came in. There was other applications. Certainly could have done a beachlot. There's some other applications but I think for them they felt, the applicant felt like this, they've met the letter of the law. They have a right to proceed. Kind of take the path of least resistance. Slagle: Okay. Audience: Excuse me, ...what's a PUD? Aanenson: Oh sure. A Planned Unit Development. It's, you develop a zone that allows for the standards to be put in place on that specific project. There is a minimum lot size. It allows some flexibility on lot size and street widths, those sort of things. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Questions. Sacchet: Yes. Definitely have questions. And I'm glad quite a few were already asked. My first question is quite fundamental. We have 3 shore lots, lakeshore lots. Nowhere in the report I see the width of the shore, lakeshore frontage. I think we have a minimum of 90 feet in the ordinance. Do we know how wide those shorelines are? A1-Jaff: If you look under the standards on page 10. The lot width on all parcels is spelled out. Sacchet: So the lot width is equivalent to how much shoreline there is? That doesn't totally add up, does it? Aanenson: You're asking if we have verified that the lakeshore lots meet the requirements? Sacchet: Actually since it's at an angle and the width is over 100 you would think that it's larger than 100 instead of less than 100. Aanenson: Yes. If you would like for edification for the council, we can clarify that so which ones are lakeshore lots. Sacchet: I think it's fundamental enough and an element that we need to spell it out, yes. I do ask for that. Then when I went out there this afternoon I got...I couldn't quite figure out where the driveway for 610 is. Because it's a gravel road so I guess it's not something that you draw lines on a blueprint, is that how it works? But if you can give us an idea, because I was wondering when I looked at that driveway, was that where the houses would be or about where? A1-Jaff: It should lead you to the city's lift station actually. 18 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Sacchet: No, that's 620. I mean the one further north. I might be confused about the numbers. I mean the one that goes to the lift station is the one that is actually drawn. But the one to the north of the two buildings, there is no driveway drawn and I was kind of trying to figure out where that would be in relationship to the building pads. Al-Jaff: If you look at the registered land survey. ^anenson: It should be the last sheet. Sacchet: Yeah, it's still in there. A1-Jaff: Immediately to the north of it. Sacchet: So it would actually be, relative to the new street and the building pads, where would it drawn would it be? So if I do this correctly and superimpose this in my mind, it would be basically between building pad and the new road, is that a fair statement to make? Roughly. A14aff: It would be within, well the 60 foot right-of-way wraps in this direction so yes. It would be approximately where the house pads are. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Alright, that answers that question. Then you identified this as an environmentally sensitive site in the report. And I was just curious how did we do that justice in this proposal? I mean if we say yes, this is an environmentally sensitive area, but then on the other hand we come in with a straight forward subdivision that yes, meets all the requirements. But are we in any way doing anything to accommodate the fact as it's stated in here, that this is an environmentally sensitive area? Aanenson: It meets the ordinance. There's nothing. Sacchet: Okay. So there's nothing plus minus, it's vanilla? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Straight forward, meets the ordinance. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Well that's a safe place to be, right? Now this street, just to be really clear, this street's going to be a public street. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet; That cul-de-sac. And you already addressed that maybe it could be less than the full width. Now this lot number 7. You know I got kind of dizzy looking at those lot lines. Are you okay? I mean there's nothing, I mean if somebody wants a zig zag lot line and meets the ordinance, then they have a zig zag lot line, is that how it works? AI-Jaff: It meets the letter of the ordinance. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. A1-Jaff: The exact wording in the ordinance is substantially at straight angles° Right angles. So you decide whether this is substantially meeting the ordinance or not. Slagle: Well if I can ask. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: Do you think it does? A1-Jaff: Yes it does. Sacchet: Okay. I want to jump into this interesting point about the lake front setback. Because I think you make a pretty strong statement in this report that you don't like what we proposed last time. I think there's actually a very simple remedy to the whole gyration thing that we have in front of us here. We're looking on page 4, for those who are following me. Sequence of which is built what is immaterial. Okay? I think where these got entangled and I believe that's contrary to the intent that we're trying to state what we proposed, is that what happens if the next building is a couple of lots away. It looks like you were interpreting it that if there is an unbuilt lot inbetween, then you just go to the next building. If that's empty you go to the next one and if you eventually have a building, then that's how you were trying to implement, so it makes a difference which one comes first. Is that how you? Aanenson: The ordinance says you go to the lot on either side of you. That's how the ordinance reads. Sacchet: Okay, because that doesn't work. I think you made that point pretty aptly in this report. However, I think what, at least my understanding was of going into this is that if there isn't something built like in a case here, you apply the 75. And that actually works I believe. And that's probably a separate discussion that we will have to fine tune this, but I think there is a better way to interpret this" than you did. Is that enough on this toPic? Blackowiak: Did you have more questions or? ' Sacchet: Yes I have more questions. That's just one point, because we're going after setbacks. We're not going after penalties here, and that is very important fundamental thing. I like to have the more narrow road. This thing about the dock and the water accessory structures. I got lost there. We have this creek coming in. Are we saying that they would have, where would they have a dock? I mean they have a creek, if they want a creek, they can't have a dock so what's the scoop? Can you explain that? AI-Jaff: Staff is requesting an easement over the creek. Actually a 50 foot easement that goes from the edge of the creek. Blackowiak: Sharmin can you move the map a little. We're not seeing, we're not Picking it up. Thank you. A1-Jaff: Here's the creek so if you take a 50 foot easement, or if you take an easement over the creek and require the structures to maintain a setback from it, then this area. Sacchet: We still can't see it Sharmin. 20 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 Al-Jaff: This area is technically protected. Our ordinance does not allow structures to encroach into easements. Sacchet: Correct. Al-Jaff: This is dry land. There is an existing bridge over the creek. Should the applicant decide to have a dock, then they could do that via an encroachment agreement should they decide that they want water oriented structure. Sacchet: And they could do that without violating the 50 foot, is that what we're saying here? If they go across the bridge, is there enough room for that? A1-Jaff: The bridge is existing. Sacchet: Yes, the bridge is there but I'm saying, if they would have, they would come in to say we want a dock on the other side of the creek and we want a house to store our jet ski or whatever. Could they do that without encroaching into the 50 foot setback from the creek? Okay. Okay, that answers my question. Al-Jaff.' No. Briefly they might be able to get in this comer. Aanenson: Right, but you want a 10 foot dock setback. What we're saying is that as part of the easement we would put in a condition in the easement agreement of what limitations they would have to that. Whether it be a dock or boathouse or whatever we attach to that with that lot. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that answers my question. Aanenson: We're asking for that easement. We're not requiring it so we want to give them-the flexibility to say we want the easement. That that area is protected. They don't go down there and grade it or whatever. But in addition what would give them the right to cross the bridge and use it for a dock. Sacchet: That answers the question. We can get back to that when we get to discussion. The driveway to Lot 7. Be careful you don't fall into that drainage pond when you go there, right? The idea this goes along the lot line there between. Aanenson: It'd be real similar to the one we just saw at Big Horn. Similar situation as you come along there. Sacchet: So that's cool? That can be done? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Trees. I really have a hard time with those trees. First of all, that's a very important question. When you did this measurement of the tree coverage and all that sort of stuff, did you include what would be custom graded? I mean did it include the building pads or did you just include the grading initially? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 A1-Jaff: This is where the 80 by 80 came in. We wanted worst case scenario on these lots and if you look at this plan, these are 80 by 80 boxes. We also requested that the applicant reproduce a driveway. Between the driveway and the 80 by 80 house pad, or tree removal limits you should have a realistic calculation as to how much canopy you will lose. Sacchet: So the figures that you put in the report are based on 80 by 80 on every lot being cleared? A1-Jaff: Correct, as well as where the road is going and there are certain areas that are a given. Sacchet: And while we have this picture up, I've got another question with this picture. That finger of grading that goes down between Lot, is it 5 and 6? I don't quite understand why that has to go that far in there. AI-Jaff: I believe there is an existing. Saam: Commissioner, maybe I can add something to that. They're proposing to grade, if you look on the grading plan, between Lots 5 and 6. They have one contour. I think it's the 934 elevation that they're tying in way down from the back yard of Lot 6. That's what I would guess it's for. Sacchet: Yeah, alright. Saam: Do you see it there? Sacchet: Yeah. Saam: That thicker line. Sacchet: Yeah, that is actually the grading line. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, that answers that one. Alright. Sorry to keep you so long. Streets. You were proposing to have the stub street to the north and you're proposing that, as Lot 4 in that. Why Lot 4? What's the rationale? AI-Jaff: I believe it's opposite of. Sacchet: Opposite, yeah I mean opposite of Lot 4 on the street there. I was just trying to understand how we arrived at that particular spot. A1-Jaff: Sure. The neighboring property to the north has an existing house and two accessory structures. Assuming that the applicant or the northerly property owner decides they would like to maintain their existing structures, then you take a 30 foot setback from the edge of the westerly most coruer of the garage. This way you meet the ordinance requirements. You're not creating an unconforming situation. This will be a 60 foot right-of-way. Also there is a retaining wall in this area. We're trying to avoid the retaining wall. This will leave you substantial depth on this parcel to create at least 2 lots. Sacchet: So it accommodates the existing situation as well as the new development and the possible future development? You try to kind of find a balance between all 3. That's a good answer. Appreciate that. Coming back to the trees once more, there is a drawing that has trees sort of inventoried semi legibly. Or less. Is there somewhere in an actual analysis in terms of what stays, what goes? I mean did somebody tabulate it? 22 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 A1-Jaff: The city forester tabulated all of the numbers. Sacchet: That would be interesting to see frankly. And I certainly agree that half the trees going down is environmental damage but I think that's pretty much, that's it for right now. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Well most of the questions were answered. Actually all the questions were answered. I have none left to ask but I guess one comment about the tree inventory. I guess I'd really like to see the significant trees called out. The diameters of the significant trees and I think that will help council decide on how front yard setbacks up in there modify those or the street widths. And really call out, especially those 100-200 year old oaks if there are any. A1-Jaff: Okay. Slagle: Madam Chair, if I may just one additional question. On the stub street, which would be just west of the retaining wall, number one. Have we talked to the occupant of the northern piece, or she is okay with that location? And then secondly, is that retaining wall an issue for safety with respect to a stop sign or people using that as an entry and exit into the neighborhood? If there's a retaining wall, I don't know how high it is. Al4aff: It's approximately 2 to 3 feet high. Saam: Yeah, I was just going to mention on the retaining wall. That's something I missed honestly until after the report went out. Typically we don't allow those in city right-of-way so prior to final plat I would recommend that that be removed, and I think we could work with the applicant to accomplish that. Blackowiak: Well actually I don't have any questions of staff at this time so I'll ask that the applicants or their designee come up and make your presentation. Please, state your name and address for the record. Bill Coffman: Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Bill Coffman. I'm the president of Coffman Development. With me tonight I have one of the land owners, Kari Romportl and Marty Campion with Otto and Associates, our consulting engineers. I would first like to thank staff for their hard work on this project as I feel that we have looked at this in almost every way possible. Yet we are ending up with a variance free application that is fairly straight forward and by design I guess. We concur with the staff report and agree to their recommendations as to the conditions of approval for this variance free plat, yet as indicated in the report we do feel that a 50 foot right-of-way would be more appropriate, and I guess we should at least consider that at the council level if that's the appropriate time. First we feel that this 50 foot right-of-way would be in fact more compatible to the surrounding neighborhood, as mentioned earlier. Second, we would in fact be able to save an additional 10 feet of trees in the rear between our homes and the homes to the south. Third, the required number of trees in the replacement program worked out with the city forester would in fact decline. Yet we would be willing to plant the entire 24 replaced trees in order to not imply any sort of a financial benefit to this potential variance if that' s what, if that is in fact the direction that the Planning Commission or the Council decides to go. And the last reason that the 50 foot variance may be an option would be that would also give the Romportl's an opportunity to potentially live in their home while their new home on the lake is being built. In summary we concur with staff' s recommendations on this design. It's a very good design, yet we feel we could do a little bit of tweaking to make it a little better. Save more trees. Be a little bit more environmentally sensitive by grading a little bit less if we could in fact adjust some of 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 the house pads forward, but quite honestly we're looking to this commission for your guidance, your input and your suggestions and myself and Marty Campion would be available for any of your questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Slagle: Not right now. Sacchet: Yes, I do believe I have some questions of the applicant. One question is relating to the area with the retaining pond, which is currently part of Lot 6 1 believe. Bill Coffman: Or 7. Sacchet: Or 7. 7, excuse me. Is there particular reason why you wouldn't consider making that an outlot? What's your thinking that you include it with, I mean were there advantages or reasons to go one way or the other from your end? Bill Coffman: You know I'm not really sure. I'll defer to Marty to that question. He's the engineer on the project. Marry Campion: Good evening. Marry Campion. Civil engineer with Otto and Associates. Question relative to a retaining wall on Lot 7? Sacchet: No, my question is relative to the NURP pond on the west side of Lot 7. Just south of the cul- de-sac. You have that area is very unbuildable because there's steep slopes. There's going to be a storm water pond there and so forth and my question is, would it make more sense to make that an outlot to where this is tacking it to what this one is tacked onto Lot 7. Because ! think one of the reasons is the driveway's going to go through there. Not the edge. Marty Campion: I'm not sure what purpose an outlot would serve. Blackowiak: Staff do you want to, do you have an answer? Saam: I could jump in here. I think what Uli might be getting to, in other plats we require over ponds. I know in Ashling Meadows outlots being dedicated to the city. In this case we would require an easement over the pond so I don' t know, I kind of leave that up to planning if they want to grab it as an outlot. Either way we're going to have rights over it. Sacchet: So the easement would basically fulfill all the needs that you have... Marty Campion: The easement gives the city the rights to enter and clean or do whatever. The outlot would eliminate or decrease significantly the amount of frontage that that lot would have so. Sacchet: Well that's a reason. Marty Campion: Giving the outlot is a benefit in one case but it goes back to the variance free submittal. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. It kind of ties into the new issue that came up from staff with the possibility of a bluff situation on Lot 6. And then I guess we have to wait to see the outcome of that question. That may further influence how that goes. Marty Campion: And that may. We agree with staff's earlier assessment that we don't believe there's a bluff there but we will work with staff and go out and investigate on site. Sacchet: Still I don't know whether it's a question for you or him. The thing I brought up about the dock and water accessory structure on Lot 7. What's your vision with that? I mean to me it's a little bit of a tricky situation, but it's basically that lakeshore front there is mostly creek. Bill Coffman: Right. Well we I guess, we're giving you the 50 foot setback or easement area just because it was a request but we do want to make sure that we're able to have in place those encroachment agreements ahead of time that we can in fact use our lakeshore. That we're not giving away the use of the lake to one of our important lake lots. Sacchet: So your vision is that Lot number 7 would have a dock on the other side of the creek basically? Bill Coffman: That's true. Sacchet: Possibly some sort of a shed or something. Bill Coffman: Correct. That is correct. And then that would be available through an encroachment agreement that was specified in the staff' s report.. Sacchet: Okay. That clarifies that one. I believe that's all the questions I have for the applicant. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: Not at this time. Blackowiak: None? Bruce? Feik: Not at this time, thank you. Blackowiak: Deb? Kind: Yes I have a question. Blackowiak: Oh okay. Kind: On page 2 of the staff report, staff notes that Lot 7 has a peculiar shape. Could you explain what' s driving that? Is that the lift station? Is that the 60 by 60 foot pad requirement? A combination of both? Bill Coffman: I'll let Marry talk to that issue. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Marty Campion: Actually it's a combination of all the above. It's the lift station. It's the easement that's in place for the force main, sanitary sewer and water main and it's the topographic configuration of the property. Kind: If the 60 by 60 foot requirement for Lot 8 was taken away. Would that line be able to be straighten out? Marry Campion: It would be more straight but on the north side of the 60 by 60 pad is also the lift station. So that's dictating somewhat where that pad location is going to lie. Kind: I'll attack it a different way here. If that line was straighten out, would there be a reasonable building pad left for a home on Lot 8? Marty Campion: With the homes that they would expect out there and the lift station I don't think, the lift station and the easements, the in place easements eat up a pretty good chunk of that. Aanenson: And we do want additional easements, just so you're aware. That' s also driving it too. The city's asked for additional easement to expand that and solve some problems. Kind: I couldn't quite get my finger on what was driving that funky shape. Bill Coffman: I've got something to add to that. It is somewhat dictated by the 60 by 60 square on Lot 8, but realistically when a home is designed, the garage probably will tuck up into this area to a certain extent. So the home realistically won't look like a 60 by 60 square. The garage will probably be a little . bit pushed to the north and that type of thing. So we probably could not straighten that line, yet we could make it a little more straight. Kind: And would that be desirable from your point of view? Bill Coffman: Yes it would be desirable, but yet we'would not be able to get the 60 by 60 square on Lot 8. Again variance free. Kind: Got it. Aanenson: Let me just comment again, with the lift station there more than likely, and we talked about this as a staff, the garage is going to want to be on that side. Kind: Of course. Aanenson: And we do need to solve a problem there so. Kind: Cool, thank you. Blackowiak: Any more questions? Okay. Well I don't have any questions right at this point. This item is open for a public hearing so if there are any people here who would like to speak about this item, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 26 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 Dean Preston: My name is Dean Preston. I live at 606 Carver Beach Road. I'll show you my property on the map. Right here. So the builders and the planners for this project have been extremely good to us from the standpoint of keeping us informed as to what they're doing. Our concerns through this whole thing is that we bought this property last year and we bought it because of the way it is. It' s natural setting and the trees. We're basically in the middle of those trees and our concern has been, and we voiced it to them, is that the properties as they come along here don't spoil that for us you know behind. And our particular opinion is that if a 50 foot easement instead of 60 for that road increases our chances or keeping that kind of pristine, the way it is right now, we're all for it. Carver Beach being as it is with a fairly narrow road system down there, it certainly is not going to be detracted by the fact that you lost 10 feet there. And I do want to say thank you to those folks that have been doing this and for keeping us in the loop and making sure that we're not getting what we bought destroyed by what they're doing. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Dean Stanton: Hi. My name's Dean Stanton. I was before this Planning 'Commission a few months ago. We live at 510 Bighorn Drive, right across where the house is and we're in the process of building a home right here right next to the creek. I guess I want to applaud the developer on, it looks like a nice development. I would say that it is a beautiful parcel. Anything you can do to narrow down the road, save more trees, I think is a good route to go. My only concern is that our house is going to be right here, and while it seems like everybody's concerned about having 75 foot setback from the lake for a house, there's only like a 10 foot setback for a boat shed and if there's a boat shed put on this point here, that point sticks out into the middle of the lake. It' s viewed from the entire lake side. I think from a community standpoint I would have a problem with that. That's just my opinion. Everybody's entitled to a dock, but having a boat shed right on that point is going to ruin our view being next door and I don't know, from a community standpoint, being that far out in the lake, what it does to the community. Lotus Lake is one of the nicer lakes out there because you've got, it's mostly wooded. You don't have a house every 100 feet that's visible from the lake without a tree so that I guess would be my concern. That with part of the easement process was that you could put a boat shed, what kind of structure is that going to be. Kind of a lot of pressure there I think with the looks of that point. Like I said, that' s my own. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sharmin, or Kate, would you like to comment on what type of structure could be there? Because I wasn't thinking that it could be a boat shed. AI-Jaff: The ordinance defines it as a water oriented structure. Now it could be a shed where you put your life jackets in and. Aanenson: There's a maximum square footage. Blackowiak: Okay, so what's the maximum square footage? Aanenson: 250 square foot. Blackowiak: 250 square foot maximum. Okay. Aanenson: I guess what we're struggling for is we're asking for an easement over the creek. Blackowiak: Right. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Aanenson: It's not a protected creek. We're just asking for that. Otherwise he has a right, whoever owns that lot, he or she to put a... Blackowiak: I guess my question has to do also with footings versus permanent versus temporary. Can it be a permanent structure with slab and footings? Aanenson: Yes, yes. I think that's what we'd like to do is negotiate too, what I was talking about is the height and some of those things, maybe make it a little bit more stricter but it' s still workable for them. That they'd know what kind of they're looking at there as far as that. If we put the easement in place, these are the things that would be acceptable. Put some criteria in place on that. We could have that in place for the council. Blackowiak: For the council meeting? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Alright, great. Dean Stanton: It's all the soft soils there and like this year, half of those wet. Aanenson: And it may need a greater setback or something like that. Those are things that we can look at and, so it's not sticking out so far. Some of those sort of things we can look at before it goes to council. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Dean Stanton: I guess that's just a general comment for the lake as a whole. Everybody seems to be so concerned about whether it's a 75 foot setback or the ordinance that came around what, 93 or 94 where you're trying to average it between the neighbors and everything, but yet you can have any kind of a boat structure within 10 feet of the water. That doesn't seem to really make a lot of sense. And I think in the ordinance it is just used for boats. You can make it twice as big versus if it's just for skis and things like that. It just seems to be at odds with the overall theme of the lake of trying to keep the front view of it as natural as possible. Blackowiak: Thank you. Frank Filko: Hi, I'm Frank Filko. I live at 550 Bighorn Drive, which would be probably this. Right in this area right in here. The question I have is from the topography here, this is a pretty, quite big drop off here. What's being done here more for a washout and drainage with rains and all that if you're going to be clearing the trees and all that? Aanenson: That is an area that we're saying that may possibly be a bluff. Our original interpretation was that it wasn't. We're asking them to go back and re-survey it. Specifically those points. Frank Filko: What do you define as bluff? Aanenson: A gradient of 30%. Let me back up and answer the first part of the question too. We do require erosion control being around the house so, and that's something out there, and stabilize that and the intent is that they' re not back in there clearing. That's why we have the limits for the grading. That's 28 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 why they're being custom grade so we don't have that problem, and we're also required to put the erosion control up. I'll read you the definition so I don't misquote it. There's three. A slope and rise of 25 feet. The grade of a slope from the toe of a bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averaging 30% or greater. So you'd take that length and figure out the 30%. So that's where we're saying we looked at the grading plan. We want to make sure so we've asked them to re-survey that specifically that area to see if it meets that criteria. Frank Filko: I mean that area is probably a 15 plus foot drop off. Where it goes on that side and the trees down below. Aanenson: Right. And it may be 20, and we want to make sure that it doesn't exceed that 30% so we've asked them to survey it and they've agreed to that. Frank Filko: I concur with the rest as well and if anything can be done to narrow that road to leave that area of the trees down that are in place would be wonderful. Blackowiak: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I think Commission Sacchet's earlier remark is well taken, if I understood him right. That they should demonstrate that they do have the full 90 foot width at the 90 foot setback line, which is not explicitly stated on the plat. It appears that they meet that requirement but I think they should demonstrate that as required by the ordinance. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen and I didn't have an opportunity to really review the plat on this but there are a couple of quick questions. I think Jerry addressed one. The lakeshore width must be measured at the ordinary high water line, and although I believe on the plat it' s measured at the survey line and that' s a real technical point of difference but I think we have to get on track to make sure that's always done. And I don't know if the meander line is on the plat, which is 2 feet above that ordinary high water line. I don't know if there's a soil report with permeability and slope, considering how high this land is. Slope needs to be considered. That has affect also on the driveway grades for each individual lot. And the final point I want to make is I wouldn't confuse the 60 foot right-of-way with the actual pavement entering the site. I think the city should question giving up 10 feet of right-of-way. It doesn't mean that that's where you build. I mean if you're going to give a variance for the width of the right-of-way, you could give a variance on the setback requirement on those lots instead. Thank you. Blackowiak: Anyone else? Andrea Eidsness: I'm Andrea Eidsness and I live at the property just to the north here. 630 Carver Beach Road, and I guess I have not had an opportunity to really look through the report and communication between my husband and I is less than what I'd like right now. I've been traveling a lot and am pregnant so I haven't been, I'm probably not up to speed on this as much as I should but in listening to the comments that were offered tonight, I just have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that we haven't, or that I'm not aware anyway that we've given great enough consideration to using the existing road that's there so that we're not demolishing additional trees to put in the new road. There is an existing asphalt road that goes down to the pump station and I guess I'm not clear on why we are choosing to eliminate that road and create a new one destroying trees in the process. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Would you like to answer, talk about that right now or? Let's give staff a chance and then why don't you come on up. Or would you rather not talk? A1-Jaff: Let me point to the, number one the applicant was trying to accommodate the neighboring property and increase the distance between future homes and their existing home. They're also looking at how potentially these properties could develop. That's one of the. Saam: I'll add something Madam Chair, also I would guess their engineer looked at topography. Accommodating walkout type homes which everybody wants and so I would guess that's another reason, but like Sharmin said, we worked. We kind of looked and planned for this whole area and for a future street stub to the north, it seems to make better sense to put the street there. Blackowiak: Certainly come up. I didn't want to say that you couldn't come up. I just thought the staff might want to answer questions. Denise Preston: Sorry, just kind of jumped the gun. Blackowiak: Come right on up. Denise Preston: Denise Preston, 606 Carver Beach Road. I live right here, and at this point we have a lot of isolation which is why we bought the property this last year. We haven't even owned it a year yet. So when the plans first came to our attention, there was a great deal of, in our'estimation, you would decrease our property value a very high amount if this became a public road. When they were discussing this development and said that the road would be further north, that would maintain the integrity of our property while still allowing them to develop at the least amount of disturbance to us. So that was one thing that we've been very concerned about and those were the first questions we started asking when we heard about this. Where was that road going to be? And there is an existing road there now but you also see that it goes through the properties that will be developed,' so there would have to be movement there in order to allow for the access then. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Randy Schlueter: Randy Schlueter, 580 Fox Hill Drive, I've been in this area 25 years and seen a significant amount of trees being taken down by developers. Nothing wrong with that but you've got to have a place to live, but has there been any provision for adding trees to, just a ton of them that's going to be removed by the road and the new road. Could you answer that? Aanenson: It's a condition of the staff report. Bill Coffman: It's our intention to replace at a minimum of 24 additional trees that we'll work out with Jill, who's the City Forester. In addition to that there will be many machine moved trees that we'll be able to pull out of the woods through the road area and so forth that we can save as well and, because we want to maintain the wooded nature of the site as much as possible as well and we'll be able to harvest some of the smaller trees that would be normally taken out. We can move them so they will in fact be saved so we are agreeing to maintain at least 24 trees moved, if not many more. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. 30 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Karl Romportl: I'm Kari Romportl and I live at 620 Carver Beach Road and we are one of the developers, which for those of us that don't know us, we do live there. We have lived there for 4 years. We've very concerned about losing trees and frankly I think a lot of the city ordinances have driven more tree loss than what we would like to see so I just wanted to clarify that point. That we do live there. We do watch the owls in the trees and we do have a vested stake in that property and we're not just a developer so I just wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Can I ask you a question, Madam Chair? If I may? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: So you're actually planning to stay there? Kari Romportl: Yes. We're the Romportl's with the 50 foot. That isn't so much important for us to be able to stay while we build. It's more the preservation of trees, so we've lived there 4 years. We plan staying there. Sacchet: So you'll be actually one of those people in one of these new developments? Karl Romportl: Yes. We'll be in, I don't know what lot number. Lot 9. So we are staying on the property and. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you. Kari Romportl: So we have an interest in all those trees too so. Jeff Kleiner: I'm Jeff Kleiner. I live at 655 Carver Beach which is just up the road from there. I've been there 23-4 years now. I don't have any questions about the tree removal. I've seen them at the other developments. My one question is about the lift station. If it's going to be able to handle all the extra flushings and everything like that. Because it does get a lot of traffic during the winter and backing up and they do have a pump truck here that goes there very frequently in the last 20 years. That's all I have to worry about. Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, do you want to clarify that a little bit? Saam: Sure. Yeah, as Kate said, staff has met and discussed the capacity of that lift station. We met with the utility superintendent. We do plan in the future to upgrade that lift station because it does overflow at certain times where effluent may even go into the lake and that's certainly, it does. Okay, that's something we would like to see remedied and fixed. That's why we're requiring the additional easement so if we need to increase the wet well in that lift station for the additional capacity, we have the easement in place. We can go down there and do the necessary upgrading. We're also recommending an easement for access to the site and the developer is willing to comply with that so. Blackowiak: So then is there a plan in place to upgrade now? I mean it sounds like it's sub-sized as it stands. Saam: Well the utility superintendent would like to go out and do it in a couple weeks but this is long range planning. We haven't gone, Teresa hasn't gone to council with anything yet on that, but that's coming I would say in the next couple of years we'd like to see a project there to upgrade that lift station. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Jeff Kleiner: Is there any way you can do that sooner? I mean if it' s overflowing now and going into the lake, it seems like it's already exceeding it's capacity so either there's more homes built in there, why would you look at delaying it further? Aanenson: I don't know if it's a capacity issue. It's an electrical problem. When we have power go out, that's when the problem occurs. Right now we do not have an easement to that property, so this plat is solving some other problems that we can take it to the next step. Besides getting property easement to the site, we also will get the easement for additional space on the property. Again most of the problem is when there's electrical failure. That's when the problem occurs. Jeff Kleiner: You don't have a generator? Saam: Yep, it's very loud. Jeff Kleiner: Well that versus...before the houses go out? Saam: I'm not sure of the timing on what goes out first. I would assume if electricity goes out to houses, it's out to the pump station and vice versa. Blackowiak: Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak to the Planning Commission on this issue? Paul Eidsness: Hi. I'm Paul Eidsness. I live at 630 Carver Beach Road with my wife who I apparently don't communicate very well with. I thank the developers for keeping me informed on what's going on.. .... I don't understand whether or not you folks are going to go with a 60 foot easement or a 50 foot easement. And I'm not sure how that impacts us. Will the road go closer to our property here if there's a 50 foot easement as opposed to the 60 foot? Will the road be essentially 10 feet closer to us? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: The road itself will be the road. I mean Matt. Saam: Not necessarily. If we would go down to a 50 foot right-of-way, we want to center the road in the right-of-way so now it would move as Deb said 5 feet. Blackowiak: So it would shift. Aanenson: 5 feet, correct. Blackowiak: 5 feet to the north. Aanenson: The pavement surface, right. Paul Eidsness: I guess I would prefer to have the road stay where it is then and I would opt for the 60 foot easement, at least with respect to this stretch here. I don't care what happens down in this area. But I understand..,Romportl's to some extent in whether or not they can live in their existing home...and I wouldn't want to get in the way of that. But I do like to preserve the integrity of our parcels here because I think in the future whether it' s us or the next owners of our property, they may want to develop that area. And I'd just as soon have the road stay where it's drawn. Clearly these lots are quite large here and 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 I'm just a little bit afraid that with the road even closer to our properties here, it's going to become a little bit difficult to make these properties a little bit less sellable. That's all I have to say. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Come on up to the microphone. Dean Stanton: I've got one question. The roads coming in to the development, what size are those currently? Aanenson: 40 feet and 20 feet. A1-Jaff: 40 feet and the pavement is 20. Dean Stanton: So why wouldn't you do the exact same thing that's feeding into the neighborhood? If ' that road's only for 9 homes, why do you have a small pipe coming in and then a larger pipe just in front of those 9 homes? A1-Jaff: To meet ordinance requirements. Dean Stanton: Is it possible to go to a 40 foot, just like the incoming roads? Saam: Sure we could. That would be well below the standard. Our standard is a 60 foot tight-of-way with a 31 foot wide street. Here we're saying we'll allow them to go down to a 28, and they proposed 60 foot and I think that's up for debate tonight. Dean Stanton: But why not 40? Just because it's the standard? I mean this is an environmentally sensitive piece of land, maybe we should just meet the standards of the surrounding area rather than what's in existence for new pieces of property that are out on flat prairie. Saam: And I think that is up to the council and Planning Commission to decide. This is what the applicant has proposed to us. ^anenson: That meets the ordinance. Saam: Yeah, it meets city ordinance. I'm not going to tell him what to do. What to propose. If he wants to go for a variance, he's sure welcome to. That's his tight. Dean Stanton: Okay. Do you think he'd get resistance on that variance if they do reduce that or how does that pay in? Saam: I guess we would have to look at that. Review it in a little more detail. I didn't look to see if, you get into things like grading. Would a sidewalk work? Room for easements. Small utilities. Blackowiak: Thanks Matt. I think we don't need to really get into that tight now. Let' s, you know that's not the issue before us tonight so we'll just kind of focus on the application before us. But I'd like to offer some time if anybody else would like to get up and speak. Make sure that everyone's had a chance to make their comments. If everyone is finished then I will close the public heating and ask for commissioner's comments. Bruce, would you like to start? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Feik: Yeah, that'd be fine. Thank you. I guess I've been to the site. I quite frankly agree with the width personally, irrespective of some of the other goals city engineering has in respect to the history. I would like to see it narrower. I think it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. I happen to agree with to some degree with the last gentleman' s discussion regarding the rationale of putting in full curb and gutter, street width, sidewalk and everything else in a little landlocked area for 9 lots. So I would like to see the road narrower. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: I agree with Bruce and I would support a 50 foot right-of-way with a 20 foot front yard setback so we could save more trees. I think that the City Council clearly can do that. It's stated in our ordinance that you can approve, grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and if the findings are met in the variance section, this is on 18-21 on page 999 of your ordinance book. I think that this would meet those requirements, especially the hardship is not a mere inconvenience because it would be the city requiring the developer to save more trees and that would be the hardship so I could easily support that variance. There's several other conditions that I would want to consider making amendments to. Number 26. I would like to see the applicant post a sign stating the street may be extended in the future. This is that stub street going to the north. That's my favorite condition. I'd like to add that to number 26, just to make it clear to everybody that's moving there. That that street will be extended probably. I'd like to add a condition that says that the applicant has, since they have shown that they can do a variance free plat, that they may revise, if they desire, the shape of Lot 7 and 8 so that it has a more straight property line. I'd like to see them have that option at least. Get rid of that funky lot. And Sharmin's condition that should be added about getting a new survey to determine whether indeed there is a bluff on Lot 6. I support that. I would add a condition number 33. I don't know what it would be at but that prior to final plat the retaining wall should be removed from the right-of-way. I liked LuAnn's idea of identifying the significant trees. And a couple ideas that came from the people who spoke, which good job people. That we specify that prior to the City Council meeting the applicant should work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures. And revise also revise the plat to show the 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and at the building setback line. And I'm not quite sure what to do about that lift station. I guess I'd be interested in my fellow commissioners comments about that. And I think that's about it for what, for my comments. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: Although I would like to compliment the residents. That was an excellent discussion. Very intelligent comments and questions. One of the better discussions I think I've participated in on a commission meeting. Also I guess I'd like to encourage staff to, as we're talking about changing dimensions on the street, also setbacks of the houses. I'd like to see those options laid out in a plat so that council might be able to look at that. I think we need to be able to visualize that and also relate that to significant trees. Aanenson: I think we can tie those two together. Sidney: Right. Aanenson: If it makes sense. Sidney: And then also you'll have the bluff survey done so that I think will be really helpful as well, so to provide some tools for City Council I think would be a good idea. 34 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: I have about 12 reason in my mind why I think this should come back. I think this should be tabled at this point. There are too many holes in it. I think we need a clear tree inventory. We need to know where they are. What they are. Which ones go. Which ones stay. I think we need to document the shoreline measures. I believe that we should have a condition that that lift station gets upgraded along with, if not before that development goes in. I do think from having looked at it early this afternoon, there's a good chance that it is 25 feet drop at 30%, meaning it would be a bluff, which introduces potentially quite a variable for Lot 6. I do believe that since we do state that this is an environmentally sensitive site we haven't really done anything particularly to do justice to that fact. That's important. And to at a minimum reduce the width of the road and work out solution that works for all the abutting residents. I mean that's something I think that needs to be worked on. That's not a straight forward thing, but I think we need to do something. We need to work with the developer with possibly getting more input from the neighbors if you think we need more, and do something to do that better justice. I do think we need to have clarity here how we apply this lakeshore setback situation. It's actually slightly embarrassing if this will be the final report. I do think we need to be clear about this stuff with...where is the balance, and I really appreciate that they're willing to consider that 50 foot setback from the creek because it's not a DNR protected creek. And find, where's the balance. I mean it's what. I mean this is not clear enough for me that I would want to send it to council. I don't think it's cooked enough. Then I think I have a few more reasons. Oh, I really don't agree with the finding number 5. That there is no environmental damage. Half the trees coming down in a heavily wooded area is definitely environmental damage in my book. Condition number 12 has kind of a funky sub-clause. Letter C. The private utility system could not be reviewed. The plans did not contain enough details. Well, so what are they? I mean in order to plan to pass this onto council I think we need to have that little better determined. I do agree with I think Commissioner Kind suggested that we work on straightening out that zig zag lot line a little bit. See what can be done there. I think that needs to be improved, and also then the issue that came up with the retaining wall in the right-of-way. That all adds up to enough reasons to me that I personally feel this should be tabled and should come back with these things a little further defined. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Madam Chair, I'm of the same thinking I guess as Uli. I'm concerned about the tree inventory. Concerning about what is to be taken and what is to be replaced with. I have to be honest with you, I'm very concerned about that lift station. I mean if we're pumping, or overflowing water into Lotus Lake, the comment, and I understand how it was made and why it was made but it's a long term project, or long term planning. I have a concern about that and before I was, felt comfortable voting on this along with the bluff question, along with the tree question and a few other things, I just don't have enough information to make what I consider to be a solid decision and I certainly don't want to pass this onto council and have staff and council spend a lot of time working on some of these questions, which I think could be addressed within this forum so I would tend to agree with Uli on this. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, before I make my comments I just have a quick question. If indeed it's a bluff, I mean Sharmin, Kate, it changes everything. Am I correct? Aanenson: We said we'd eliminate the lot. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. And I'm sure that for the applicant and the developer that that would be a huge change and might be that if it's doing a project and not doing the project, and I'm making assumptions so. I'm just kind of wondering what's that going to happen° Aanenson: We've talked to them. They know that that's a possibility. I mean we do subdivisions all the time where a lot's dropped between now and council. That's fine. I just wanted to make a comment on the lift station too. That's not the obligation of this developer. It's a city problem so the nexus there doesn't work. That's a City Council issue so you know. Slagle'. Pardon me Kate. While it might not be this applicant's issue, we are asking for approval of a subdivision that will actually bear, it will require things from that lift station and if that lift station has occasions that it's not performing, I'm trying to think common sense wise why. Mayor Jansen: If I may Madam Chair, may comment. At this point the direction that staff will end up going in is really taking a look at the lift station and bringing a proposal forward to council. We'll need to take a look at the CIP and I'm sure Teresa, as she comes back from maternity leave, will be on this issue as to what all of the nuances are that are occurring on the city side that we need to address. But to put that burden on the developer at this point, it' s a city project which is what staff is trying to communicate here. We' 11 need to take this into our processes and address it as a city project within the CIP. Slagle: If I may Madam Mayor, if that was the only concern amongst this proposal I would have no issue with that. But it's one of. Mayor Jansen: I'm just mentioning the lift station. It's just the lift station. Slagle: I'm with you. Mayor Jansen: As a city project. Sacchet: May I have a point of clarification Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Certainly. Sacchet: Isn't part of what we are tasked to evaluate, review with this sort of framework. I recall at one point it is whether the development is actually, what' s the term used here. Premature, because if the required infrastructure is not in place, it would be inclined to conclude that it's premature to put that development in. If we don't have appropriate facilities to accommodate sewer from this development, is that not part of what we have to look at? Aanenson: Yes. I'm saying we're issuing building permits up there in other areas that are serviced by this so I'm saying we've got to be equitable in how we're... Sacchet: So it's not this particular subdivision? Aanenson: Right. I mean I'm just looking at the equity issue. Blackowiak: Yeah, you know. It's down to the equity issue. I look at the subdivision before us and what we have before us tonight is something that has no variances and the question that we have is, does 36 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 the subdivision before us meet ordinance requirements? If it meets ordinance requirements, then we have to, is my reading of it, then we must approve it. That is what our city ordinance says. If we have an ordinance in, or if we have a subdivision in front of us, it meets requirements, it must be approved. Slagle: If it is complete. Blackowiak: Yes. Sacchet: And my point is that I feel there are too many incomplete elements at this point that I would feel it's right to pass it onto council. I'm not questioning whether it meets ordinance. What I'm questioning is, that there is a lot of elements that are not complete to the point that I feel it' s appropriate to pass it onto council. Blackowiak: Specifically the tree inventory? Sacchet: Yeah, I think I had about 10 or 12 of those particular, what I would consider incomplete items. Sidney: I guess my thought would be, could those be included as conditions? Sacchet: I think it would be premature. I think it's too many. I'm not trying to be difficult and I know you'd like to move ahead with this as quick as possible. I don't know where we are with the 60 day rule. Blackowiak: We are, deadline is July 3rd. Aanenson: And we don't have a meeting. Sacchet: So we don't have a meeting to accommodate the 60 day. Blackowiak: Correct. Aanenson: Or we could put it on in 2 weeks. · Sacchet: We could put it on still in June. Okay. I would still maintain that it would be better from the viewpoint of the needs of the city and what I believe our task is in front of the council to fill these 10 or 12 gaps a little better before we pass it on. That's my position. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm just, I'm struggling because I'm not sure if I, I mean I understand your position. I just don't know if I'm of the same mind at this point because we have something before us and the question is completing this I guess. You know is the tree inventory going to help us? Yes, we'd get more information. Would it help us make a decision on what's before us? No. Sacchet: I agree with that. Blackowiak: Would the fact that it's environmentally sensitive, that's a given. However it has, that has no beating on what is before us. Sacchet: How about the bluff?. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5~ 2001 Blackowiak: In terms of the bluff, yes. That's a definite, but if the developer understands that there's a potential loss of that lot, then they lose the lot if it's a bluff. Slagle: But with the lot that they lose be the one, proposed as it stands now or would this development be redone? Aanenson: I don't think you can pick up an extra lot. We've looked at it. I think it'd be very difficult to try to pick up an extra lot. I mean the lot's going to go. Those other lots on the other side, I mean are large. And let me go back to the tree inventory. It meets the tree ordinance. We can give you more information but the lots in the plat meet the tree. Sacchet: I agree with you Alison that the tree thing by itself would not be a reason to hold it up. However, considering the bluff, it all adds up a little bit. I mean...by itself wouldn't be a reason. But we have, the bluff thing is quite another question. The way we're applying the lakeshore setback thing is very loose to say the least. Blackowiak: The lakeshore setback is 75 feet and that' s, I think staff was trying to make a point in the way the report was written. Sacchet: Yeah, I'd like it rewritten. Blackowiak: Well but whether or not, the thing is it meets the ordinance requirements of 75 feet. Sacchet: Right, it does. Blackowiak: Okay. My reading of it yes it does. So I mean as I look through, I mean I guess I'm disagreeing with you because I'm not seeing issues that are unresolved. 'I'm seeing, it doesn't meet ordinance. That's the question we have to keep coming back to. In my mind. Slagle: With no variances. You've got the setback or the easement. Blackowiak: That's not, they did not propose that. Slagle: Staff did. Blackowiak: No. No. That's something that a couple people have talked aboUt but it's not in the report. It's a 60 foot easements No variance there. Slagle: Clarification. When you say some people have talked about, meaning? Blackowiak: It was in the staff report. They said that would be a possibility that there'd be some trees saved but because this an application with no variances, that they were not going to go that route. Now whether the council would like to visit that issue, and grant variances will be a totally, that will be up to /he council but like I said, we have to look at the application before us. Slagle: And the application before us, I' ve heard that they want the 50 foot. Blackowiak: No. 38 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Slagle: Okay, so they're okay with the 60 foot? Blackowiak: Yes. Slagle: Okay. It's just the desire of others and maybe members here. Blackowiak: That there would be some opportunities to do 50 foot and that might be something to consider, but they are not requesting a variance for the 50 foot easement. Slagle: Okay. Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, if I might add as far as what council in general might be looking at, and might find favorable. We have had discussions about reducing the size of some of these roadways, so if you go the direction as some of you have spoken to, of the 40 foot, if staff can work that out, within your recommendation, if the commission wants to make that sort of a recommendation, what I'm communicating is I think you will find a council that's amicable in that direction on an environmentally sensitive piece of property this way. You can make that recommendation. Blackowiak: That would however be a variance and I'm, well I suppose we could make that recommendation that you consider it .... from public safety perspective I don't even know if they would go for that but. Mayor Jansen: What I'm communicating is that if you want to make the recommendation, have staff look at it before it comes to council, it would be appropriate. That's I guess my point too is I think we need to look at what we have before us. Make the recommendations that we see fit. In other words, council please look at ways to increase, it's to save more trees. To decrease the easement. Possibly to look at...changes. Look at the lift station. Look at the setbacks. I mean I think that we can just say to council, you know what. It meets, as it is right now it meets our current subdivision requirements and if you'd like to go ahead and make sOme changes that you feel would be appropriate for the area, then that would be the place to do it. Slagle: I'm comfortable with that. Kind: Madam Chair, question about this timing issue. Kate, you suggested that this could come back to us on the 19th of this month? Aanenson: Right. Kind: And then would that give it enough time to go to council? Aanenson: We can ask for additional time if we want to look at the lot. I guess my point is, they've got the number of lots on there. The only question is would it be one lot less. They can't add any more lots because you' ve given approval with so many lots. The only question would be one lot less and you feel like you have to see it to have one lot less. That's my question. Sacchet: No, I don't think we need that. Aanenson: We want to demonstrate whether or not that's a bluff and we've asked them and they've agreed that they will re-survey that. We will meet them on site to validate that. That was the only area of 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 gray that we found. That we want to make sure that there is concurrence on. We'll make sure on the tabulation, the lakeshore lots are there but we did measure all those and all checked and we'tl make sure they're on the survey. Verified. Signed by the surveyor when it goes to council. But we can ask for additional time to put that on when it goes to council to make sure those comments are translated. Blackowiak: Okay, well I think what we need to do then now is to get a motion and we certainly can give some direction. Kind: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. Blackowiak: Give some direction. Kind: What I'd like to do is make a motion to approve the preliminary plat the way it is and then I would like to make a second motion regarding the variance so we can vote on them separately. Does that make sense as a way to go? Sacchet: There is no request for a variance. Blackowiak: There's no request for a variance so we cannot vote on that. We make recommendations to council so you can include as many conditions as you'd like. Kind: Okay, I will add it as a condition then. Here we go. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #2001-3 for Creekwood for lots as shown on the plans May 21, 2001 based on the findings in the June 5, 2001 staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 30 with the following changes. Actually I'd like to make a change to the findings first. Point number 5, revise the finding to state the proposed subdivision will minimize environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads so that's the finding for number 5. Moving back to the conditions. Let's see, I'll take them one at a time here. Number 12. (c). The private utility system shall be reviewed prior to going to council. Reviewed by staff prior to going to council. Number 26. I would like to add a sentence after the second sentence that says the applicant shall post a sign stating that this street may be extended in the future. And a new condition number 31. Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on Lot 8. I'll note to my fellow commissioners that this is an optional thing for the applicant. Number 32. The applicant, let's see. Here we go. The registered land, a registered land surveyor shall re-survey the slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 by 60 house pad shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. If the house pad cannot meet the standards, the lot shall be eliminated. What number was that, 32? And I had some more. I had some more. Here they are. 33. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way. 34. Applicant shall identify the significant trees prior to presentation to council. Number 35. Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shall work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement. Number 36. The applicant shall revise the plat to show 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and building setback lines. That's my motion. Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: I'll second it. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Kind: Oh, I was going to add that variance stuff in there. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Kind: I have a friendly amendment to myself. Sorry guys. I'm pretty friendly to myself, aren't I? I'm trying to figure out how to word this because I had it kind of in the mind of a variance but add a condition, I don't know what number we're at. Are we at. 36 was the revising the plat to 90 so I'm 37 I think. That the Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of-way and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible. Aanenson: Can I get clarification on that? I think I understood too you wanted that to tie into the significant trees when we're looking at the variances. If there's a reason because they're significant trees, tie those two together? Kind: Sure. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, is there any more discussion? Sacchet: Can I make a friendly amendment? To your 35, you're talking about accessory structures? Kind: Yes. Sacchet: Can we put the dock into that package? Kind: Sure. Sacchet: And did we decide we're not mentioning the lift station? Kind: Yes. I decided not to mention that in here. I suppose we could, since I threw in that variance that City Council consider it, we could. Do you have some language on that Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, I think at a minimum I'd like to see something that the capacity of that lift station needs to be evaluated from a city point of view in view of this new development. I think that' s definitely a responsibility that we have in the context of this development. Kind: I'll accept those friendly amendments. Blackowiak: And I assume you accepted your own, right? Kind: I accepted my own. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Is there any more discussion? I have one point. I believe number 33 you had about the retaining wall, that doesn't apply yet I don't believe. And Matt, correct me if I'm wrong. It only applies when and if the street gets extended to the north. Is that when you were talking about potentially... Kind: That stub is part of the conditions. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Correct, but the retaining wall is on the Eidsness property. Saam: Yeah, any retaining wall within the right-of-way.o. Blackowiak: Has to be taken out. Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you for clearing that up so we'll just leave that as is. So we have a motion and a second. Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~2001-3 for Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on the plans dated May 21, 2001 based on the amended findings in the June 5, 2001 staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall correct the lot frontage on Lot 5 to 127 feet. 2. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. 3. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. . No water oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. 5. All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. 6. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations. 7. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the sanitary sewer easement. o Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and proposed storm water ponds. 10. Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's structures. The applicant will not be assessed with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $17,514. 11. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: 42 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 12. 13. 14. 15. a. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 24 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species and locations. b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Building Department conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. c. The private utility system shah be reviewed by staff prior to going to City Council. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. bo A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance g9-1. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. do Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. e. Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued. Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the property. With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. 43 Planning Cornrnission Meeting - June 5, 2001 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to preliminary plat approval by the City Council. The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50 foot square area to a 60 foot square area. In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required off of the proposed cul-de-sac. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction plans. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's TyPe erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary.financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond. A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from Lot 4. This street would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots. A sign shall be installed stating that this street may be extended in the future. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 28. Dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach Road. 29. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. 30. The applicant shall change the name of the proposed plat. 31. Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on Lot 8. 32. A registered land surveyor shall re-survey the slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 x 60 house pad shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. If the house cannot meet the standards, the lot shall be eliminated. 33. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way. 34. Applicant shall identify the significant trees prior to presentation to council. 35. Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shah work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement. 36. The applicant shall revise the plat to show 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and building setback lines. 37. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of- way and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible. 38. The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new development and the existing neighborhood. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried 5 to 0 with 1 abstention. Blackowiak: The motion carries 5 to 0 with Uli abstaining and would you like to explain why you're abstaining. Sacchet: Yes, I do think that the responsibility for the Planning Commission would be to refine a little bit before passing it to council as discussed before. Blackowiak: Okay. So the motion carries and this does go onto City Council the 25th of June. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. OLD BUSINESS. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Aanenson: ...for your edification, I'm sorry I didn't put in a cover letter. I put the design standards in. The old draft that showed all the strike out's and hopefully I got all your's and then I put the new one in Without the strike out's so it's easier to read. That's scheduled for July 17th so that gave you plenty of time to review it. It' s also out for comments to the Chamber and some of the same business people we sent it out to before so that gives them plenty of time to review it. So please hang onto those and save those for the July 17th meeting, but I just wanted to give you plenty of time. If you want to look at them when you're out driving looking at buildings, whatever. Give you some time. As long as we're on old business. I'm just going to jump ahead to some of my stuff before we get to 4 and 5. For the June 19th we have two conditional uses in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. One's a home and one's a barn. Then we also have Dayco which was tabled because we didn't notice it for the conditional use in the Bluff Creek. And then the private street discussion will probably be on too. And then we do not have a meeting on July 3rd. And just to let you, if anybody has a conflict in the summer, if they could let me know because we do have a few things on the 17th. I know Bruce has already told me he has a conflict. Kind: June 17th? Aanenson: No, June 19th or July 17th. Kind: June 19th I'm on vacation. Sidney: Possible for me too. I don't know yet, I'm sorry. Sacchet: June 19th or 17 you said? Aanenson: July 17t~. Sacchet; Oh, July 17t~. One or the other. Aanenson: Yeah, just let me know. Just to make sure we have a quorum. Again, because we don;t have a meeting on the 3rd, there will be probably more items coming in yet. For sure we'll have the library and redesign standards on. We'll see what else comes in. They've got a few weeks left so. Alright, that's it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 15, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: HOUSING FORUM. Aanenson: Yeah, put this in your packet. Just for your edification. I did put a summary of the two groups. Going to sit down with the council and strategize a little bit where we want to go with this. I just wanted you to see kind of, give you an idea of the flavor, come to a consensus of the comments and who was there. I know Uli came to the first one. Kind of what direction they were going. I think it's interesting seeing the last part, kind of who can help. What can we be doing? Look at that kind of big picture sort of thing. Again, keeping this in line as we move through some of our ordinances and some other developments. But working on putting something together for the council and then summarizing and also as we're getting some of the new census data, it's a good opportunity to talk to you and to the council too and show you where we're at with demographics so that you see things...one teaser in that set. Our household population actually went up significantly. 3.4. We were using 2.9. Big anomaly so 46 Planning Commission Meeting -June 5, 2001 we're looking at that. What implications go with our population projections so, yeah. Interesting so we' 11 come back with that and be looking at how some of those demographics, where we go and kind of revisit that and looking at some housing strategies and how that plays out so. That's all I had on that. LIBRARY UPDATE. Mayor Jansen: Kate handed out the latest plan, and our conversation had been to bring it before the Planning Commission just to give you an update on what the council, as of our last meeting, has approved for the architect to go back and work with as far as the approximate location of the footprint of the building. So that at least you can see where they're working from. Architecturally it's still going to be, of course being worked on but we had taken all of the information from all of the public hearings. From the building committee. From council and this was the rendition that was arrived at, trying to come up with more of an adjacency to Kerber Boulevard so that we have that street feel to our downtown. Still have some of that adjacency to City Hall. And coming up with a park feel between the City Hall and the library building so that there is a gathering area between the two buildings. And leaving as much of that green space as open as possible. You'll see on that top Xerox there's a dotted line where at one point the building had actually extended out to that point and council had requested it get pushed back as much to maintain that green area as possible. Right now the calculation without the green space inbetween the two buildings, just the open pad that's left is more than an acre so it is a very large piece that they're managing to maintain. And we've asked them to come back to us too with a calculation of that green space that's inbetween the buildings so that we know what the total total is. And as Kate mentioned, she has scheduled the library public hearing for the Planning Commission for, was that July 17th? Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Jansen: For July 17t~. Aanenson: And before that maybe there was another meeting, we were thinking about putting it on your second meeting in June but we wanted to wait until they had another meeting of the task force with the group to talk about materials because we don't know... We wanted a little bit more evolution before we look at it. I think the form is shaping up really good. Obviously there's going to be some tweaking on that, but I think, do you know when that meeting was Linda? The 24th is sticking in my mind. It can't be, that's a Sunday. Mayor Jansen: I don't have it on this calendar. I'm thinking we ended up with the 27th. Aanenson: That sounds right. It's like a Wednesday. That sounds right, because it would have been after the Planning Commission meeting... Mayor Jansen: Yep, for another public meeting. Aanenson: ...kind of honing in to more specific on the exterior design. I think with the location is certainly a significance to the Planning Commission too, what that looks like and the green space. But when we look at this for a public hearing, there's not everything is going to be in place. What we're trying to provide another forum for input on that. And there may be some variances. We want to pull it towards the comer to warm that comer up but I think after that meeting there will be a little bit more, correct me if I'm wrong, evolution about materials and a little bit more on the look of the building. We've already seen some different iterations. That's kind of evolving right now so we want to get it as 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 close as possible but it is fluid but to give you a chance to comment and again provide an opportunity for the community at large to comment in the July meeting so. Slagle: If I can ask a question. Having attended the council meeting where the architect reported it, what a month ago, month and a half ago. Is the idea of a front entryway off West 78~ dead? Aanenson: Well I guess my recommendation was, in looking at this. This is just my personal recommendation. I think it'd be nice to have a sidewalk that pulls you across as you look at this area here to get...to City Hall. While it might not be the front entrance, it gives you a sense of entry and that's kind of what we're looking at, and maybe for security and those type of things, it made sense with the parking lot over here but you add the drawing to that. A sense of entry, so those are some of the tweaking that I think we can provide, input too and so. Sacchet: So they're actually following our downtown rules in terms of close to the street and parking in the back. Aanenson: Yes. Right. Right and preserving some of the open space. Sacchet: That's very commendable. One thing I don't understand is this dashed circle in front of City Hall there. Mayor Jansen: There at one point had been a cul-de-sac proposed. Sacchet: So that's a possibility basically. Mayor Jansen: No, it actually was nixed in favor of having more that gathering space in front. What they were demonstrating to us was what they had changed from the previous proposal. They had pulled that cul-de-sac out and moved the building back away from that dashed line. Sacchet: So there is no possibility that would still surface? Mayor Jansen: Correct, it's been removed. Yep. Sacchet: Good. Good, thank you. Aanenson: So again, that's kind of where we're at with that. OPEN DISCUSSION. Blackowiak: Open discussion? Sacchet: Yes, I have two open discussions. One of them is fen setbacks. It appears thatwe as a city could do more to protect fens in terms setbacks. Kind: Fens. Aanenson: I thought you said fence. Then I realized you were in the seminary fen. 48 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Sacchet: ...whole bunch of DNR and all these people that know exactly all the good stuff, what's there, and it became apparent pretty quickly in the discussion that there are issues and then that in terms of what we could contribute from the city side to help protect or better protect. I guess it's all relative. It's not black and white, is if we would put an ordinance in place to have extra setbacks that apply to fens. And apparently there are precedence where they use 150 feet setback. Right now for us a fen would be a pristine wetland and such I think it's a 100 foot setback. And I would think considering the rarity of, I mean this is a tremendous thing having this fen within our city limits. I would compare it to, there are two cities in the whole world that have rain forests within their city limits, it's Rio de Janeiro and Singapore, and I do believe that as we move forward in time these things are going to become much, much more important and people are going to have much more of an appreciation for this type of thing so I think we should do everything we can to contribute to protecting that asset that we have down there. They had a map, these DNR people of the significant areas that are left that are significant in terms of nature, in terms of hydrology and all that wonderful stuff, and it's like a few dots on the map. And that south area there with the fen, our fen was one of the biggest dots in the whole area. Obviously the Minnesota Valley was where some of these dots were somewhat concentrated but the fact was that our fen was one of the biggest dots on there. So I would propose that staff would draft an ordinance, something that we can pass relative fast because the clock's ticking pretty fast down there in terms of people wanting to build stuff and so forth, so that's my discussion point number one. I don't know, do you want to add something since you were there too Deb? Kind: The only thing I would add is, I'm wondering if there's anything that city staff could do to work out access agreements to enter the properties to maintain the fen. These people that were at the tour are very interested in getting rid of the buckthorn for instance that's starting to encroach, and if there's anything the city can do to broker some sort of deal where the landowners would allow people to come on their property to maintain the fen. And I got the impression from, I think it was Lori who suggested that the landowners seemed to be receptive to doing something like that. And I'm just wondering how you implement that and whether the city can work on that. Aanenson: We can work on that, sure. Sacchet: I do believe Lori was very open to the idea of pursuing... Aanenson: Yeah, she's talked to me about both of those issues. Sacchet: That' s my discussion item. Discussion item number two is postcards from Miss Rosie' s. It' s unfortunately more sad than funny. It's pictures of the trees that got cut around there and I voiced my concern earlier in the discussion of the area there south and the Arboretum, what's it called, Arboretum Industrial Park or what. There seems to be, at least what I've seen, some unclarity in terms of where are really the delineations of this Bluff Creek watershed overlay or whatever we call it. And I think we have to be, we have to make an effort to be very clear where those lines are. And then also pursue it. I mean there's no point in having these type of protective measures if we don't follow them and-so we need a clear framework. I figured those pictures would show that a little bit because there are questions exactly where this protective area start and where does it end. Aanenson: Jill and Bill, from engineering will be walking that. We've got some requests from neighbors in Longacres to walk that to see exactly. They're out there every day checking. They are following the plan. As indicated the city sewer project is along the edge of the wetland and some of MnDot's so we're walking with them and showing them which trees are, that's why we try to save significant stands. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Mayor Jansen: Staff had been pretty clear, at least to council that though they were trying to step our project as well out of the trees as they could, because of the topography, it was going to impact this tree line. So even as we as a council were negotiating for as much to be saved as possible, I have to say that staff was very clear to us that it was part of that city project and they did act then on the next development to try to be more aggressive in how they treated the city project to maybe have less of an impact on the area. Aanenson: And that's part of the reason we wanted, and the council wanted to get control of that so go back and reforestation so we have that buffer. Sacchet: Yeah, I mean this is not meant as criticism... Aanenson: No, I understand. Sacchet: ...and I really think we need to look out for. Aanenson: Well I think there's a misunderstanding when there's development that we're going to be saving all the trees. I mean we walk every project and I can take you up to Longacres. I could take you to Highover, half the trees come out in all those subdivisions. It's impossible to develop without tree removal. Sacchet: Absolutely. Aanenson: So we always try to say what can we save, because we've learned through our past projects the best way to save trees is in stands of trees. Where there's no development. That's why we do the density transfer. That's why we say those are the significant stands we're going to save. And everything on top of that is icing on the cake, and we're working really hard with the developer to accomplish that. Sacchet: Well that Was my discussion item number two. I don't have a number three so. Blackowiak: Anyone else? Kind: I do Madam Chair. When I went out to look at the two sites that were on our agenda tonight I noticed that there was a proposed development sign at one. It actually had fallen down and I'm told it got put back up and down several times, and the Arboretum Business Park one did not have a sign in it and I looked up in our code book and I discovered that that is correct. That we have two different rules depending on if it's a subdivision or if it's simply a site plan review. And I was surprised to discover that and I was wondering if it was intention or if we should bring them in alignment? Aanenson: We still notice then within 500 feet so property owners, obviously Steiner's the major property owner up there. Obviously nobody else came on that. Those tend to be the ones where, maybe you could tell tonight, where the most communication occurs and we try to meet with people ahead of time and answer their questions but we can do that. I'm just not sure we'd get many more people. Kind: Right. I was just curious. I didn't realize there was a different standard depending on what type of development it was. I know that we've kind of harped on that over the years that, where's the sign? Where's the sign? 50 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Aanenson: And the subdivision for example in Gateway, here's where you're setting up all the framework issue. That's where most the discussion is. Once a building goes in, I mean people feel comfortable. Kind: And that was the subdivision so that would have been posted at that time, so yeah it does make some sense. I just thought I'd bring it up because I noticed it being different in the tw0places. And then the other question, or issue I want to bring up, and maybe this not the good time, is this issue about the lakeshore setback and the decision that was made two weeks ago by this commission and how it was applied tonight. Is that something that we want to revisit a little bit? Aanenson: Well the council's still getting that recommendation. It's on their next agenda next Monday night and we'll show them this case. Again I think Uli and I disagree on the interpretation of that but we're following the letter of the law as per Roger's interpretation and so we'll let the council decide exactly where they want that to go. It's up to them now... Kind: I'm curious mostly if my fellow commissioners feel like they would make a different choice now after seeing tonight's situation applied. Sacchet: It wasn't applied. My point is that it wasn't applied. Kind: No, because that's not ordinance yet. Sacchet: Yeah, well the point is I think it was a very fundamental thing that was applied in a different way. Frankly the way' that doesn't make sense. I mean there's no way this will ever pass council. Kind: I guess my point is, after reading the minutes from 2 weeks ago, and I was totally on track for this averaging the 150 foot maximum with the 75 foot neighboring. In fact I e-mailed Lori that idea so I was really kind of surprised that the commission came up with it all on their own without me being here. And after thinking about it more I have Come full circle back to the 75 foot DNR requirement being the most fair for applying across the board. Slagle: Thank you. Thank you very much. Kind: And I noticed Rich was the lone person who I probably would have voted with 2 weeks ago and I was just curious is the other people on the commission have regrets about their decision 2 weeks ago or not. Sacchet: I definitely don't. I think it needs to be put in the proper framework and what we were concerned is that we accommodate a transition between the older type of the... Aanenson: That's not how the ordinance reads. The ordinance says, you will look on each side. You can't discriminate because sometimes it's 5 years, 10 years down the road before another house comes in. Sacchet: Yeah but Kate, I think where the hole that we fell into with this example here is when there's lots inbetween. I think that's something we didn't address in our discussion when we discussed this. And I think we should address that point rather than just make the whole thing look so absurd and nobody's ever going to think it makes any sense whatsoever because it doesn't in that context. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Aanenson: I see every permit that comes through and that's what I'm telling you, it doesn't work you know. I mean if we want to bring you every one for the next and you can see how it works and how it doesn't work, we'd be happy to do that too. Sacchet; Well yeah, I mean I understand. I mean and that was really part of the discussion too. I mean the thing itself is not what works or doesn't, it's us. That we apply it and I mean you obviously demonstrated with what you presented to us today that you guys really don't want to apply it, and that's fine. I mean that's your... Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is, if it's difficult to explain to the homeowner, then what's the point? I mean, it has to have some sense and some rationale basis to it and explain to somebody that's easily understandable or what's the, then why have it? Kind: I'm sorry I brought it up. Aanenson: ...they want to remand it back for further consideration. Kind: At least I got my thoughts on the record so. Slagle: Madam Chair, I've got two things if I can. Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: The first is, and I don't want to continue it tonight but just to throw out for people's consideration. With respect to trees and what not. In our meeting last time where we talked about the building, the Klingelhutz I think or whatever is going up there and there was a question as to well the tree' s going to be x feet from such and such and you know we'll sort of do our best to protect it or whatever. And then I think Commissioner, well Craig sort of agreed with me like you know, it' s sort of vague and in reality a lot of that isn't practiced and you end up having root damage and trees get, and so that carries into my second point and that is, and I only speak for myself but I do know we have 4 commissioners that have at least, that have under a year and a half or two years experience. And I want to really encourage staff and the council to consider putting on, with their appropriate staff, city people, a half day seminar to new commissioners about roles because if you remember we came up with legal issues with Roger and I made the comment of why in the world are we considering something if it doesn't have a legal backing. You know if the attorney of the city has made a comment or has not commented that this is for all intensive purposes legally defendable, then why is it in front of this group? And things like that I want to ask in a forum that is more educational than public, if you will. So I want to encourage, just like council members do where they have an orientation, I really believe it would behoove the city and the staff to have that. Thanks. Aanenson: We'd be happy to do that. Feik: I'd agree. Blackowiak: He speaks. Okay, anybody else with a discussion item? We are adjourned. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 2001 Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Rod Franks, Jay Karlovich, Mike Howe, David Moes, Jack Spizale, and Tom Kelly. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Rod Franks asked that commission member presentations be placed after Old Business number 1. Todd Hoffman stated that the commission needed to elect a Vice Chairman. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Howe moved, Franks seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission dated April 24, 2001 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. WELCOME NEW/RETURNING COMMISSIONERS. Lash: Under new business we will welcome our new commissioners, Jack and Tom. Welcome. And welcome back to Jay. Wherever he's been. PREPARATION OF NEW "PARK RULES" SIGN. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: Okay, any questions for Todd? Moes: Just clarification on what the practice golf. Has that issue come up as a problem or a standard or an ordinance or? Hoffman: It's not an ordinance, but generally the park maintenance folks chase people away. It's an issue of public safety more than anything. Moes: What jumped into my mind right away was the public safety is flying golf balls. I was just wondering if they'd addressed that at all. Hoffman: Well deputies aren't going to write a tag for it anyways, so it's generally up to our people but if it's on the sign then they'll go ahead and enforce it. If it's not, they don't have anything to go up to and say see. It says it on the sign. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Karlovich: What does staff feel about the color? I mean that seems like we're getting...a red sign. Hoffman: White sign with red lettering. Karlovich: That just seems. Hoffman: It's an enforcement sign so it will stand out. Howe: How many signs do we make? Hoffman: We'll make a couple hundred. Howe: How much is that going to cost? Hoffman: Those are probably about 10-15 bucks a sign. Howe: Oh okay. Moes: What was Dave Potts' recommendation on the colors that are missing? Hoffman: Bright lettering. White background, red lettering. Karlovich: Neon. Hoffman: If you could get it. If you could get it. Lash: I like strong wording that he had...alcohol restricted to canned beer only I think just is better flowing...Leashed pets allowed only on trails... Hoffman: So you said it different than he did. Lash: Yeah, I just switched only. Allowed only on trails. But I don't like pet feces...but they're both pretty direct. Moes: You drop them, you pick them up. Lash: Pet clean-up, would that be? Karlovich: Are you going to move the only then on the next line? Howe: Canned beer. Only canned beer? Lash: Alcohol restricted to canned beer. Karlovich: Only?... Lash: Oh well I think it needs to be, they need to be prioritized what we think is the most important because people don't always read the whole sign so whatever we want them to know the most needs to be first. Because if they're driving past they're not going to read the whole sign so. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Kelly: Okay so on both the alcohol restricted to canned beer period. Pets allowed on trails period. Very straight. Very direct. Hoffman: Shorter is better in the writing books. Karlovich: It seems like the ordinance of glass containers should be next to the alcohol. Franks: I understand the usage of the word only with the leashed pets allowed on trails. That doesn't. Howe: Yeah I agree. Franks: You know what I'm saying? You can't be on trails and it doesn't mean...also be on the grass too. Lash: It's allowed only on trails. Franks: Yeah. What I understood from before is that the sheriff's deputies are really looking for rules that are clear enough for them to be enforceable when they stop somebody and they don't want to have to sit and argue with somebody. Well it doesn't say it can't be on the grass. It says I can only, it says I'm supposed to be on the trail. It doesn't say I can't be on the grass so then they're like okay. This is dumb to sit here and argue with this person. Like no person or vehicle allowed in parks after hours. Even I of course assume that just with park hours being listed but when they're trying to chase somebody out of the parking lot or tell them there they want it I think very clear that these are the park hours and no person or vehicle allowed in the park after hours. Kelly: You probably could say if you want to be consistent with the alcohol, you could say leashed pets restricted to trails. If you wanted to have, if you want to be kind of consistent between the two restrictions. In terms of wording. Karlovich: No leashes are allowed on grass. Hoffman: Hey we had this same conversation last time so continue on. Moes: I like white background, red lettering. Okay. Hoffman: Start from the top Jay. Lash: Well we need the hours first and then I think it needs to say no one allowed after hours. Hoffman: Okay, so we like that. Check, check. No person or vehicle allowed in parks after hours. Moes: I would say in park after hours. These are individual signs for the individual park. Karlovich: So we're going to remove the s. Moes: Yes. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Howe: And I think this is good because you could say well my car's in neutral, not park. I'm not a lawyer. Lash: What's the next most important thing? Keeping cars out of the grass? Hoffman: Well that's one of the bigger issues. At least at Lake Ann. Karlovich: I would think it'd be alcohol, wouldn't it? Hoffman: They write more tickets for off road than just about anything. Lash: So you have off road vehicle travel prohibited. Vehicles prohibited from off road travel or parking. That makes it more clear. Moes: Well I'm confused though. If you take this off road part off, off road travel you have vehicles prohibited from parking? Lash: Off road parking. It' s supposed to mean vehicles prohibited from being off the road. Driving off the road or parking off the road. Hoffman: Off road travel or off road parking. Lash: Or parking only in designated areas? Would that be two different things. Hoffman: We tried that last time, didn't we? It didn't work very well. Yeah, motorized vehicles restricted to roadways and parking areas only. Karlovich: Since we're being nit picky, there are areas that are marked as spots anywhere that's pavement... Hoffman: Yeah, that's not the case so. Karlovich: Is that all we care about is the parking on the grass? Hoffman: No. We also care about them parking in designated spots. Lash: Parking in designated paved areas only. We're never going to stop them... Howe: If you just reverse it, off road parking or travel, does that make it more clear? Lash: Yeah, maybe. But again it's not restricting it to designated areas. Sometimes it's not all totally designated. It's not always clear. Moes: Or you could just...travel or parking prohibited off road. Lash: Say that again. Moes: Vehicle travel or parking prohibited off road. Park and Rec Commission Meeting- May 22, 2001 Lash: How about off road parking. Hoffman: Generally anywhere that there should not be on street parking we have a sign. So that may take care of that. Lake Ann, anyplace along the roads you're not supposed to be parking, we have it signed. So then this says in addition to that, vehicles prohibited from driving off road or parking off road because sometimes the parking lots get full. They park on the grass. We send the deputies out to Lake Ann to write tickets for off road parking a great deal of the time. Lash: Off road parking or travel prohibited. Moes: But that sounds like there's two pieces to it. One being parking restricted to designated areas. The second component being off road vehicle travel...activities. Lash: So you think it should be broken up? Moes: Yes. Howe: Well I think if you drove by the sign quickly, as Todd said, you want to have the meat of it in the first couple words. I think you'd understand vehicles prohibited from off road parking or travel. I think you'd know what they're talking about. Lash: Okay, so you want it worded like that? Howe: Well Dave has a good point but I think we need to make it as short as we can too. Moes: Yeah it's less thinking and I was making two short statements which is what I was trying to run through in my mind. One being the parking restricted to designated areas. And the second area is 'the same point being no off road vehicle... Hoffman: You can see that Dave organized this in a centering pattern. It looks nice. Okay, alcohol you're pretty much in agreement on. Leashed pets allowed only on trails. Lash: I'm guessing that the pets would be the next biggest issue after parking and off road travel. Karlovich: Snowmobiles...last I guess. Franks: I think if it's lower on the sign it'd be easier to read. So I'm thinking maybe that one should go. Hoffman: Well let's get through the wording and then we can worry about order. Lash: Okay, alcohol restricted to canned beer. I think that's... Glass containers prohibited. That's easy. Snowmobiles prohibited. That's easy. Can we put pet clean-up ordinance enforced? Or not? Hoffman: Sure. Lash: Will people get that? Kelly: What is the ordinance? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Moes: Pooper scooper ordinance? Lash: Is that what it's called? Hoffman: Feces removal ordinance..~ Franks: But there's no off road traveling. Lash: And littering. Littering laws enforced. Hoffman: So what's the pet one? Pet clean-up ordinance enforced? Is clean-up a word? Franks: Hyphenated. Lash: So that's all of them, right? ...I don't know, there's no ordinance regarding the golf. Hoffman: No. Lash: So we'll be back into the position with the pets because there's no ordinance for anyone to enforce, so I agree with Sergeant Potts. It'd be difficult for them to enforce it because people will want to argue. Howe: What'd we decide about leashed pets? Are we going to do the top restrict it? How do we write that one? Lash: We put leashed pets allowed only on trails. Karlovich: Remember I was against that. Franks: It doesn't have to be an ordinance for us to have a set of rules. Karlovich: I thought we said it was okay... Howe: That was another commission. Hoffman: Just because you're doing it you're trying to make yourself feel good. Lash: Well the problem I think with it is, we go right back to enforcement the same as the pets on the trails. It was an unwritten rule that pets were allowed on the trails, but not within the park. But there was no ordinance that said that so when people were in the park area and the police would stop them, they'd get into the...that we're supposed to be able on the trails but that wasn't clear so I think it's difficult to put something on a sign if there's not going to be somebody behind it...to enforce it. Karlovich: Right, there's no ordinance for them to charge somebody. Lash: Right. If we want to recommend to the City Council that they make an ordinance so we can do that, I suppose we can do that... Howe: Do we see a lot of this? What parks? All the parks? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Hoffman: North Lotus. City Center. Lake Ann. Meadow Green. Lash: But you know, look at all the stuff people want to do in parks. I mean something they want to do in the park is bat and ball. Fly a kite and running and they crash... Howe: Are they really swinging? I mean we're just chipping here. I've never seen anybody do it. Lash: I haven't either. Hoffman: Some are, some aren't. Lash: I mean if we have to restrict every activity from the park... Hoffman: I think I've only received a couple of calls of people that were complaining and I've seen it a lot more times than that and I' ve never had to go up and talk to anybody because when they were conducting themselves in this activity, there wasn't anybody else around. Spizale: I think it's a common sense thing. You know, because people...chipping golf balls. There's nobody around, yeah. I might swing at golf balls. I don't think it's worth putting on a sign. Lash: Okay, so we've got most everything else that we need. Hoffman: 9 items. You have 9 items. Lash: Prioritized. Hours. No one's allowed in outside of hours. Parking I think is the next biggest issue. I would guess that the pets are the next biggest issue but Todd what do you think is 'the next biggest one? Hoffman: Yeah. Lash: So pets would be the next biggest one of being on a leash and picking up. They go hand in hand. Off road is the next? Or do you think alcohol is the next? Hoffman: I put that right in, I put vehicles right in after 2. 2, 3, 4, 5. Lash: Okay, so then alcohol. Hoffman: Yeah, then 6 would be alcohol. 7 would be glass. 8 would be snowmobiling. 9 would be litter. Karlovich: Before we word all the signs, are we going to see one? Or maybe we should discuss this color issue. Lash: Did you want that to be tan and green? They want white with red, right? Howe: That's your typical don't do this sign. 'Franks: White with green. Does that not show up enough, is that their concern? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Spizale: I think white with green is more park like. Franks: That' s what I' m thinking. Spizale: Red and white seems kind of harsh. Karlovich: ...I've never seen park rules sign. Hoffman: They see it all the time. Karlovich: Whichever color it is...until somebody points out the rules. Hoffman: People use red as a attention getter. Red sells. Whatever you want to recommend. Spizale: It just doesn't seem very friendly. It's bad enough to come to a park and see all these things you can't-do. Even though that' s one of the things you look for to see what you can do in the park, maybe just a little bit more...the colors they've got in this brochure are great. Howe: That's a good point. Any opinions on what other cities? I'm trying to think at Minnewashta Regional, do they have signs up there? What colors are they? I can't recall. Hoffman: I don't recall either. Howe: All I think of is downtown no parking. White background, red letters and it sends a message. You can look at it and know it's something you're not supposed to do. You're right about the friendliness but if you want to, you can't do this people. Spizale: I think Hennepin Parks has brown and white. Hoffman: I don't know if they have it on the rules signs. I know they have a lot of directional signs. Spizale: I think on the rules too. Lake Minnetonka the same thing. Franks: Can we go two color? I mean white background with green lettering and then a red... Hoffman: Christmas. Franks: It'd be suitable for all year round. Hoffman: It's not fiscally responsible. Lash: I actually don't really care. Howe: You don't care about this one? Lash: No. Karlovich: What does staff recommend? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Lash: He did. He recommends red lettering on white background. Hoffrnan: It's universal language. Franks: Well I'd like personally I'd like to see the sign with green lettering on a white background. It just seems more consistent with our visual perception of park than red. Aesthetically I don't like it but then I also don't like the kind of the no that it says. Red in your face when we're supposed to be engaging them in activity, not... Lash: Personally I would have liked to have seen all of the rules stated in a positive manner, but unfortunately I know...You know canned beer allowed only. That's positive. As opposed to saying no, restricted right. Howe: Two sentences they get their message across. Lash: Yeah I know. Okay, somebody needs to make a motion... Karlovich: ...has anyone been to Excelsior Park in downtown Excelsior? They have little things with the...pooper scooper type stuff right there provided for you. I mean if we're having enforcement problems, is that something we want to do? Lash: You've supposed to provide your own. ~ Howe: I'll save my Rainbow bags from the food counter and. Lash: You're supposed to be able to produCe. Franks: On your person. Lash: Yes. An instrument of pick-up. Karlovich: I was just wondering if we're behind the times by not. Hoffman: No. Many cities choose not to because then you've got to supply the little vending machines and the little gloves forever and ever and ever and no. Lash: It's not that hard to have a bread bag tied onto your leash. Franks: Are you taking this down and developing this further or are you looking for a definite recommendation this evening? Hoffman: I think we' ve got it pretty well thought through with the comments from Sergeant Potts and ready to go up to the council and get these things put into place. Lash: Well you know...Sergeant Potts had it, you know that was a pleasing, eye pleasing thing. I don't know if our's will shake down that way. It'd be nice to see how it will, you know if nothing else if it went like this it would be okay but that' s just kind of all over everywhere. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Hoffman: This reads a lot nicer than that with the double lines like that. That doesn't read very well. We can do it like this. You know even with gaps. That will be fine. Moes: Okay. That's what I like about it. I like the left alignment. Just stating my opinion here. Spizale: I've got a question. Is this leaf the symbol of Chanhassen? Hoffman: Yes. Spizale: Could you do a leaf with the lettering, white lettering with a green leaf... ? Franks: You mean a stamped, cut out shape of a leaf?. Spizale: Yeah. It'd still be square. These could still be in there. Lash: You're talking about the printing on the...would that be more expensive? Hoffman: Probably, sure. Franks: Aesthetically that would be nice. I wouldn't want anything to detract from people actually getting the message. Moes: Before you do that Jay, just a quick question. When are we looking to have these signs put up? Is that something we're shooting for next month? Lash: It's already the end of May. If we table it til June, then it has to go to City Council a couple weeks later. The signs will be... Hoffman: About the time we can put them up is this fall anyway. We're too busy.- Kelly: One more quick thing. Do you think it'd be easier or harder to read if you put bullets onto the rules? Hoffman: I can come back with 4 or 5 different layouts for you. I can see where we're headed here. We're going to pick one out and vote on it. Karlovich: Okay, I'll make a motion for staff to take our input with regards to language and come back with a couple different choices on designs and possibly I guess also take our input with regards to color and designs and come back with a couple different choices for us. And that's about it. Lash: Is there a second to that? Moes: Second. Karlovich moved, Moes seconded to direct staff to provide the commission with a choice of park rule signs taking into consideration input regarding language and colors. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIRMAN. 