Loading...
CC Packet 2006 03 20AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006 CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. A. Interview Applicants for Commissions: 5:15 p.m. - Ron Olsen, Environmental Commission 5:30 p.m. - Pat McGough, Senior Commission 5:45 p.m. - John Schevenius, Environmental Commission 6:00 p.m. - Kurt Papke, Planning Commission 6:15 p.m. - Anne Murphy, Park & Recreation Commission 6:30 p.m. - Jeff Daniel, Park & Recreation Commission B. Key Financial Strategies - Police Contract Benchmarks. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1. a. Receive Commission Minutes: - Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated February 28, 2006 - Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated February 28, 2006 b. 2006 Sealcoat Project No. 06-02: Award of Bid. c. Item Deleted (Stonefield: Approval of Final Plat, Plans & Specs, and Development Contract) d. Approval of 2006 Liquor License Renewals. e. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1.5 Mike Fahey, Board of Directors, Community Youth Center in Chaska LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE 2a. Sgt. Jim Olson, Carver County Sheriff's Department 2b. Chief Gregg Geske, Fire Department PUBLIC HEARINGS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. HALLA GREENS (aka Chanhassen Short Course), Located on the Southeast Corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail, Applicant: John Kosmas: Request for Site Plan Amendment and Variances for the Construction of a Golf Course. NEW BUSINESS - None COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE SECTION ADJOURNMENT A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. 1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. 4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. 5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Commission Interviews Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager DATE: March 20, 2006 SUBJ: Commission Interviews The second round of Commission interviews has been scheduled for Monday, March 20 in the Fountain Conference Room. The following schedule has been established: a. 5:30 p.m. – Pat McGough, Senior Commission b. 5:45 p.m. – John Schevenius, Environmental Commission c. 6:00 p.m. – Kurt Papke, Planning Commission (incumbent) d. 6:15 p.m. – Anne Murphy, Park & Recreation Commission (incumbent) e. 6:30 p.m. – Jeff Daniel, Park & Recreation Commission Senior Commission: Three 3-year positions exist on this commission (a total of 4 applications have been received). Park & Recreation Commission: Two 3-year positions are available on this commission (a total of 3 applications have been received). Environmental Commission: Three 3-year positions are available on this commission (1 application has been received and two others listed the Environmental Commission as an alternate). Staff has prepared a list of potential questions to ask applicants, as well as a proposed scoring sheet for your use. C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Police Benchmarks Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager DATE: March 13, 2006 RE: Key Financial Strategies – Police Contract Benchmarks BACKGROUND One of the items identified as a priority in this year’s Key Financial Strategies/Strategic Planning process was the establishment of benchmarks for evaluating the police contract with Carver County. Below are comparisons from 2003-2005 in areas that the Carver County Sheriff’s Office keeps track of. Criminal Service Calls 2005 2004 2003 Assault 65 51 37 Burglary 57 53 52 Drug Violation 52 28 34 Homicide 0 0 0 Misc. Criminal 106 152 145 Property Damage 222 290 334 Robbery 0 3 2 Sex Crime 6 10 15 All Theft* 420 500 528 Traffic Alcohol** 86 201 149 Total Criminal Calls for Service 1,014 1,288 1,296 * This includes theft related (identity theft, credit card, bad checks, etc.) which jumped from 23 in 2004 to 79 in 2005 ** Reporting changed from 2004 to 2005. Previously included reports of possible drunk drivers, now includes only actual arrests Non-Criminal Service Calls (Includes 35 categories such as auto accidents, motorist assistance, medical, snowmobile, boat and water, traffic, missing persons, unlocking vehicles, etc.) 2005 2004 2003 12,650 11,565 10,742 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Police Benchmarks Report.doc Traffic Accidents and Enforcement 2005 2004 2003 Property Damage Accidents 625 590 565 Personal Injury Accidents 82 86 103 Fatalities 3 0 3 Total Accidents 710 676 671 Enforcement – Total Citations 3,220 2,234 2,223 Chanhassen Share of Fine Revenues (Prosecuted Cases) 2005* 2004* 2003 $92,515 $52,849 $29,601 * Beginning in 2004, the City began using Campbell Knutson, P.A. for prosecution services. In years 2003 and before, the city received 1/3 of fine revenue, with the state and county receiving the other 2/3. Under the contract with Campbell Knutson, the City now receives 2/3 of fine revenues. 2004 and 2005 payments to Campbell Knutson for prosecution services were roughly $20,000/year. One recommendation of the public safety study completed last year by Ehlers and Associates was to begin a formal customer service feedback process. In February 2006, staff began sending customer service surveys to randomly selected recipients of our public safety services. A copy of the survey is attached to this report. It is still too early to gather any meaningful data from the surveys that have been returned, but staff anticipates providing the City Council and Carver County Sheriff’s Office a full report once enough responses are submitted. Staff believes that by monitoring the data detailed above that we will be able to ensure that the City of Chanhassen continues to receive quality law enforcement services from the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Bud Olson and Sergeant Jim Olson plan to attend the March 20th work session to further discuss any issues the council may have. City of Chanhassen Public Safety Customer Feedback Questionnaire 1) For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree by circling the appropriate letter(s) to the right. 2) If you were dissatisfied with any of the above items, please tell us why: 3) If there was one thing you could change about how we served you, what would it be? 4) Please tell us the name of any staff who did a particularly good or unsatisfactory job: 5) Do you have any additional comments or suggestions? Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable A. I received prompt service. SA A D SD NA B. The employee(s) were courteous. SA A D SD NA C. The employee(s) were knowledgeable and competent. SA A D SD NA D. The employee(s) seemed interested in providing me with quality service. SA A D SD NA E. My request or case received adequate follow-up. SA A D SD NA F. Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of service I received. SA A D SD NA Dear Public Safety Customer: In order to provide the best possible service to our customers – the residents, visitors, and businesses of Chanhassen – we are requesting your feedback on how we served you. You recently had contact with one or more employees from the Carver County Sheriff’s Office or City of Chanhassen staff. Please take a moment to complete this questionnaire. Your input will be valuable in helping us maintain high quality public safety services. To return the questionnaire, simply refold this mailer, tape it closed, and return it to the address shown. Thank you! City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 City of Chanhassen Attn: Assistant City Manager P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Continued from other side 6) Was some kind of enforcement action taken against you (for example, a citation or an order to correct a code violation)? _____ Yes _____ No 7) I am a …___Chanhassen resident ___Nonresident ___Local business person or contractor □Check this box if you would like someone to contact you as a follow-up to concerns you have raised in the questionnaire. Please include your name and daytime phone number. Name:_______________________________ Phone Number:________________________ CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2006 Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Paula Atkins, Ann Murphy, Steve Scharfenberg and Jack Spizale MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly and Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent PUBLIC PRESENT: Todd Neils 990 Saddlebrook Curve 401-8950 Shawn Siders Town & Country Homes Kevin Clark 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie 253-0462 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded to approve the agenda amended to move items 6 and 7 before new business. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim & summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 24, 2006 as presented. LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES: RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTHWEST OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 312 (1500 PIONEER TRAIL). Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Shawn Siders with Town and Country Homes presented their configuration for trails on the site. Commissioner Murphy asked for an explanation of how the process will work for approving the trail configuration. Chairman Stolar asked for clarification on cost implications, long term maintenance costs and environmental impacts. Commissioner Spizale asked for clarification of the contours along the creek bed. Park and Rec Summary – February 28, 2006 2 Murphy moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for Liberty at Creekside subdivision. 1. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 2. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Bluff Creek Trail”. All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in it’s construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Todd Hoffman noted that staff will work with the applicant and all interested parties to provide a resolution regarding trails to the Park and Recreation Commission at their March meeting. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING 2006 BALLFIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Todd Hoffman reviewed the findings and recommendations for the 2006 ballfield improvement projects. Todd Neils, President of Chanhassen Little League asked for clarification on the dugout construction. Chairman Stolar suggested seeking community support to help complete some of the improvements, i.e. field lighting, and shelter construction. The commission prioritized projects starting with netting at Bandimere, dugouts and trail connections. There was no action taken on this item. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING REACH FOR RESOURCES ADAPTIVE RECREATION CONTRACT. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item as an informational item only. RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: REVIEW REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FIVE (5) STORM WATER PONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN RICE MARSH LAKE AND LAKE RILEY WATERSHEDS. (THREE OF THE FIVE PONDS ARE LOCATED WITHIN RICE MARSH LAKE PARK.) Todd Hoffman reviewed the proposed storm water pond projects as an informational item only. Park and Rec Summary – February 28, 2006 3 PETERSON PROPERTY, D.R. HORTON: RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL), AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Spizale asked for clarification of what’s included in the conceptual drawing for the park. Commissioner Scharfenberg asked about trail connections to the park. Chair Stolar asked to see what the actual density per real parkland is given all the plats in the 2005 MUSA area. Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for the Peterson subdivision: 1. The designation of a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, including Outlot H and Lot 1, Block 4. This property shall be transferred to the City by Warranty Deed with 3.79 acres of the site being dedicated/donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased by the City of Chanhassen. The City shall compensate the owner/ applicant $218,550 in total compensation for said 0.93 acres. 2. That the applicant rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the City. The parking lot shall include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of the park shall be submitted to the Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design, engineering and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. BOULDER COVE: RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7, EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST 62ND STREET. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Murphy moved, Spizale seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve that full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2006 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Jerry Ruegemer presented the report on the Easter Egg Candy Hunt and asked for volunteers. Park and Rec Summary – February 28, 2006 4 DADDY DAUGHTER DATE NIGHT EVALUATION. Jerry Ruegemer reviewed the Daddy Daughter Date Night events. FEBRUARY FESTIVAL EVALUATION. Jerry Ruegemer reviewed the February Festival activities. Chairman Stolar suggested adding another runner sheet to the prize board, and asked for clarification on some of the different prizes. Commissioner Atkins asked about the fee to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. Chair Stolar reported on the final meetings of the Surface Water Management Task Force. Spizale moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2006 Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Paula Atkins, Ann Murphy, Steve Scharfenberg and Jack Spizale MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly and Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent PUBLIC PRESENT: Todd Neils 990 Saddlebrook Curve 401-8950 Shawn Siders Town & Country Homes Kevin Clark 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie 253-0462 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Stolar: Todd and I just talked about that for, we’d like to move old business before new business so that our guests in the audience could have a chance to speak earlier and not wait through the entire meeting so item 6 and 7 will be the first ones we cover. Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded to approve the agenda amended to move items 6 and 7 before new business. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim & summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 24, 2006 as presented. LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES: RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTHWEST OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 312 (1500 PIONEER TRAIL). Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar, members of the commission. We have a number of development reviews this evening. The first one we’ll talk about is Liberty at Creekside. The Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 2 applicant is Town and Country Homes. We have a couple of their representatives here this evening. They’ll speak in a few moments. This is one of the properties in the 2005 MUSA area that the commission is becoming more familiar with this region of our community. It travels south of Lyman Boulevard and then back east off of Audubon and is basically a triangular shaped piece of property, very large piece of property for what’s left in the city as far as vacant land. And then the southern border, the new Highway 212 corridor. This development is proposed to be 146 residential townhomes. It’s the old Jeurissen farm. Anyone that’s familiar with that property. Our comprehensive plan calls for 1 acre of usable parkland be set aside for every 75 residents. Liberty at Creekside as proposed will result in an estimated 292 residents or close to 300 new residents moving into Chanhassen. Therefore we generate 3.89 acres of new parkland if we selected to take, elected to take parkland in this particular region of the community. However our comprehensive plan also identifies park service areas, and we have been working with another applicant in this area, D.R. Horton on the acquisition of just about, just under 5 acre park site. It’s a little to the west and south of this particular property. That subdivision was also on your agenda this evening and D.R. Horton is in, agree with the recommendations tonight that you look at for the acquisition of that mark. Knowing that we are not recommending, staff is not recommending acquisition of additional parkland as a part of Liberty at Creekside development. Therefore we’re seeking park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of this subdivision and that was our parks issues. Trails. There’s a significant section of our comprehensive trail plan within this particular area of the community. We’re calling for a 10 foot wide asphalt trail to be constructed adjacent to and paralleling the Bluff Creek corridor as a part of this plat. The exact location for that, we’ll get into a little bit tonight but still, I don’t think we’ll come up with the exact design of the trail. It’s currently not reflected on the plans. These gentlemen here may go over some concepts for the trail. Additional pedestrian trail sidewalks and trail connections also need to be incorporated into the project. It’s important to have a facility in a feature such as the Bluff Creek trail that we have, convenient access for the residents of these new subdivisions to gain access into the trail corridor. Bluff Creek is going to be the largest, or longest interrupted trail corridor within our community. It travels from approximately Lake Minnewashta just at Highway 41 all the way south to Pioneer Trail. I counted up, I think there’ll be 9 underpasses or bridge crossings as a part of that trail. It’s approximately 2/3 complete to date and this last piece between Lyman and Pioneer is a significant section of that trail. When we have applicants that come in with a piece of the comprehensive trail plan within their subdivision we ask that they incorporate it into their planning in the design and engineering work, grading, and then the city reimburse for material costs after the completion of that trail. So in this particular, in this particular subdivision it would be the design and then we would pay for maybe the retaining walls or maybe just planning on the exact design and then after completion and acceptance of the trail, we reimburse the applicant with a check based on their cost for constructing that piece of trail and we pay for that through park and trail dedication funds. So those are the issues relating to parks and trails. Specific recommendation that staff is making to the commission tonight is that you recommend to City Council that payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. And