10 Park and Rex: Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Lash: We'll move onto the appointment we need to fill, appoint a new vice chair now that Fred is. Howe: You want nominations? Lash: Open to nominations. Howe: I nominate Rod. Lash: Do I have to have a second to that or do I have to see if there' s any other nominations first? Which way does it go Todd? Do we need a second to that or do I have to see if there's other nominations? Hoffman: Don't know. Howe: I'll give my reasons why. Lash: Okay, go ahead. Howe: Well I'd like to nominate Rod because I've always respected the chair that he sat in was right there. He listens. He's a consensus builder. I think he'd make a very good vice chair. Lash: Is there a second to that motion? I'll second that. Howe moved, Lash seconded to appoint Rod Franks as Vice Chairman for the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. HERMAN FIELD PARK, RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORHOOD MAILING. Lash: We have the Herman Field Park issue and Betty... Just to let you know, the commission visited the park this evening before we came here... Todd, do you want to give us an update on that? Hoffman: It was back in April that the commission talked about Herman Field Park based off of I believe it was a police report we had at that time, or some other issues that we were talking about in regard to the playground. So we sent a letter to the neighborhood which ended up generating a good deal of response. Primarily through e-mail and voice-mail, which the voice mail messages were dictated and you have in your packet. I distributed this evening two other responses that you have in that back to back sheet and then also a memorandum from Sergeant Dave Potts speaking to a variety of the issues raised in the packet which was distributed from the letters from the folks. Generally I think the issue has taken on again a larger scope. Whether the playground goes or not, if you add up the vote totals, most people don't want the playground to go away. There are a few that said, sell it to a developer. Put houses in there. That will be the best thing for it and a couple others said close it down but primarily the majority would like to keep the playground and keep the park and then they focus immediately after that on the enforcement issues and the issues of the unsavory conduct which takes place down in the park from time to time. Speaking with Sergeant Potts, now you don't know what to believe. You know if that's, if those issues are generated are expounded upon or not. Dave had some first hand experience in his memorandum which he handed out, distributed to you when he had his canine dog, that he would go to the park on a routine basis and he stated that he didn't see adequate patrol of one city park would be questioned mark. Perception from some residents is they rarely see squads. Therefore squads are not patrolling the park. 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 When I was on patrol with my canine partner I was always looking for quiet, out of the way places to exercise my dog. Thus he picks Herman Field Park. Herman Field Park fit the bill. I rarely saw anyone using the park even though I was there all the time. I assumed then that the neighbors rarely saw me as well. In all my visits to the park I never caught anyone in a criminal act other than park curfew. It's not uncommon occurrence for deputies to be in exact spot. It is not a common occurrence for deputies to be in the exact right place at the exact right time to witness a crime in progress. So there's those issues. Deputy Potts talked a great deal about the fact that if the neighborhood wants to change the activity at the park they have to be actively involved. Cell phones have changed the way we do business in our communities and if these people have cell phones with them when they're at the park and they run into this type of activity they can call in a 911 call. I think there is some hesitation if you were the only other person at the park and you pick up your phone and call 911, the response I heard from the people that called and talked to me on the phone was that when we pull in there anyway, if we bring the family down they leave and so it's just the fact that we have to do that. That we have to be present to have these people leave so. I think this evening the comments you've received in writing, I know Ms. Lang has some discussion she would like to have with the commission. And then after that, Beth Hoiseth was out this evening and indicated to the commission that she would be willing to again recharge the Neighborhood Watch effort out there and see if those people would like to take that on again. There's a variety of environmental changes that could be put into place. Boulders or bollards around the parking lot to minimize the off road activity that we see up there. Many of the folks talked about a gate and there's pluses and minuses to a gate. I think the current prevention people mostly see minuses to that. Then after you gate it, the only people that can get back there are the people that want to take the time to walk back into the park and so they would think that the activity would only increase and it would bring more of the parking out into the neighborhood while those people would park then in the neighborhood and Walk back down into the park so. Generally where I saw this, my read on this whole thing was that the neighborhood would like to keep the park and they would just like to work a little bit harder with some involvement from the city on making it a better place for everyone to participate in their activities. Lash: Thanks Todd. Anyone have questions for Todd? Betty. Betty Lang: I'm just assuming that everyone. Lash: You have to state your name and address please so we have it for the record. Hoffman: It's been a while... Betty Lang: Oh right, but it's the same old problem, right? I started out quite early with this project before they even wanted to build the park and I hate to say it but I guess I told you so. That's bottom line. I think everyone has read the letters that have come in I assume. And you've seen the park. Okay, I didn't get to read all the letters and I wish I would have had time to do that but I picked up on a number of points there and I'd like to say that I am a grandmother and I have 2 grandchildren so I'm not an old witch that's out to get rid of the playground equipment. For one thing I don't think removing the playground equipment is going to have any affect on what goes on down there. It's the after hours things. You talk about Neighborhood Watch, well who's going to be down there pushing a stroller or walking their dog at 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, maybe 2:00 in the morning. This is what really ticks me off and as far as Sergeant Potts I believe his name, I mean he's got the right answer. He can't be down there. His patrol cars can't be down there all the time. And I've seen him come down, or whoever's down there. Chase them all out. The kids drive around the block. The patrol car goes one way and 2 minutes later they're back down there. I believe closing the park, closing the driveway to the park is the best answer. To make it just a walking area. No cars. And if the neighborhood people want it, fine. They 12 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 can walk to the park. And when we first moved out there, that was a dead end and that's where all the cars parked and they have their parties there at the dead end so if you allow any cars at all, you're going to have the same problem if you have a gate there. All they do is park on our lawn and cross and block the road. Throw their garbage out and do their same loud music in the middle of the night. That's not going to change. As far as the crime watch sign, I don't know if you noticed or not but a little spray paint, I'm sure they've read it. You think that crime watch sign is going to stop it. It's not stopping them. When they're determined to go down there and cause damage, they're going to do it. And in all the letters, I think all the points were brought up. Cars racing around all hours of the night. Loud music. And drug activity. I know the Carver County Sheriff came around last year asking about, they thought that's nothing. I'm surprised. We see cars going in and out of there all the time. So I guess as far as the letters, I guess because it' s costing money all of a sudden everybody' s kind of interested. I believe there was a Satellite that was burnt up down there last year. And I don't know if you took a walk and saw all the playground equipment that was burnt up and boarded up and I don't know, there was glass. Usually there's beer bottles underneath all the equipment. So the garbage can that's down there, that's always dumped in the parking lot and...with broken beer bottles, that's just, you expect to see that. And the latest was a truck load of garbage. I have some nice pictures you might like to see. You probably missed that today but that's what we have to put up with. Lash: And this was dumped by the parking lot or? Betty Lang: At the end of the parking lot. Our driveway light has been shot out and I noticed that somebody else had mentioned something about, I don't know BB gun or whatever they used and just last week I wasn't home at the time but someone came to our door to see if we were missing mail and I've noticed that when I drove out to go to work that day that below each mailbox there was mail so now they're getting into the mailboxes in the neighborhood. And also the, I forgot what I was going to say. So I think basically if you read the letters, everyone brings out the same point. The vandalism down there, the loud music, drag racing on that road and drug dealing. But if you can come up with a wonderful solution, I'm for it. Thank you. Lash: Thanks Betty. Should we open this up for commissioner comments? ...solution for this situation. Tom, do you have any suggestions? Any ideas you want to throw out? Kelly: The only thing I thought of, we talked about out there was maybe use that grass field for some kind of a soccer field or a volleyball courts just to get more people in but those people aren't going to be playing soccer and playing volleyball at midnight. They're still going to, if the problem is happening after the sun goes down, that may not solve. The park may get more positive use but it may not solve the negative use so, I'm not helping. Sorry. Lash: Thanks Tom. Mike, do you have any ideas? Howe: No. It's a problem. I don't feel you can shut it down though. I think even if you left it open, I mean this type of person is going to want a place to go and I'm sorry about your mail. I know in my neighborhood we've had some mail stolen. That's something that's been happening in some places in Chanhassen. A gate would be an interesting idea but I think that's...the park. I like Todd's idea. Some locks or something to keep people from driving on the field but still, that's not going to solve your core problem of people hanging around there when they're not supposed to and engaging in things that they're not supposed to and bother the neighbors. We talked about a light but a light doesn't seem to do any good. It's been torn down anyway and there's no one there to look at it anyway at 12:00 or 10:00 or 11:00 or 2:00 in the morning. I would say as a start and see where it goes, I think Beth had an idea about 13 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 meeting with the neighbors and try to use that park more and see where it goes. I mean the more people there, I don't know. I know we had a problem with this in other parks. Even Lake Ann. People go there when they're not supposed to, but there's probably no one there to hear them so. I really don't have a solution. Lash: Thanks. Dave. Moes: Yes, question of Betty if I can. You mentioned...prohibiting traffic from going down to the park. In your thought process then where would this gate be? Betty Lang: Right at the beginning. Right at the beginning of the park. Moes: In driving down... Hoffman: Right here Betty? Or here? Betty Lang: Well now there's a new home there so where their driveway is. Hoffman: It comes out at about here I think. Moes: Kind of the last turn there, right? Hoffman: The new driveway's fight here. Betty Lang: Well then it would have to be after their driveway. I guess if you put it too close to the parking lot area it wouldn't do any good. You'd have all those cars down there doing the same thing. Moes: Well that's where I was trying to put the two pieces together. Betty Lang: Well we'd have to have a no parking area. On the street would be no parking and that way we'd restrict them from parking their cars there. Moes: But part of the earlier comments I thought I heard was before the road was continued down to the park, or maybe it was one in the same that they were always parking there to begin with. Betty Lang: Right. Moes: Was it at the end of the road where the park is now or was it up farther? Betty Lang: It was right where the new people have their driveway. Moes: Okay, so they were parking there to begin with before the road was extended into the park. Okay. Betty Lang: But I mean there were no parking signs or restricted them from parking. You know anybody could go there and park. Moes: Okay. In my mind the thought process then is in order to, you put a gate there, the same type of enforcement monitoring patrolling that we're talking about for the park itself today would need to be in place but gated at the end of the road as well. 14 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Betty Lang: At one point there was 11 cars down there. We counted 11 coming out of there so you wouldn't really have room for 11 cars. You'd probably have a few...it might not be so appealing. Moes: If you restricted parking. Lash: I'm thinking they're not following the sign rules. Moes: Okay. I was just trying to think through. If we moved the access point out, what issues have really been resolved and what I'm hearing quite possibly is that the parking issue has just been moved up the road. And that the issue is still there. Lash: Or where they park. Moes: Out in the street. Lash: If there's no parking. Moes: Well, somebody...I'm just thinking out loud as to what. The core issue has been resolved or has just been moved up the road 4 to 5 blocks. Betty Lang: I think it's been moved up and also it's opened up so they can get a lot more back there. I think you made a good point, you know. I mean we'd probably have the same problem but maybe would limit the number of cars .... - Moes: ...that takes some driving to get there. This is very well known across the community that it's a hangout. Betty Lang: Excuse me, that was the point I missed. It's increasing. Every summer it grows and grows and grows and so as soon as school gets out we expect it every year more. You're right, that's a good point too that it just, they know it's a good place to go that they won't be bothered. Karlovich: Are we getting into open discussion now? Lash: Well we' 11 kind of work our way down and then maybe open it up for free flow. Any other ideas? Moes: No, I was just trying to think through the gating seemed to be an option versus closing it down completely and I was trying to think through that .... pass it on. Lash: Initially I think when we discussed this and brought this forward to the residents, I don't think, at least I know I did not intend to close the park. The thinking that I had was that...playground equipment had was vandalism, that maybe the idea was to move it somewhere where it would be used the way it's intended to be used. So I want to make sure that any information that's shared with the neighbors is that the intention was not to close the park. It was to consider the idea of maybe relocating the equipment only. It appears from the information we're getting from the residents, there's maybe more use than what we had thought. I thought Beth made a good point that, and Sergeant Potts also that a sign for Neighborhood Watch is not going to deter activity. It's going to be the Neighborhood Watch efforts. However the Neighborhood Watch efforts will mostly be during park hours because most of the families 15 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 with their toddlers aren't going to be going down there after 10:00. If there was a light down there, Todd was the light on a timer or was it just on all the time? How did that work? Hoffman: It's on a photocell so it's on after dark. Lash: So it comes on and stays on all night long? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: And we may want to discuss, I thought that Sergeant Potts had a good idea and he said you know sometimes having a light down there just makes it more convenient for them to be able to see what they're doing when they're in there when they shouldn't be in there to start with, and it makes it more difficult for neighbors to see that there's a light down there that doesn't belong so if they're bringing in flashlights or their own lights, it'd be easier to detect if we weren't providing light for them. So if we want to re-install the light I guess I would suggest that it be on a timer and that they go off at 10:00 or 10:30 or something like that. So we're not lighting... You know part of me wants to encourage more positive participation, which would mean scheduled soccer practices or some of those kind of things to get more people down there. It won't be a fun place for them to be if there's appropriate activities going on. That chases them away. But again that won't chase them away at night. I don't have a, I mean it's one extreme or another. It's going to either encourage more.., appropriate participation at the park and more Neighborhood Watch. The other extreme is to gate it. BlOck off everything that we could possibly block off. They have to try and walk in to get in there to party, which is difficult when you have a keg or whatever all they want to bring in there. That's harder to do. And if we have no parking down there, then you can call and they can enforce no parking. I don't know that that's the solution. A lot of times those kind of things backfire on us too. That just doesn't always work so I'm not sure, I need to hear more comments from other people... Franks: Betty, just a question if you would. It sounds like you really are up on what's going on down there. Betty Lang: Because I'm the only neighbor. I mean you talk about Neighborhood Watch, until this other new home got in there, we're the neighbors. Howe: Well where's your lot line? Which lot is your's? Franks: I'm just wondering, well how many nights per week let's say in the summer once school lets out, and we're assuming is the active time. About how many nights a week is this really being a problem, that you're noticing? You're able to notice. Betty Lang: Every night. Franks: Every night. Betty Lang: The squealing. I don't know about the damage because I don't go down there to check the damage, but the squealing wheels, the fast cars coming out of there, loud music in the summer, that's every night. As soon as school gets out. Not so much before but I can anticipate now a lot. I would say every night there's somebody breaking the time curfew down there. That 10:00 curfew doesn't mean a thing. Like I say, if they patrol it, if it' s a call they patrol it. The cars all come out. 2 minutes later they're all back. 16 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Franks: And just so I can understand from your perspective how it's going on, is it something that lasts for a little while in the evening, or on these nights that you notice something, is it going on for long periods of time or? Betty Lang: Well it depends. It's always different... Franks: This conversation we're having is very familiar to one that we've already had in the past and it was out of that neighborhood got really mobilized and the public safety department got their watch going and got active and here we are again. Back with the same issue again. My guess is, unfortunately that the same thing will happen again because we're not radically changing anything from what we've already tried. There's nothing new that I can see coming into the mix if we just allow our crime prevention person to really mobilize the neighborhood into a park watch kind of thing. That has been done. I don't see anything being different here. I think the same thing is going to happen again and we're going to be back at the same spot where we are. Though on the other hand I can empathize with the neighbors that are going, bringing the kids down to the playground. Wants to see that go. That's something that they're using and that they're used to and it's a difficult decision you have to make but this design, as I'm looking at it now it just seems so unworkable to come up with anything that will cure this problem. And Todd, I'm sitting here thinking that this might be beyond our expertise a little bit in park design kind of prevention. To really develop a workable solution. What we've known how to do we have tried and have not been successful and arrested the difficulties. So I'm sitting here feeling a little bit helpless. Betty Lang: That's how we felt. From the day it was put in. Hoffman: Commissioner Franks, I'm not sure there'-s a silver bullet in park design that will take care of this situation. What you hear the law enforcement people saying is that in, they can't do it alone and neighborhood crime watch, and perhaps what would change is if the people become concerned enoUgh that they are going to make daily efforts if that' s what it takes to dial 911 and get the police out there. If that continues for a few weeks, those kids are not going to hang out here with the cops constantly stopping back, if they're doing any type of activities that they don't want to get caught doing, that's going to go away. And assuredly when things quiet down, come back again and it's going to take the same effort from the neighborhood. Lash: Well what do the police do when they're called down there? They drive in, all the cars drive out and that's the end of it? Don't they ticket? Don't they arrest? Don't they get license plate numbers and follow up? What do they do? Hoffman: I can't answer that. Lash: Bust up the party and. Hoffman: I can't answer that question. They're there to, a question for Sergeant Potts. Lash: I started getting, I read the blotter every week in the paper and I don't see lots of minor consumption citations being written down for that park so my guess is that maybe we're breaking it up but not. Hoffinan: Well that's assuming that consumption is taking place. I mean it's not always the case. A lot of these kids just want to hang out and have someplace to go. I would assume a lot of the traffic activity 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 is just the neighborhood or the general area kids driving on down there to see if any of their buddies are there. And then they drive on out and they drive fast on that little windy road. You can see there's about as much travel off the road as there is on the road in that one curve so. Franks: Well this commission is notorious for not giving up on ideas so I think that I would be more than willing to direct staff to really work with the neighborhood to see what they can develop. That you really gauge the level of their commitment to see if something is workable. Hoffman: ...and I could add to that that if the park plan was never given to the city, I don't think you would ever have seen a neighborhood park there. But for the fact that it was given to the city, it's kind of like what did you have to lose. Franks: Well part of my thinking is that there's this sense that we've invested into this park, not only time, resources and money, but the neighborhood has an investment here just by the nature of it's presence. But when I look at it just on a purely an investment perspective, you begin to wonder when you should really take your losses and run and you know we talk about improvements. How much do we want to keep putting into improvements or fencing or keep replacing the equipment when it continues to be vandalized and the neighbors continue to have these problems and is there some other solution to provide for the types of recreational needs for this neighborhood other than having it centered in Herman Park. And maybe what we need to do is begin, while the neighborhood is taking this on themselves, we as a body need to begin to look for an alternative means to really begin to meet the needs of this neighborhood. At least as far as tot recreation in some other fashion. I don't know if that's workable or not. Hoffman: Buy some other land somewhere else in the neighborhood. Lash: Are you done Rod? Franks: Yeah, I'm done. Thanks. Lash: Jay. Karlovich: I'd like to start off first of all with a question for, I'm sorry. Betty Lang. Betty. Karlovich: ...refer to you by your first name. I don't remember your last name. Betty Lang: Lang. Karlovich: Lang. Who owns the platted lot that's kind of to the southeast of your property? And then I guess this just kind of lays into a general question for staff. I'm looking at the map that's in front of us and it refers to a Forest Avenue platted right-of-way and it appears as though there's some line, a different type of dotted line that just starts near where it says 25 feet wide. It talks about an access road. Before we get into any more discussion I guess about the gate, I'm wondering if at what point is a public road or a point where we put a gate in without blocking the access to platted lots and I'm not sure what is possibly platted on the other side. You said there's some new house that's gone in but, you know it appears our park property, that 20 acre rectangle and we have some type of access easement that maybe looks like it hooks onto a platted road. 18 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Hoffman: That's right at that point. There's a second home going in here. I'm not sure if they're going to go down a common driveway. If they're having another driveway in here but at this point that's platted right-of-way and then we purchased an easement, the city purchased an easement to go through here for a road. Karlovich: So I guess if it' s before us right now whether we're going to replace the slide or not, and you say you already have one in stock and we have no other use for it somewhere else, it seems like kind of a no brainer that we're going to replace the equipment that's with the neighborhood wants. With regards to the gate, I don't know if the gate can be that much of an option if we have to put it that far down Forest Avenue and or not. That's something maybe that we should discuss at a later date. I think otherwise if we could put a gate all the way back where it splits off from the intersection with Forest Circle, I think all the landowners like that. You know the gated idea...commission members that that might be a solution. I think if you're going to go down there and party and listen to some music and sit in your car, you're more apt to do that if it's gated and you have to walk down there. I guess you'd have to bring your music with you and you'd have to fight the mosquitoes or the cold and so I think a gate is a good idea. I just don't know where a gate can be put. Otherwise after we put in the new slide, slides that the kids vandalize and destroy it again, there appears we have two options to either intensify the use of the park or make it more of a passive, open space and it doesn't appear that you have us up here to intensify. We don't have any land to develop a field or any more of a parking lot without turning all of the open space into a parking lot. So then I think you're forced to kind of putting the slides back in. You can investigate the gate a little bit more. Otherwise if it fails again, which it appears it might get burnt up again at some time, they just leave it as an open field. I don't know but that's maybe some ideas for maybe a different master plan for this park. I don't know, I'm just kind of speaking out loud. Those are the comments that I have and I'll pass it onto our new commissioner. Lash: Jack. Spizale: I kind of like the idea of a gate and I agree with you. I think it makes it a lot harder for anybody to use it. The other, and I hate to see the bad guys win. You know that bothers me. Why should bad people chase away good people? And it's basically good people. You've probably got really a small amount of people mining it for everybody else. And in kind of looking at this too, I really don't see where the sheriff' s doing that good of a job. I don't see where he's arrested anybody or given any, frankly I read that police blotter. I' ve never read anything, anybody's been stopped down there and given a citation so it can't be that hard to catch somebody down there and tag them. I guess I'm a little bit bewildered why they can't catch somebody because it doesn't seem that hard. It's just teenage kids going down there. If they took two squad cars and they stopped the cars and ID'd the kids and got their names, when there was vandalism, the first person that they could go to was these kids that they ID'd and start a file on them. So I think they could be doing, he seemed like a really nice guy but I think he could be doing a much better job on solving his end of the problem. And I think the other idea is that there was, and maybe this is a long range idea but if there was another piece of property in that neighborhood that was open to put that playground equipment and people just walked to it and it was in the open and they sold that piece of land to a developer, at least the playground equipment could still be used by the neighborhood. And I mean the area that the area's using is just a very small, tiny little area. They've got 20 acres. If that was an invisible spot in the middle of that neighborhood it'd be great. I guess that's my comments. Lash: Okay, anyone else have comments that you want to throw out from what you heard? 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Howe: I strongly encourage a meeting again between the neighbors and that and maybe Dave. I know they've probably had one of these before but I agree with what Jack said. If there's just a way that the, as soon as school ends in the end of June just, I don't know if it's for a week period, just a very intense. Be at that park all the time. Neighbors and maybe work an extra effort with the sheriff to be there and say you know, we're going to be serious about this this year. You know come off on that track the first week school's out, maybe there's a way you could set the trend to make it, make the bad guys leave. Spizale: I think the kids would go somewhere else. Find another hangout spot. Franks: In Chaska. Spizale: Yeah, or Hennepin County. Lash: Anyone else? Moes: Well just an additional thought is the gate concept does have some interesting aspects to it. I'm not quite certain where that gate would be appropriate to put. I'm trying to think of the vehicle traffic down there. But doing a gate and at the same time, now that we've got a parking lot down there we could probably start a mini skateboard park. That would increase the activity at the park and quite possibly have the individuals going somewhere else. Karlovich: If we're getting creative, one thing that I'd love to have is possibly having Betty sell us her property and...it looks like her property is where the neighborhood park should be and she could have a nice home there where the park is. Betty Lang: Great, a swap. Karlovich: We could just move her house over there and solve the problem. Lash: Anyone else? Franks: I just want to make a comment about the gate. As far as stopping vehicle traffic, I think it's a good idea. Where we have the placed it looks like it's not real optimum. Then we have the whole practical aspect of who opens the gate and closes the gate. When is it opened? Does it stay open during the winter? Is it closed during the winter? What time of the day? Who's going to do it? We're not going to have the CSO or the sheriff' s department going out there twice a day in the morning and night to open and close the gate. And families are on vacations and scheduling about what it's going to do. If you can imagine it, the calls that would come into city hall if a person forgot to open it that day or was sick and so I mean, the concept of a gate sounds good to me and a practical level, it just doesn't seem workable. Hoffman: Well I think there is some. Lash: I don't think it was going to be open and closed. It was just going to be... Hoffman: Closed permanent. Moes: Well the gate that I was referring to would be a permanent structure there prohibiting vehicle traffic. 20 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Hoffman: So you're talking about like driving the posts into the. Moes: I'm not sure what the right answer would be. My thought is I'd be willing to try. Franks: Close the road completely to vehicle traffic. Moes: Some sort of permanent blockade, whatever the term would be and try that as an option. And then get feedback on that. Lash: You know I made a list of some things and as much as I would, as I know sometimes it doesn't work to get it off and you have other kind of problems and things like that, I'm wondering if for this particular instance we don't have to at least just give it a shot for this year and see what happens. And maybe not a big, fancy gate structure. It may be just boulders across. Howe: Cement barriers for islands. Lash: I mean something so that we don't have to put, make a big investment into creating some big gate structure and into the grass area so it can't be just, you've got to bring them around. And if we close down some of the neighbors may not like that because they're not going to be able to drive down there either... They're going to need to then walk or bike in and post, now you won't have this to be able to do this but somebody else would have to do it. Post no parking signs because otherwise you're just going to park all over on the street and walk in. Replace the slides so that the neighbors now haVe a nice playground equipment and increase the Neighborhood Watch so they're calling in. Ask the Police to put it on their hot spot thing for the first couple weeks in June when school's out and that we encourage them- to tag violators instead of just scaring them off. And then review it in the fall and get, you know ask Betty and some of the other neighbors to come in and say how you think it's going. They're the ones who are going to see it .... people in the new house are going to see it. And ask if they see 'as much vandalism. If they see the traffic, if they see the broken bottles. All those kinds of things. In the end if it works, you know then turn the parking lot into a basketball. Put some basketball hoops in. Franks: Okay, but how do you have no parking on the street? Lash: I don't know... Franks: ...maintaining accessibility, apart from people that are going to come from outside these few streets here who want to use the park... Karlovich: It'd be like the one at Lake Ann where you have to go way down the road. Kelly: Would park maintenance...blocking off the park access? Would those guys be able to get in those... Hoffman: You'd have to have a gate so vehicles could still go in there. To allow for maintenance of the structure. Lash: I don't know. I mean I feel like we need to some drastic measures. If we stay on the same path we've had it's going to be a continuation of the same problems. The neighbors want the park. The neighbors want to take their kids there. We need to try to deter the undesirables. 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Howe: At night only. Lash: At night, right. You know I'd love to see it open up for soccer practice or something but we're not going to be able to do that and deter the night time traffic so I don't know what else. Hoffman: What do you think about a neighborhood questionnaire to start asking them some of these questions? Believe me, 90% of the people that use the park might drive there every day. If that's the case we're making a huge mistake. Kelly: What if they did a swing gate and have one of the neighbors or group of neighbors, what if they had the key? And they took care of opening up the park. Lash: It just makes that difficult. If the neighbor's not there or a neighbor doesn't do it or you know. Karlovich: You'd have to block all the way... Lash: Or bollards and chains so at least the city staff could get into mow but I don't, you have to maintain it... Franks: How much did that sell if we wanted to pay for this property? Hoffman: $60,000 an acre probably, Franks: Get it up to 80 and we might be able to do something. Lash: Do we want to try and close this, put together some type of plan and mail it out or suggestions to the neighbors and say after reviewing it, after talking with our crime specialist, after speaking with the deputies, after talking to Beth up here, these are some suggestions we have. Let us know how you feel. Which things would you support? Which things could you not live with? Karlovich: It seems like the do nothing approach is not a good option so, I don't know if we're ready to go forward. I don't know. Todd, do you want some more time to come back with suggestions to us as to what we should do? Hoffman: Well we can certainly do that or I think the most valuable piece of information out there for this neighborhood, they're obviously going to have to be engaged if the park's going to stay so we might as well engage them right now. Howe: Do you think you could write a letter? You know what we've been talking about as far as the gates and we could put something together. Hoffman: Well I could put together a draft survey for you to come, bring back here and have you look at it before we send it out. Lash: My concern with dragging it out too long, school's going to be out in a couple weeks. Hoffman: Well I think it's a two phase approach. Beth and Sergeant Potts have said that they'll go ahead and go out there and start up their efforts again. 22 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Lash: I'd love to see them mark it as a hot spot, at lease the first week after school. Hoffman: It's already on the list. Sergeant Potts said it's on the hot spot list today. Karlovich: But it seems like we shouldn't put the slides back out there until we barricade it? Franks: Not before we survey the neighborhood. Lash: Well I think that they would agree with us. They're not going to want brand new slides put in until we, until everyone has a little bit more of a comfort level. That they're just not going to get burned the first week after schools out. They're not going to want to have that happen either so they're going to want to know that if we're fixing stuff up, they have some shred of hope that it might last a little longer. Moes: I was just trying to think, and Todd you were mentioning the survey. I'm all for getting community input with a broad range of thoughts and ideas. What runs through my mind is, we send out a questionnaire or a communication to them is kind of...based on the input that we've gotten and the discussion that we've had, that option, the number option we come up with is, you know...gate, prohibiting access, or limiting access to it other than by foot, by bike, etc. You know what are your reactions to that? So we' ve limited the scope of the current option at least and get the positive or negative feedback of that specific item and issue. Here's four options, come back with 25% on each side, we're still left with a do nothing mode versus maybe taking a step one way or the other on if 90% come back saying you can't put a gate there...we're at least taking that option off the plate then. Kaflovich: I don't see how you can put a gate there then post no parking on Forest Avenue. I mean most of all this neighborhood seems to be...to the west when they talk about the... I mean this is a really I guess, it appears as though a lot of people I guess that actually use it are going to drive over. Howe: What if you put, this is out of our realm, no parking after 10:00 p.m.? Park hours. You spell it out. 10:00 to 6:00 a.m. you're not parking. And from 6:01 to 9:59 you can park here all you want. I don't know who makes that decision. Hoffman: We don't have any faith in the park rules being followed in the parking lot, why would we have any faith in the no parking signs being followed at the entrance to the gate? Lash: That was one of mine. Could it be no parking for, you know I'm not good at lengths, footages or anything like that but a certain area that that's closest to the park. Because if it's after hours and they're parking down in the vicinity of you know Betty's house and you know whoever else is right down there.., call up and say there' s people parking down here. They must be out of the park. Kelly: And maybe the sheriff will take care of them. Karlovich: Yeah, if it says after 10:00 p.m., we can come and ticket all those cars. Howe: That's what I would do. Moes: ...is that a city call or is that a county call? Karlovich: I think you as the city could come up with your own parking rules for any of your city' streets. 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Hoffman: Oh sure, you can sign that no parking. Lash: Well I'd say at least, I'd say just no parking for a certain period. Just period. Just no parking. Hoffman: It's a public hearing process just like any other no parking. The neighbors have to agree to it because it's an inconvenience for them as well. I've not met the new neighbor and there's I believe two lots there that will be built that will be in a similar situation from the lines where they're very close to the park so I don't know what their involvement is with enforcement issues in the park or what it will be in the future. Lash: I'd say in the letter, if you want to draft a letter to them and you can say immediate action that will happen is increased neighborhood watch and Beth will be contacting them to work on that. And increased patrol of at least the first part of June with enforcement emphasized and that we would like their feedback on what they would think of closing off completely that entrance area to the park and potentially having, restricting parking in that area and then reviewing it in the fall to see... You know at that point I'd be willing to invest...and put the slides back in and see how it goes. Hoffman: I'll piggy back with Beth on her mailing for Neighborhood Watch and so we'll just do a singular mailing and she'll schedule a meeting at the same time I'll ask these questions. Rod, when you talked about .specific expertise, this is one area that does have some background. When you take an area that is a trouble spot and you restrict it even further, often times as Jan says, it backfires. Now you simply have less good activity taking place there and it generates more bad activity. The sheriff s department, they're going to drive to the gate. If they don't see anything, they're going to turn around and leave and the activity just continues on and escalates and grows down in the parking lot area. Now they don't have access to it. Wherever they are they need to stop and get out of their vehicle and walk down to that location. Then they're putting themselves in a difficult position. They don't have back-up and they're out of their vehicle. Lash: And even if they drive down and listen. If they stop and just listen, if there's a party going you can hear it... If nothing else is going to come down on all the traffic going in and out because there's not going to be any place for them to park. Howe: Todd, where are the two lots going in? Hoffman; Well you saw the one home there. So there's a new home right here. I'm not quite sure how the design lays out. I'll look at that. Howe: Well I would say that would be good. You could move the gate back because that makes another set of eyes that they're going to see if there's cars parked out there some night. I think it's secluded enough now that maybe you can get away with something, but if there's homes in there. Close enough to that road. I don't know the area well enough to know but it seems to me that someone's going to be paying more attention if they live there, right in there as opposed to somebody who's taking a walk in there. Lash: Unfortunately you need to have that brand new person in the position where all of a sudden they're the park watcher. You're not putting a house there to be the park patrol... Howe: No, but if it happens enough you're going to send a message. 