then second, that the applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required for the Bluff Creek trail. All construction documents shall be delivered to the park and recreation department for approval prior to initiation of the phase of construction. And the trail shall be 10 feet in width. Surface with bituminous material and constructed to meet all city specifications. And then as I stated Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 3 earlier, the applicant will be reimbursed for actual cost of construction materials for Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual cost for construction materials utilized in that trail. And prior to letting the applicant get up and talk I just want to make sure that all commissioners understand the, at least the general location of where this trail is going to occur in the plat. Stolar: That’s on this drawing here? Hoffman: Correct. Page 3 of 10. In what is called the east/west collector trail. This is basically Bluff Creek traveling through the site. …townhouse units. So we want to see the trail corridor within that Bluff Creek alignment and would just continue that conversation today with what would be incorporated in. At present we’d like to keep the trail on the north side of the creek but that may not be possible due to grades and such difficulties. There’s always trade-off’s in getting these types of…put bridges in and those type of things so we’re not far enough along in the design to make a specific recommendation to you this evening, but just know that the trail will travel through this creek in some configuration. I’ll let these gentlemen to speak to that as well. So I’d be happy to take any questions from the commission… Stolar: Okay, any questions for Todd? Spizale: I’ve got one. Todd, how close would the trail be to the creek? Bluff Creek. Hoffman: The creek is one of the areas that is, trails are the only thing allowed within that Bluff Creek setback, Bluff Creek preservation area so it may be 20-30 feet, but the exact design has not been as yet so. I think all you’re familiar with it. It travels, it meanders within this, the Bluff Creek area going north and it gets closer to the creek in some areas and if you’re familiar with it north of the railroad tracks, it’s probably down to within 10 or 15 feet of the creek… Stolar: Okay, other questions? Why don’t we let the applicants speak first and then we might follow up with questions both for you and for Todd. Shawn Siders: Good evening commissioners. Thank you for having us this evening. My name is Shawn Siders. I’m with Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company. With me this evening is Kevin Clark. He’s our Vice President of Land Development and is charged with developing the, you know he and I are charged with developing these sites in preparation of the house building that will commence after streets, utilities and trails are constructed throughout the site. If nobody minds I’d like to put this back up on the board…since we don’t have the overhead in front of us. Hoffman: It’s a new system. We’re not completely trained. Shawn Siders: Todd was correct in pointing out that what we had, what Todd had roughly proposed for a trail configuration, put it this way is, a trail configuration that comes off of the east/west collector road and then is tucked in behind these proposed units here and then you know meander it’s way down, without any creek crossings to a pedestrian underpass that will be Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 4 constructed somewhere in that area. And I don’t know that that specific area’s been identified by anybody but nonetheless it’s somewhere in this area and that alignment does not pose any creek crossings. However, if you look at your grading plan this is an awfully steep slope throughout all this area and the sheet that we looked at, I think page 5. You can see here where that configuration goes, it’s kind of penciled out in front of you. It’s awfully steep and our primary concern with that is, there are a couple of concerns. One is…because it’s, because of how steep it is, we’re a little concerned about our ability to stabilize that rough or that grade while constructing the trail. Now you can kind of see how we configured this within that grading plan and we have stayed out of the Bluff Creek Overlay District per directions specifically…that of course trails are an exemption to that and that’s okay. So I guess what we would propose is to perhaps you can make recommendation to the council something to the effect that the trail, considering the configuration that would come down here, would actually make two creek crossings come along you know and then shoot over to the east in this direction. Come back up. Make another creek crossing and then tie into that pedestrian underpass. That does a few things. This site has got, this area down here is going to be graded for wetland mitigation pond that we’re going to develop in conjunction with Town and Country’s two developments out there. Liberty on Bluff Creek as well as over at Creekside so there will be some construction activity already underway down here. We’re also going to be finding this trail configuration may give people a better opportunity to you know enjoy their trail experience a little more. They’re going to be walking through native grasses and plantings. Trees, so it’s just going to be a little more visually appealing as you traverse through the site, rather than looking up to a retaining wall if this configuration works. Now we haven’t asked our engineer to kind of evaluate each one independently and see which one works best and so what we’ve asked Todd is you know, the ability to work with him and his staff to find a configuration that works well for the city as well as for Town and Country and understanding it’s still going to be on the south side of this development but the configuration may change. And I guess one point I didn’t hit on is, the MPCA and EPA are taking very proactive approach, appropriately at protecting our natural resources, the forest and why I mentioned stabilization earlier is because they, there’s a system called the NPDES that they of course influence and we have of course during the construction we have to comply with the NPDES and at first glance we’re a little concerned about our ability to really stabilize this site because we might, you know there might be instances where we have to get in to that slope 20 to 30 feet, really disturbing a natural area that we’ve all tried to preserve yet then going in and disturbing it and we’re not sure that makes entirely the best sense but at the same time we would like to look at the feasibility for us to work with the Riley-Purgatory watershed district and see whether or not creek crossings make sense so that’s kind of where we’re at this evening. We understand the need for a trail. There will be of course a pedestrian sidewalk up here. Todd of course appropriately pointed out that that pedestrian you know, pedestrian walkers on the sidewalk…and trail users are kind of a different animal if you will, and so it’s a good idea to keep it separate so, that’s really what we would propose this evening is perhaps give us a few days. We can work with Todd, Mr. Hoffman and his staff and develop a trail configuration that makes sense for everybody so I’d be happy to answer any questions. Stolar: Do we have any questions? Spizale: What road takes you into the site? Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 5 Shawn Siders: This site will actually be accessed off the proposed east/west collector that will go to construction this summer and then this will actually be accessed through the Peterson and Degler property so planning staff is working with us to obtain the necessary right-of-way and then we’ll construct a connection to the east/west collector road… Hoffman: Right at the very location where this road is connecting to the east/west collector is the underpass. It’s out in the field today. It’s being built out in the middle of the construction that’s taking place. Murphy: So when you say you’ll work with our parks and rec department, you’ll submit a proposal or how would the process for that go? Shawn Siders: We’ll come up with a configuration. Of course it’s going to be a part of a preliminary plat approval that we’ll walk through next, you know the next step will be the Planning Commission as well as in the final, the City Council so what we’ll basically do is work together. Our engineers will come up with a proposal. We of course need to talk with DNR and the watershed district. See what our abilities are to permit versus you know if we can’t get a creek crossing, what design elements would need to be incorporated into that. Of course cost is a consideration. You know working with the city. Partnering with the city. So I think what will happen is we’ll have a couple of options that we’ll work with Todd and his staff and then we’ll just basically sit down and evaluate which one makes the most sense for everybody. Hoffman: Our engineering department and water resources folks are looking at this thing on a daily basis as well. Atkins: Sounds like everything’s in place to do a little more research on it. I don’t like the idea of steep grades either. It seems like trouble. Scharfenberg: I don’t have anything more. Stolar: If not is there any issues that you have with going forward and suggested