24 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Hoffman: Oh yeah, and that' s one of the things Jan that the enforcement people are saying. I mean you can't have it both ways. This is the environment you live in and you either get involved or. Lash: But we need to try and make our efforts too. You know we need to direct our sheriff needs to do their part, the neighbors need to do their part. It's going to have to be a 3 way thing here. We need to be creative so, I don't know. Karlovich: It seems like we're going to have to try something different even if this tums out to be wrong. Hoffman: Boy, I don't know if I like that philosophy. Lash: But if it's temporary, you can say this isn't working...and we haven't spent you know $25,000 on some elaborate gate system. Hoffman: I don't want to rash to judgment. Lash: Well...no parking. Hoffman: I think that's a good move. Lash: We' 11 turn it back on them and see. Hoffman: If some of the commissioners can attend the Neighborhood Watch, that will be great. You know the meeting, I'll attend that meeting. Franks: We'll get the mailing? Hoffman: Yes. Send you a mailing. Lash: ...make sense to you? Betty Lang: I mean it's a lot of ideas but I think the best one was do a temporary thing and see what happens. And then get a feel for what these people, all the neighbors want to do. Lash: And put it back on our agenda in October and send out a mailing in September on how do you think it went. To the neighbors. Moes: Trying something that comes back with it wasn't the right solution, at least it was an elimination of another opportunity. Betty Lang: Excuse me, I did have one question though. I thought that Herman Field Park was donated as a park... I mean I don't know if you're serious or what but thinking of selling it? Lash: I don't think we were at all serious. Hoffman: But there's nor restrictions on it Betty. Betty Lang: Oh there wasn't any? 25 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Hoffman: Not that I recall. Betty Lang: I thought that's why we started from square one because there was no other option that we had to make that into a park because it was given that way or whatever. Karlovich: I don't' think that there is restrictions after a certain number of years. There's been cases where the city can either acquire title to the property and use it for something different. Betty Lang: Excuse me, I have one more comment. When this park idea first came up, there was a second option for an entrance but I don't remember now where it is or where it was. Hoffman: It was off of Oriole. Betty Lang: No, I think it was the other side. Hoffman: Over here? Betty Lang: Yeah, it was on... Hoffman: There was a pedestrian access here that we talked about. Betty Lang: What was it? Hoffman: A pedestrian access. A trail access from that cul-de-sac and then the other drive access they talked about was at this location. Betty Lang: Oh okay. I didn't realize it was just a pedestrian~ Lash: It does get relatively steep... Franks: Betty just for your own clarification, and for mine too, the reason why I half heartedly suggested selling off part of the property was to make an example of the thinking outside of the box a little bit in trying to solve this problem instead of running around inside trying to do what's already been done. Betty Lang: Oh no, I mean I don't have a problem with that but I just thought before we get too far with that, I thought there was a restrictions on it. No, that's fine. Lash: Thanks for coming in. Betty Lang: Oh thank you for all the ideas. Lash: I need to see if someone is able to make a motion to direct staff what to do with this. Hoffman: Can hardly buy a motion around here tonight. Moes: What do we do? ...we had the three items. The Neighborhood Watch. Howe: Yeah, call a Neighborhood Watch. Do a survey of sorts. 26 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Karlovich: Are we doing a survey or not? Lash: Let's let suggestions or proposals and just see what we get and to have the Neighborhood Watch and to have the cops down there. Note the hot spot for the first couple weeks in June and signing. Karlovich: Can you make a motion Jan? Lash: No I can't. Moes: Well I'll take a shot at it. I move that we direct staff to work with Beth in promoting and accelerating the Neighborhood Watch activity that's currently going on with the Herman Field Park. To work with Sergeant Dave Potts to increase the patrol as well as where appropriate issue citations. Tickets if appropriate for activity that' s occurring down there, whether it' s between park hours. Especially after park hours. And then also to incorporate with the literature that Beth is going to be sending out, a letter proposing that our current option at this time to address some of the issues at the park is to put up a temporary gate limiting access to the park strictly to put...and their feedback at the end of the summer. And limiting parking at the gate entrance... Karlovich: Make a friendly amendment to direct staff to investigate where we can put the gate and we'll try a temporary gate... Lash: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Howe: I'I1 second it. Moes moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to do the following items related to Herman Field Park: 1. Work with Beth Hoiseth in accelerating the Neighborhood Watch for this area. 2. Work with Sergeant Dave Potts in increased patrol of the park. . Incorporate literature with letters to be mailed to the neighbors addressing some of the issues and that a temporary gate will be installed. 4. Investigate where a permanent gate can be installed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. Lash: We moved up the commission member presentations to the next item. Anyone have any commission member presentations? Franks: Thanks for doing that. I do have some other...I need to get to so I appreciate you doing that but I wanted to personally welcome Jack and Tom to the commission. I look forward to learning more about each of you and to serving with you as well. And I think you' I1 find that this is a pretty, as Jay recently found again, a pretty good group of people to work with. I'm sure you'll be a good addition to that as 27 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 well. You are kind of coming on at the end of some unique circumstances though where it' s usual that we seem to have some more transition so if you pick up some tension or whatever it's that the two departing members, we really haven't had much of an opportunity to have some closure with, but I think we'll be able to work through that without too much difficulty. Which brings up my other comment is that in the time that I've been a commission member, the process of reappointment or appointment of new members has really not followed the way that this one has occurred and there's two members that you're replacing that I'm sure you'll live up to that were very respected and very well liked. Very talented., very good commissioners of character and my feeling is that the procedure that has brought the two of you here in a respectful manner, has also led to their not being appointed and as equally disrespectful a manner. And I would like to propose again that the council reconsider the arrangements that have been in place most the time that I've been a commissioner and that's that the commission itself review the applicants and make recommendations to the council. This happened with, I just learned your names tonight and to me that didn't seem fair to you. Or necessarily...and just learning that two of my respected colleagues just last week weren't going to be sitting in those chairs was equally painfully painful to me. As I'm sure as exciting to you to be here tonight. So Chair, I'd like to thank you for moving up the item on the agenda. I do have to go. Again I do welcome you and I promise not to be so somber at the next meeting but I do hope that as a body also we will find some way to have some appropriate closure for the leavings of some trusted and respected colleagues and good friends as well. Thanks. Lash: Thanks Rod. Howe: See you Rod. Lash: Anyone else with a commission member presentation? Howe: Well I agree with Howe in some respects. I think that, no offense to my new colleagues. The system was somewhat flawed this time. I do think Fred and Jim experience will be missed and I do look forward to working with both of you. Lash: And I'll join that. That discussion and again Tom and Jack, you're very welcome and we really appreciate citizen participation in our commissions. It's really a necessity to our city. However, in this particular situation I truly believe that the property procedure and policy of our city was not followed because our commission was excluded from the process and the resolution in city policy in 1995 that was adopted was that the commission would do interviews and pass on the recommendations. That specific policy was not followed so I'm going to respectfully request that this be reviewed by the City Council and since the mayor's here I'd be happy to hear her feelings on this issue of policy not being followed. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Madam Chair, I appreciate your acknowledging me as the liaison for the council this evening. I will certainly address the issue of whether that was proper procedure or not. It certainly is the process that has been followed in the past and in reviewing that process with the city manager our discussion revolved around whether or not it was really a necessity considering the number of positions that were being interviewed for and the number of candidates. We will be reviewing that procedure and possibly making whatever changes need to be noted within ordinance. It is council's prerogative to follow whatever process the council is comfortable with. We certainly realize what your recommendation would have been coming up from the commission with the two reappointed members. It puts the commission in a position that isn't necessarily unbiased if you would. The council interviewed all of the candidates realizing there were two positions open. We had 4 candidates. A fifth had dropped out I believe was the count. Jay bouncing back and forth between Planning and Park and 28 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 Rec. It certainly puts us in a position of making a tough decision when we have such dedicated commissioners. We had a conversation. I acknowledged to both Mr. Berg and Mr. Manders that the philosophy, at least stated by myself throughout the commission appointments, meaning Planning Commission also, is that when we have so many interested members of our community who would like to get involved in our process, it's difficult to then limit the ability for them to participate by having these seats remain filled for 20 years, 12 years. Whether or not we can come up with a term limit or some sort of guidance on the positions so that there is some turnover and availability for participation by more community members. That is a conversation that the council will need to have. It's one that I've encouraged for at least the last 2 years. The more involvement that we can encourage from the community, the better. We need more members of the community and the excitement in Jack's voice and Tom's voice when I called them was equal to the disappointment of the two members who weren't reappointed. So it is a difficult call to make and if there were a policy in place that better prepares commissioners for that philosophy, that is what I'm trying to encourage. It's a difficult position. I did try to express to the two reappointment candidates that that was at least my philosophy so that there would not be a surprise. And it was the same philosophy that I stated at the Planning Commission interviews so you know my apologies that it came as a surprise to all of you. I realize that it may have' been a disappointment. I appreciate each of you having acknowledged to your new members, you know your pleasure if you would at serving with them as we go forward and I certainly hope that there will be a mentorship that occurs. I know that you have been a very tight group. It's difficult to see friends turn over. You know obviously, and it gets to be that way and the comraderie that develops on a commission is wonderful and I hope that we can continue to have more members of our community experience it. And you're one commission that I very much have appreciated working with. I appreciate all the effort that you put into your positions. Your dedication. The community definitely benefits by your sense of community and comraderie. And again my apologies if you were disappointed. I assumed that you probably would be, but the philosophy of getting more people involved, I think the community is definitely a better place the more people and more participation that we can gain so we will be looking at and evaluating any sort of changes that we need to make so that everyone is better prepared as we go through the next round of appointments. But thanks for your comments. Lash: Thanks Mayor Jansen .... your comments and your insights into participation by our community members. I think it's a very, very important part to have those people. I do respectfully disagree that, personally I do not as a commission and taxpayer, I do not feel that it is the City Council's prerogative to deviate from policy that was established unless you change the policy prior. So the policy was not followed. The ordinance was not followed in this particular instance. And I don't think it's your prerogative to deviate. Mayor Jansen: I acknowledge your comments and it was discussed with the city manager and we did follow what we needed to follow to have the appointments be legitimate so, from there we will take care of it. Lash: No policy standing now, as I understand it is that the commission is involved in the interviews. Mayor Jansen: I would have to pull that out and take a look at your's that you're quoting but I do know that that was practiced previous. Thank you. Lash: Thank you. I would appreciate a comment in response to that on the record, thank you. Okay, let's move onto our next items which are recreation program reports. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 29 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 2001 SUMMER ACTIVITIES. Lash: Comments or questions for Corey from anyone? Okay, will you thank Corey for us Todd? Hoffman: I sure will. 2001 LAKE ANN PARK OPERATIONS. Lash: The next one is the 2001 Lake Ann Park operations and that's with Jerry. And congratulations... being a new father and anyone have any comments they want passed onto Jerry regarding any of these issues? Howe: Todd is the lake, I was there last week. It seems pretty high. Is it receding a bit? I mean are we worried about the height of Lake Ann? It' s not a problem is it? Hoffman: The water level? No. It's high water. The beach is limited but it's not out of it's banks yet. Howe: Thank you. Lash: Any other comments? Karlovich: The only other comment I have is just reading every one of Jerry's memo's puts you in a good mood. Something we all could learn a little something from. He always seems so upbeat. - Hoffman: Quite optimistic young man. Lash: He has a fun job so. Well I mean he does fun things. Hoffman: That's right. T he new baby's name is Bryerly Grace. 7 ¥2 pounds, 19 ¥2 inches. Born last Friday morning about 10:30 so. ADMINISTRATIVE: 2001 SUMMER SOFTBALL LEAGUE. Lash: Things going on here that look good. Do you have comments to pass onto Jerry with that? Okay. COMMITTEE MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. Lash: Mr. Howe. Howe: Thank you. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Dave Huffman, the 5K race that we just started last year was our first year and I just had the privilege of coming from a meeting this evening before we met at Herman Field Park. This year's race is September the 15th so I do expect you to start training tonight when you get home. No alcohol tonight. I want you to start training. And last year we were certainly lacking in the Viking's participation. Well this year, I don't know what happened but they are, I just, tried to write as fast as I could. They're going to let us go to the three preseason games and give us a tent on the plaza with pictures of Dave Huffman to tell people about our race. Dave Huffman was a commissioner. I took his seat a long time ago. They're going to put us on their web site. A half a dozen cheerleaders are going to run the race .... they're going to put an announcement on the Jumbotron. 30 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 They're going to put us in the program. A free advertisement. We've got Joe Schmidt signed up. Joe's going to put us on Sports Wrap. Ragnar is thinking about running his motorcycle to lead the race. They think that some of the Vikings players will actually be here because they have an away game Monday night so they don't leave until Sunday so some of, they can't run but they might be here. And we're going to have different color...one of the colors talked about was... Just incredible. I also did some work on the round house. I got a lead on some free or cheap lumber and I did talk to Deanna yesterday and they don't have a contractor yet but they're still very excited and they want to work very hard for it. Hoffman: She e-mailed me today and said they have a potential contractor. He wants to get inside the building and look at it. Howe: Well I'm on the lead so that's all I have. Kelly: Can I ask a question about that race. I ran that race last year. I waited for years for a race to happen in Chanhassen. It was a great race. And it was an ideal day. I like the idea that it was a point to point race. It started at Lake Ann and you actually used the foot bridge. Probably introduced a lot of Chanhassen residents to the foot bridge. Is there anyway, I know I've done a few 5K. Is there any way you can incorporate like a kid's run? You know follow the 5K with... Howe: As the race gets bigger I think we can do that but right now we want to focus on making the 5K the best we can and we're all new at this. I mean I'm a runner and we all have people who ran and this is what I would want for a perfect race but I think until we really get that up and off the ground consistently, then yeah we could have a 10K, a kiddie race. We did talk about a kiddie race but I think right now frankly.., organizational skill. I won't say that in a year we won't have one. People did ask for that for their kids. And it's something we talked about. That's all I have. Lash: My congratulations. Howe: It's not me. I'm not doing this. Lash: Any other commission member committee reports? Okay. Todd? I'm trying to recall our status on the Memorial Park. Where do we stand on that? Now that Fred's gone. Hoffman; We have a plan that will be submitted to the City Council as part of the budget considerations for 2002. And then we are also waiting on the trail development on the east, or excuse me west side so we're waiting for Century Boulevard to be complete. Those lots could sell and the trail could be completed early on but you had voiced an interest in seeing things happen before that time. And so you want to get kind of a two step approach. Keep moving but then look at those other things. We met with Southwest Metro, staff met with Southwest Metro. At looking at them building the parking lot there as a park and ride. The location's too small and so they don't want to do that where that would have allowed us to build a free parking lot. So we continue to move forward. The Girl Scouts put bluebird houses out there and so it's our first project, even though it's not officially turned over to Memorial Park as yet. Lash: Are we, now I suppose it will depend on how it goes over with the City Council that we had kicked around the idea of a potential next spring kick-off. Is that still? Hoffman: Oh it still could happen, yeah. Lash: I just wanted to know if we had kind of a time line. Somewhere we could...Okay, thanks. 31 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Lash: I have one quick question on Mr. Gates' letter. Have you been able to respond... Hoffman: I have not. Lash: Are you planning on? Hoffman: I sure can. Lash: At the very least we can call him. It's definitely something we're aware of and discuss and we'll probably continue to discuss because we feel it's something that most people would like. We just haven't found the right facility for it. Hoffman; I'I1 have to look up his address again but I can sure find him. Karlovich: There are some commission members that don't agree with the regulation that we have. Lash: The regulation of what? Oh, the pooper scooper? Karlovich: No, having dogs in the park. Lash: Oh. Anybody else have questions for Todd? Howe: Todd, when does Jerry come back? Hoffman: I think he's back today for half a day and he'll be back again on Thursday a little bit... - Lash: Okay, any other questions or comments? Hoffman: I have an update for you. The Lake Ann building is complete on the interior. The exterior's going to take a couple more months to re-build that section of road. Take the grading and do the grading so we're going to have a major headache here for the first 2 months of operations at Lake Ann. That's going to generate some complaints. Already today, well 2 days ago they had it blocked off, NSP to trench the power across the road and the first person to drive in and meet the no entrance into the park just took a right, took a left across the infield fence on ballfield number 1 and just took off for the beach across ballfield number 1. The very first car. So we pondered creating an alternative road across the edge of the soccer field but quickly dismissed that idea. There is going to be one single day where we have to close down the park entirely to allow them to pave that new section of entrance road. If you can imagine how they're going to coordinate this work, they're going to do their grading. The parking lot side of the building. Put their Class V down. They need to haul all that dirt out of there. That entrance road is going to be a mighty gravely mess by the time that's all done. Then they have to build that parking lot and then back out of the park and build the road the last thing so it's not the first thing that goes in. It's the last thing that goes in so you'll be seeing that road in it's current condition up through July probably so, be aware of that. When it's all said and done it will be very nice. The corresponding issue to that is the roadways and the parking lots in Lake Ann are breaking up and the current city manager, or the outgoing city manager was not in favor of that project. We will again, I will be bringing it up for the 2002 budget. That needs attention. The road and the parking lots. The existing road is now 32 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - May 22, 2001 some 35 years old and so it's lived it's life. It's time for a new asphalt road and parking lots and some curb in there. Some storm sewer improvements so look for that as a part of your budget discussions for 2002. Lash: Okay, thanks. Anyone else have anything? Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? Howe moved, Karlovich seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 33