where they come up with some suggestions and let staff and yourself work together to try to figure it out. Hoffman: Yeah there’s still some unknowns. I don’t want to, I don’t think the commission should be putting the council in a position of selecting one alternative or the other. The beetle was designed with the trail on the north side of the road and any time you can eliminate creek crossings you’re better off and so, if it comes down to the fact that these creek crossings are necessary, it would have to be for a good reason. Steep grades is going to be too difficult to construct. The cost for retaining walls are too significant. These bridges aren’t going to be cheap either. They’ll be somewhere around $50,000. Something like that for bridge crossing so those costs add up as well. The last bridge we constructed with the watershed district was down here on 101 and the crossing between Lake Susan and Rice Marsh. The trail project and the bridge that were just $99,000. The bridge cost was approximately $45,000-$50,000 for that single bridge so. Aesthetically they’re very pleasant. People enjoy crossing the creek. They can see the water. Experience it a little bit more and so the, that alignment and cost seem to work out. We have redesigned numerous trails throughout the system to eliminate or reduce the height Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 6 of the retaining walls. In my work retaining walls don’t last forever and they’re going to be issues in the future with those retaining walls and we might see that already in the projects areas in our trail system so. It’s a pretty significant design issue. We just did not have enough time to work with the applicant in solving those issues so if you’ll allow us to do that and then I think it’s probably time to check back in with you in another month as well. Stolar: That’s what I was wondering because there is, one the cost because, and it’s both for you as well as the city and on the city side I’m worried you know, we’ve got to look at the initial cost because reimbursed for all materials so from what I understand you’re saying, if they put in bridges, we pay for that. If they put in retaining walls, we pay for that. Hoffman: Correct. Stolar: So understand the cost comparison. I think another thing we want to understand is the long term maintenance cost because is one better than the other. May not be an issue. Then the third thing I’d like to understand is the environmental impacts on both sides which have both positive and negative because I do think the idea of bridges crossing the creeks, if done right add value to the trail, but I don’t want it done at you know 4 times the cost of what it would take to do the regular trail. Right you know, we’ve got to balance that. So if we’re able to take another month and work out options for us to review or come to an agreement that you can present, I think that’d be good. Because I haven’t heard anyone say for sure that one way’s absolutely better than the other right now, is that correct Todd or? Shawn Siders: And I’ll say on first blush on maintenance, I think you might find and hearing this again was just gut reaction. This might be a little better from a maintenance standpoint if we make a creek crossing only because with the slopes we’re talking about, I think you may find a circumstance where the trails start to erode away, you know. Stolar: I think that’s why you were talking about the retaining walls. They go away at some point. So is that acceptable to you Todd if we table this for one month? Come back to us with some recommendations. Hoffman: Well it’s going to go to the Planning Commission on March 7th and so I’m not certain that it’s appropriate to table it but to frame the, your desire and then allow us to bring that back and make a recommendation with like you were talking about. The trail, we all know that the trail needs to be constructed. Best overall alignment. Best design. Best value and so the things that you’re talking about and make a recommendation to continue moving forward and I’m not sure that we can hold it open until the end of March but… Shawn Siders: Other than to say that we would like to have some type of recommendation this evening only so we can proceed through the process with the Planning Commission so if there’s a level of comfort. I don’t know…kind of evaluate you know both options if there’s going to be a clear winner, I can’t realistically state that right now. I don’t know if you’d be comfortable framing a recommendation you know we will be back for final plat as well with the city so it certainly isn’t the end all deal of approvals. We’ll be in front of the city on a few occasions here over the next few months so. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 7 Hoffman: You can make your recommendation contingent upon seeing it again prior to final plat. That could be fine for both staff and the applicant. Atkins: I have one more question. Is it, what would be, will you be prepared to offer the different options on March 7th to the Planning Commission? Shawn Siders: Yes. Scharfenberg: I have a question. Stolar: Yes. Scharfenberg: Do we have an option in terms of regarding the creek crossings Todd, that they would be bridges as opposed to the Bluff Creek corridor trail just south of the train tracks where you know now it’s a culvert with, I mean we’re not talking a creek crossing like that? Hoffman: No. Bridges. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: Watershed district prefers bridges. Shawn Siders: One of the concerns that Commissioner Stolar mentioned was long care maintenance, which probably is a concern along with the constructability of it… We’ve been working with the city on this project now for well over 3 years and have certainly been very sensitive to the bluff setbacks, as far as our whole development and all the other natural amenities that the sites have given us, so we just wanted to make sure that we’re making the right choice. We know that it’s appropriate to have a trail here. We just want to make sure we put it where it’s going to have long term effect. Are we giving the city you know, are we both thinking we’re providing the best resource here at the end of the day for long term maintenance. For best…for investment, and for the resource that we’re trying to provide to the public. So I think we’re going to end up probably with a solution. It’s not that there isn’t going to be a trail. It’s just what’s the right place for it. Stolar: Any more questions on the trail because I have a question on the park dedication. And this actually might fall into the other one. Any questions? Real quick on park dedication. If I add up the, and I understand these are guidelines. The acres per residence for this plus the other comes out to quite a bit higher than what we’re going to end up getting with the one park area we’re purchasing south and west of here. I assume that we have, that that’s just something that we have to do because that’s all that’s available to us? Hoffman: Well yeah, you would add up the residents in this entire area would be much larger. You know probably 15-20 acres and we’re able to acquire 4.75. It’s just due to the fact that the value of this property, the cost of the property and the tight margins that all of these different applicants are dealing, to take on a chunk of land out of one particular subdivision any larger Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 8 than 5 acres becomes very difficult to do economically and so you’re going to rely on a neighborhood park. Public neighborhood park and then also two gentlemen that are here this evening are planning neighborhood amenities of their own in the other projects to the, what’s it called? Shawn Siders: Liberty on Bluff Creek. Hoffman: Liberty on Bluff Creek to the, which is to the west of D.R. Horton’s proposal. So there’s going to be other amenities included in addition to the neighborhood park. The Bluff Creek corridor is one of those. It’s not a park you know per se but it does provide recreation amenities. It also will allow people to travel from this region north to the future school location which will have additional public recreation amenities at that location. Stolar: And does this trail connect to any, the park that we’re talking about putting in on the other property, we have connectors then that they can get to that park also? Hoffman: They’ll travel up the east/west collector trail right to the top of the hill to the… Stolar: And that east/west collector trail, that’s the one that’s being put in with that east/west connector. How does this connect up because it stops here? Hoffman: Yep, you’re going to go north and then. Stolar: So we’re putting in a trail here? Or is that going to be the development over. But this will connect then off, okay. Alright, so do we, I just wanted to. Shawn Siders: …what we were proposing on the other side is a swimming pool, a totlot, you know picnic table. Stuff like that so, you know we’re making an investment. We’re… Stolar: Would these residents be able to access that or is that, that’s only that homeowners, two separate homeowners. Shawn Siders: It’d be two separate homeowners associations. Scharfenberg: Is the creek a buffer to the two developments? Okay. Shawn Siders: Yeah, the elevation, this site is, well every bit, there’s the… Stolar: Do we have a motion that we want to put forth or an amendment to what is recommended? Or do we want to just, because you don’t actually specify a particular trail approach do you? Hoffman: No. Well I, no. Just as Bluff Creek trail. Required Bluff Creek trail. Stolar: So if anybody wants to put some guidelines… Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 9 Spizale: I’ve got one comment. It’s too bad we don’t have, it’s really hard to get an idea of the lay of the land without a picture or visual. You know it’s really hard to try and figure out exactly where this would go and how the land goes. I know it’s steep and stuff but it’s a little bit hard to visualize it. Shawn Siders: You mean how the slopes on this particular site? Spizale: Yeah. Shawn Siders: Other than the grading plan, we do have a larger one here. Basically what will happen is the site kind of walks down so you know these folks will be higher than these folks and these folks will be higher than these folks here so it steps down if you will up here so, so this certainly would be the high point in this. So what we try to do is you know situate or orient the buildings so that you know everybody has a view. Spizale: Does that go with kind of a natural flow with what’s there now or does that take a lot of grading? Shawn Siders: There will of course be some retaining walls only because you know the way the site is configured but it’s natural the way it is now. It’s just there will be a little more embellished with the grading that will happen on the site. Spizale: And the other side of the creek is flatter? Shawn Siders: Relatively, well I guess flatter yes. Spizale: More of a meadow? Shawn Siders: Yes. Town and Country Representative: The other side of the creek that’s where, the irrigation and slope restoration and basically prairie. Shawn Siders: Prairization I guess for lack of a better word. There’s a variety of activities going to take place on that side. It was earlier on decided, and this was over 2 ½ years ago, that that slope in that area were really not going to be developable because there really wasn’t a, there wasn’t a strong enough impetus to allow a creek crossing there for vehicular traffic and so that’s why that area was really, was kind of collectively looked at for improvement to benefit the whole AUAR area as far as how we were approaching both neighborhoods so that we could work to bring all our mitigation and such into that location. Spizale: What’s going to be the general cost of the townhouses? Shawn Siders: There’s four products throughout both neighborhoods. In here we have 2 products. A row townhome product and then a true townhome product with a full basement. So the prices will range mid 2’s to probably mid 3’s. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 10 Stolar: Actually one other question. Regarding the, if you did go with the bridges and all, has that been proposed yet? Does Lori have to look at that also for, or the watershed you said. Kevin Clark: …separate from the idea if we can make it work. Shawn Siders: It’s a balancing act. I mean it’s a balancing act between planning perhaps, conserving the slope. There’s territorial, I mean not, welcome to my reality right so. It’s a balancing act between how we would like to be asked to achieve the goal and also it’s a balancing act between Todd’s whole goal, the watershed’s goal, natural resources, DNR so, we’re all looking for trying to make it a win, win, win so that everybody understands that at the end of the day we were true to our vision to preserve the bluff and…preserve the creek. We also want to make sure this area’s accessible to the public and that was the purpose to allow development and create this corridor, because all along the AUAR was really one of the founding, this was how do we preserve this corridor from Lake Minnewashta south all the way to Chaska and that’s really the goal is to preserve this green belt and that’s what we want to continue to look at. So we’re just asking for the opportunity to put in place the right plan and we’re kind of a step behind, and for that we apologize so we’re looking at this opportunity to work through those and meet your’s, Todd’s, Lori’s and our input to arrive at the best solution. Stolar: Okay. Hoffman: We identified our construction access to that, the south side of the creek area yet so when you’re doing the construction in that area you know what your construction access point will be. Shawn Siders: We can come up the Jeurissen driveway and the same, there’s a field road that approaches that area. You can drive back there because there are tree branches and other things that have been you know 5 years since. Hoffman: Stock piling. Shawn Siders: Stockpiled back there so there is an access there that was. Hoffman: You can see it on the plan, on the cover sheet. Shawn Siders: Yep, there’s a field road that you can access that driveway. So that will be, we won’t be impacting the creek through the process of mitigation. Hoffman: Yeah, there’s a culvert crossing there for that field road. Hard to visualize because it’s a very isolated area. If you haven’t been up into Mr. Jeurissen’s driveway, you’ve never been here. Spizale: Sort of like an island. Hoffman: It’s hidden way back in. …not me. I’ve been there. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 11 Murphy: Well the recommendation calls for approval by the Park and Recreation Director for each phase of construction. Do we need to be any more specific then that? Stolar: We don’t. Not if we don’t want to. Do you want to make a motion then? Murphy: Yes. Motion to recommend that we recommend that the City Council require the conditions listed in the document. Stolar: Can I have a second? Atkins: I second. Stolar: Okay. Motion put forth by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Atkins. Any further discussion or amendments to the motion? Do we want to provide staff with guidance after approval? Just no? Okay. Murphy moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for Liberty at Creekside subdivision. 1. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 2. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Bluff Creek Trail”. All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in it’s construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Stolar: I think the discussion states we do want, I would appreciate seeing the final plat and I would like you guys to work together and come up with the best solution that balances the things we talked about. And I think we’ve all done this enough that you know how to do that and let’s work to the best solution, I think there are a couple good options. Each with their own downfalls and advantages but let’s try and figure out across all the interested parties what the best option is. But it sounds like we’ll have a trail no matter what. Hoffman: And not all trails are easy. Some are. The important thing to remember here is that this kind of trail is the one, these types of trails that people really value them. The appreciation, the experience is so much more valuable and what the residents are going to do in this area is they’re going to use the street corridor to do a trail loop back home, so if it’s a morning run or Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 12 you know Saturday morning walk or after work, they’re going to use this trail and loop back around into their residential areas on a sidewalks or connector trails, but it’s really the creek is going to be their destination so to make it the best experience possible, and we made a significant investment in the 44 miles of trails that we have already in the city and this will be no exception. And always the exciting thing is if you look forward 3 or 4 years, you’re going to be walking on this trail. It’s going to be out there and so it’s in all of our best interest to make it the nicest experience possible because it will continue to be a selling item. If this trail has problems in the future, it’s not good to live next to a problem and so the applicants here want to create the best experience as well so I trust they’ll work with us and we’ll bring that back, a resolution back to you in March. Stolar: Great, thank you very much. Thank you for your time. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING 2006 BALLFIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Hoffman: We talked about our ballfield improvement project at the last meeting. Todd Neils and others were here at that conversation. Thank you. Good night. And there was a variety of issues identified if you’d like to quickly go through them. They’re on the cover of your report. Dugout, player benches. Fence extensions. All those different things but then the important thing is really staff our response to that and what our findings were. Turn to page 2. Dugouts or player benches, we’re in total agreement with that. We would like to come up with a plan for all of our different field locations, Lake Ann. City Center. Bluff Creek. Bandimere. Some are going to be easier than others. They’re pretty well fenced in already and we just have to put some framing on top and then some netting for those, but part of the design that we think we’ll be looking towards is that netting design where you have the, it’s a shade situation. It’s not going to be a hard type of surface treatment. And then the fence extensions along the foul lines of Fields #1 and #2. Again we’re in agreement with that. Think it’s a good safety and containment measure to take and have installed. The plastic fence toppings we’re not in agreement with. Really could not locate a source that identified chainlink fences as a significant threat to safety. There’s two different kinds. The rolled fencing where it comes with a rolled top and then the type that comes to a spike which is less of that around but if it comes to a spike, there’s a significant threat there to scratching and injury but with the rolled top, a number of searches could not find a situation and just in my time in the park and rec business, we’ve not talked about that at any of our conventions, nationally or locally. And if we put that yellow topping, again depending on the eyes of the beholder, I think it would be distinctive or the word I used is garish but I think if you lined Lake Ann ballfields 1 through 6 with yellow plastic topping, it may catch the eye of some that may think it’s not as attractive as it might be without it. Cracked home plate. We’ll fix that this spring as a part of our routine maintenance. Storage building for association use at Lake Ann. You always want to be careful with what I would call the proliferation of buildings in your park sites. It’s the reason we have zoning and master plans in our community and the master plan for Lake Ann park features 3 buildings. The large maintenance building, picnic pavilion overlooking the lake and then a shelter serving the ballfields. The shelter serving the ballfields was a donation by the Chanhassen American Legion back in their early days of park development here in Chanhassen and it really does not meet the final demands for that particular location. It’s always been planned or thought of that you would Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 13 have modern restrooms there. Larger building with storage, concessions. Second floor for observation, and we’ve made some accommodations for that as time has come along. When the water was run into Lake Ann Park we installed water right through that particular corridor so when the time comes you’ll have water available there. Sewer from that building will travel down towards the lake to a pumping station that was designed to accommodate that into the future and then that pumps the sewage around Lake Ann, all the way to Greenwood Shores. There was accommodations made for a future building there, and it’s my recommendation that in lieu of adding an additional building, that we explore a joint project with some of our associations who utilize the fields and take a look at putting this building into a future capital plan and solving that issue in that fashion. More accessible routes to the fields. Staff supports this. We’ve heard from a number of people over the years that accessibility is more and more important. The initial spine of trail has been added but there’s still fields that you don’t have convenient access to. Barrier netting to contain balls. Again this issue was identified shortly after the opening of Bandimere Park. We support it. I believe it was the Minnetonka baseball group in today offering up some additional dollars. Chaska? Okay. District 112. Then the pitching mounds, fields…again that’s a maintenance issue that we’ll evaluate with the associations and make appropriate modifications. That’s not an exact science and it’s depending upon the material that you have, weather conditions, those type of things but we can work with those folks on that. Fields at Lake Ann didn’t seem to drain well after the significant rain events. Again maintenance staff will evaluate that. They add material on an almost yearly basis and so if you see stockpiles out there in the winter, that’s because they’ve driven the dump trucks out onto the infields. Dumped the aggregate and then they grade that appropriately each spring. We do get some lipping right around the grass areas and that can contain some water and they take that out on a periodic basis as well. And the last item, need for additional Lacrosse space and nets. We currently have enough nets for the fields that are being used for Lacrosse but staff is evaluating the merits for that. Offering additional field time for Lacrosse. Bear in mind that any time we give Lacrosse, you’re going to be taking away from soccer and so Jerry’s working on that and coming up with a recommendation. So upon receiving your feedback from the commission staff will continue to develop the project plan, including cost estimates for each one of these items. We’d welcome Mr. Neil’s comments as well this evening. Stolar: Let me ask if Todd has any comments you want to add. Todd Neils: Todd Neils, President of Chanhassen Little League. I guess my only question would be the dugouts or player bench covers. I was confused by what that meant necessarily. I know that the, there was been discussion both about chainlink enclosure as well as cement or block enclosure and I would like to see a broader range of dugouts being put in across the area and therefore would love to see the chainlink option, since it’s less expensive. But would like to know if it’s going to be an enclosed dugout or just simply a covered area. Hoffman: Enclosed meaning enclosed completely by fence? Todd Neils: Yes. And on sides. Hoffman: Yep. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 14 Todd Neils: Okay. Hoffman: Similar to what Bandimere has now. Todd Neils: Okay. And then also will have a top. Hoffman: Yeah. Todd Neils: And then we’ll have the netting. Hoffman: Yeah. Todd Neils: Great. That’s fantastic. And then I guess beyond that I will wait to hear the cost estimates and would love to see you know this get going as soon as possible because our intent as an organization, or an association in the area is to utilize the Lake Ann complex for tournaments in the future, whether it be softball where we would like to host a State tournament, or baseball where we offer it up to other associations. So again, have a hammer in hand and ready to help any way I can. Stolar: Okay, great. Thank you. Steve. Scharfenberg: No questions. Stolar: Paula. Atkins: How soon were you thinking about bringing up the new shelter? Putting that into the CIP. Redoing the shelter up on the hill. Hoffman: It’s not currently in the 5 year CIP so if you want to accelerate it, then we need to get some consensus among the commission and talk about it. Atkins: I just hope that we have less significant rain events in 2006. Stolar: Just a few question. The Bandimere netting, that was a separate line item right? So we’ll have that, but you’re just going to look at all this together and make sure we plug it off against. Hoffman: Right. Stolar: And then do you think given what you’ve recommended that we’ll be within the budget? Hoffman: I don’t know yet. Stolar: So you’ll come back to us with that, okay. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 15 Hoffman: And my thinking in all cases is that we’re going to do a good job on the things that we can afford and not do the rest. So we’ll see. We’ll pick out our high priority items and get as far as we can, and then leave the rest for later. Stolar: Okay. And some of these things don’t hit that budget like the cracked home plate and some of those. The extended trail, that’s in the CIP? Hoffman: Yep. Yeah most, the costs are going to be in netting, fencing and then the asphalt. Those are going to be your primary costs. Stolar: Alright. Then regarding the building, the storage building. I mean it’s not in the CIP and I know we’ve got the other big ticket items we’ve got, one of which is the lighting for the fields which may in fact be meeting Lacrosse space because if you light soccer fields you get extra time on it. So for the building, the Legion donated the current one. Is this something that might be consideration for the commission also to seek community support? Hoffman: Oh certainly. You know the intended community, just about any different plan or any different, any variety of projects that needs to have some sort of a tie in back at the time the Legion was hosting a lot of softball tournaments so they had a vested interest. Today they may not have that same interest. Stolar: I don’t know if it was in this one I read somewhere but, and several other parks surrounding have a parks foundation. There isn’t one for Chan right now is there? Hoffman: You have pull tabs flying around your city. Good place to start. They built a very nice facility in the Minnetrista and each one of the four different establishments sponsored a field and part of the building so, but they had…pull tabs. Murphy: Just a question at the last line here, receiving feedback from the commission on the report. Staff will continue. Are we looking at, as far as feedback, as far as ranking the items or what type of feedback are we talking about? Hoffman: Any type you want. If you want to rank them. Right now I would rank the protective netting, the dugouts and then the asphalt trail as the highest priority items. Majority of the rest is maintenance, is basic maintenance so. If you’ve got ideas or if you’ve seen other facilities that have, we can take a look at. That type of feedback would be important. Stolar: Ann did you want to do a poll here or provide your ranking? Murphy: I don’t have a whole lot right now. I don’t know if anyone else does. Scharfenberg: Well it sounds like again netting at Bandimere is the biggest issue. I think that needs to be taken care of first but that’s, there’s already a line item for that, right? Then the dugouts and the trail as Todd has indicated. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 16 Stolar: So I think that prioritization sounds good. The one question I have on the dugouts is, as you start getting the cost is the question of do we do it nicer at fewer to make sure that we get those done and then try and get some budget nets the following year or to do the other ones. Just something to think about. I’d rather do it right, as you said, even if it means fewer fields get it. And then we do more the next year and keep continuing on and on. Hoffman: Yeah, and we’ll select the parks based on their age level. The higher the age level, the more issues you have with foul balls and balls… Todd Neils: Todd Neils. I would like to talk about the storage building a bit more, if it wouldn’t be too much to request a, some type of look at how much something like that would cost. I have some ideas floating around in my brain where I can’t guarantee but may be able to tap our big brother in Little League National or some of our world wide sponsors on the shoulder to possibly donate funds to help with the cost of the new building. So if we’re able to get an idea about size or square footage and how much that would cost, we may be able to start working towards that. Stolar: Is this something that would require a design consultant to look at? Hoffman: We’re talking about 100, 150,000 dollar project. Stolar: There you go. Design consultant… You’ve probably looked at this a little bit before huh? Hoffman: Well the others, you know there’s basic elements that are there but any time you include public restroom, the plumbing and the heating and design and electrical and concrete and lumber, you know 100 to 150,000 dollars is probably a very good target. Stolar: And would it be something that would allow, I think about Bennett Park for example. They have kind of a kitchen there to allow concessions to be sold. That’s part of that 100, you would have a concession… Okay, so is that what you were seeking? Todd Neils: Yes, thank you. Hoffman: The concession warming house at the Recreation Center was a quarter million dollars built in 1997. So it’s, this building probably would not be all brick. More the brick and wood structure. So the construction costs are, just think of it as building a, you’re building a small dwelling. Stolar: Now you would take down the current building and you couldn’t add on to that footprint? Hoffman: No. Stolar: Jack, did you have anything? Spizale: No. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 17 Stolar: Alright. There was no action required on this but I do appreciate staff coming back exactly as we asked and looking at these and providing us with some guidelines and recommendations and thanks again to all the people who came out to give us their input and Todd, for you coming out a second time. So I appreciate it and we’ll see you next month. I’m sure there’ll be something for you to come out for on the next one. Alright, do you see foresee us being able to get some of these dugouts in this year? Hoffman: Absolutely. Stolar: Okay, great. Awesome. Todd Neils: …that information at the next meeting or. Hoffman: Probably March or April. Depends on how quickly our consultants turns this stuff around… Todd Neils: Great, thank you again. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING REACH FOR RESOURCES ADAPTIVE RECREATION CONTRACT. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Stolar. On an annual basis we do review the contract provided by Reach for Adaptive Recreation Services. We have been contracting through Reach since 1999 to provide those type of services for our population with disabilities within Chanhassen. We did again in the past Reach has trained our summer staff and they’ve done a fine job with that. It’s nice to bring awareness to not only our staff but the rest of the kids in the programs to include kids with disabilities so it’s been really a very positive thing for us. If you look at the overall 2006 contract, the dollar amount does reflect a decrease of over, a little bit over $2,000 over 2005. The decrease is a direct result of participation numbers. We had a high number in 2005, 9% that did go down to 4% roughly as the overall participation numbers of the consortium of cities, so if you look at the base charge or the base price, that is $2,000, 4% of the population within that consortium. That dollar amount equals out to be $1,819.88, which calculates into the total contract of $3,819.88 for 2006. Staff has been very happy with the service that Reach did provide with the City. As you look at the agreement that’s attached, it kind of goes through a number of different services that Reach does provide, not only to the City of Chan for the rest of the cities within the consortium of cities. The contract agreement and then the overall numbers so, what I wanted to do tonight, we’re not really looking for any specific recommendation from the city to move on to City Council. We wanted to make the council, or the commission aware of the contract, the dollar amount. Kind of where we’re at for 2006. Just kind of a little more for your information tonight… (There was a tape change at this point in the presentation.) Ruegemer: You know we really as a staff we’ve been talking a lot about that on a number of our contracts. Not only this contract but also, it may be a little bit harder with this contract as far as Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 18 the fluctuation of numbers, but that’s really something we are definitely willing to explore. We also, I talked about that with the lifeguard contract, also the fireworks contract as well, so we’re at the kind of reinvent the wheel every year. Kind of go through that process and do it that way so, we can certainly explore that in the future. Stolar: Yeah I think it’d probably be a good idea to look at that so we don’t have to do it every year. Ruegemer: You bet. Stolar: Thanks. No action was required you said? Ruegemer: No. Stolar: Alright. Should we go onto the other three development proposals. RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: REVIEW REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FIVE (5) STORM WATER PONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN RICE MARSH LAKE AND LAKE RILEY WATERSHEDS. (THREE OF THE FIVE PONDS ARE LOCATED WITHIN RICE MARSH LAKE PARK.) Hoffman: Thanks Glenn Stolar, members of the commission. This item does not require a recommendation from the commission tonight but if you have additional input, basically what is taking place here is that we have another government unit that’s going to do some good things within our community in regards to storm water basins, sediment retention and water quality and water quantity. I’m going to go over them individually for you to make sure that you’re familiar with the locations and where the activity will be taking place. It’s in very public areas and 3 of them are directly within the Rice Marsh Lake Park area, which you were down working on this summer. Are the commissioners familiar with the Watershed District? A small percentage of the tax dollars goes into a special fund and they’re appointed by the Carver County Board, Hennepin County Board. In our particular watershed district I think one is appointed by Carver County Board of Commissioners and the other 3 or 4 appointed by Hennepin County. Then they serve with a staff, engineering consultant to do water improvement projects within in the watershed district. Stolar: And just so you know, Chanhassen has multiple watershed districts. This is I think our largest by far. Hoffman: The first pond, as you go to the plan set and hold the one up that, the plan set that shows Lake Susan and Rice Marsh. This is the general vicinity and as you flip over the plan sheet to sites RM1.1, it’s a very large basin to be constructed right now adjacent to Rice Marsh Park. The trail that comes through and then there’s a little stub trail that comes down into the park at this location off of Dakota so you have Rice Marsh, Lake Susan and then this pond. It’s presently, currently located there but it’s going to be expanded quite extensively and the feature Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 19 that you’ll notice most dramatically is the trail runs along the north side of the pond and they’re going to put a split rail fence along that trail. Currently they have it 3 feet behind the trail. It’s not far enough to offer snow plowing and regional maintenance so we asked them to move that back. It may require some redesign of their pond slopes but we want at least 6 feet of clearance on that trail. There are some trees coming out on the park. This is the park property on this side. There’s some vegetation being removed. We have the basin, the four basins for sediment retention and then the rest of the basin’s being enlarged to allow for additional water quantity, and eventually water quality improvements. So you’re driving trucks right down a public trail and primarily during the winter construction season. They’re talking to the applicants here, road restrictions are probably going to come off here in the next week or two so these projects are not going to happen this year. They’re going to be bid in the next month or so, but they’ll all be winter construction next year. So allow the areas to freeze. Move in with their heavy equipment. Dig these ponds out. Make the improvements and then do the restoration, final restoration in the spring. Stolar: Now they’re doing replanting also over there, correct? I’m looking at the next page here, it shows some replanting. Hoffman: Yep. These are a million dollar project. Includes excavation, revegetation, piping and then the reclamation of the trails. You’ll note the existing, it says existing bituminous trails shall be checked by contractors, city representatives and engineer prior to using as a haul road. Any damage to the existing trail shall be repaired and included in the project at the owners expense, the owner is the watershed district and any damage adjacent to the trail shall be restored and turf established. Trail closure shall be coordinated with the City so those are the things we’ve asked for already that we want to make sure that when these projects are underway that our residents are aware that they’re happening so they can alter their routes. Scharfenberg: That trail will be closed down for. Hoffman: A day. At a time. So it will be during construction day. Opened back up for the evening. And they’ll move in very quickly. When these contractors get to these pond projects, they don’t want to spend any more time there than they have to because once you get in and start moving in the water, you want to get in there and get it done. …some smaller basins. RM2.2. It’s a small pond located north of Highway 5 and Lotus Lawn and Garden, and what you’re doing is you’re collecting this water as it’s traveling down, through Rice Marsh, into Lake Riley so they’re working hard on improving water quality in Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley and eventually the Minnesota River, and this is one of the basins early on in the process. It’s on privately owned property. The watershed district has an easement over the property to have the pond there and now they’ll improve the pond as a part of this project. Continue on to the linear type of improvement. RM2.5 and this is situated again back down on Rice Marsh but on the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie border. There’s a creek way that travels down through from Lake Drive and you’ll notice on the north side they’re cleaning out the muck basin that has a steel weir and then installing a new culvert. Set the trail right at the Eden Prairie-Chanhassen border and so this is one part of a two part project which we’ll look at here after this one. You’ll note that they’re constructing a 10 foot wide gravel maintenance road. That will stay in place so they can continue to maintain this upstream basin with the muck excavation. Continue on through the Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 20 sheets. Probably see the most dramatic change in this basin. It’s immediately south of where, the one we just looked at. Again right at the Eden Prairie-Chanhassen border. In fact the line, the pond is being enlarged in the Eden Prairie. At present the pond is only in Chanhassen. Being enlarged to the east in Eden Prairie. Trail is located right on the north side. Very popular trail between Lake Susan area and then Eden Prairie area. And they’re going to have an additional feature, that nature trail along the berm. It’s slated as 4 feet. We’re going to request that that go to 6 feet to allow for easier maintenance of construction vehicles, pick-up’s, Bobcats, those type of things. But a significant impact. They are removing wetlands as a part of this and they’ll be reclaiming or restoring that. That’s about another million dollar part of the project, and so the project total is approximately $2 million dollars so when they’re taking out the wetland areas to create these ponds, they have to go ahead and mitigate that in other locations. And the last one. This pond just down the street. The largest pond and it’s right at the intersection of Highway 5 and Market Boulevard. Right over here on Highway 5 and Market. It’s the pond just down, behind Festival Foods and. Stolar: Cub Foods. Hoffman: Cub, thank you. County Market. When the consultant investigated this pond they thought they would need chest waiters. All they had with them was hip boots. They put on hit boots and they walked across the entire pond so it’s very shallow. This four bay was excavated but that was…last two day rain events and it again filled up with sediment. Comes out of the streets and parking lots in our downtown. Travels down the storm sewer system. Comes into the pond and then it does not allow for the, I think it was the September rain where it flooded up and over this pond. Across in front of, which was then the bank. Is not Walgreen’s. It flooded the street on the other side. A person drove their car into that and stalled out right in that particular area there because the water was so deep, and that’s due in part to the fact that this basin didn’t have the capacity to take that rain. So they’ll again excavate the four bay. People always say that why don’t they make these things deeper? Why don’t we make them 10 feet deep and interesting, something I’ve never thought of is ground water just fills it up so there’s really only about 4 feet of depth in any given area where you can have that it will stay dry, free of ground water that would allow you to have that capacity of the 4 feet times the size of the pond. It still doesn’t matter, you go 10, 12, 14 feet, it just fills up with ground water and you don’t have that capacity there. So read through the recommendations that staff has requested of the watershed district. All neighbors shall be notified via U.S. Mail and they already have the mailing labels for that. Restoration of trails damaged by construction should be included in your bid package. Trail closures should be thoroughly reviewed and addressed as necessary. We want appropriate signage. Back on the front page of the staff report. Proposed timing of the projects should be conveyed to the City and the project neighbors. The Market Boulevard pond is highly visible. Keeping the truck drivers alert and keeping the streets free of mud. So those are the recommendations that we have. If you have any additional comments for the watershed district, we’d be happy to pass them on. We’ll be working through Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator. She’s the point person for the project for the City. Atkins: I have a question. Where is the funding coming from? Stolar: Your tax dollars. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 21 Hoffman: Yep, tax dollars. It’s a special taxing district. Watershed district. They get a small percentage, if you pull out your tax statement, you’ll see right on there watershed district. Stolar: I don’t know, are they getting any grants for this one too? Hoffman: Not that I’m aware of. Stolar: Okay. Sometimes they get grants for projects. Sometimes they give grants for projects. Hoffman: They have the money Paula. It’s good that they’re spending it here in Chan. Stolar: The one thing I noticed, and I forgot to look back at my notes but from the Surface Water Management Plan, these weren’t necessarily the main lakes with issues that we discovered but they also weren’t necessarily the best rated, so this will help some of the lakes in Chan. I mean these are rated as okay but we should still keep an eye on them. Hoffman: Yep. Their primary impetus for this is the conditions of the structures that they’re currently in place. Scharfenberg: Is it similar to what they did on the holding pond at Lake Susan a couple years ago? Hoffman: Similar. Scharfenberg: Similar type of project. Hoffman: Yeah. Stolar: Similar in that I think some of the activities they’re doing here are a little different but similar, yeah. Hoffman: That’s the biggest pond in the city, that Lake Susan pond. Stolar: Alright. Any other questions, comments? Alright, then we want to go to item number 4. PETERSON PROPERTY, D.R. HORTON: RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL), AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312. Hoffman: Thank you Glenn, members of the commission. This property again is located within the 2005 MUSA area. It’s at the edge of Bluff Creek. It’s proposed to be developed into 81 single family homes. It’s immediately south of the property that you looked at with folks here from Town and Country. Across and up the bluff. And again, if this is developed as proposed will result in 284 new residents and we arrive at that figure by multiplying the 81 homes by 3.5 persons per home. That’s recently gone up from 3 persons per home. The 3.5. It was a look at Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 22 new demographics we had from the school districts. Therefore the subdivision generates a need for 3.79 acres of new parkland. Staff and the applicant identified a park area called Outlot H to be acquired as a condition of the subdivision application. Little history on the acquisition of this park site. If you’ll recall, we had originally identified as our hope of acquiring park on the Degler property to the north. That did not come to bear so we quickly moved our attention to the, our second most desirable location which is just to the south of the creek. The north site at the Degler property was a little bit more centrally located in the 2005 MUSA area, but we wanted either one of the other. Either right on this knoll on that side of the creek, or on the knoll on the south side of the creek, and so we’re looking at the crest of the hill on the south side of the creek, immediately south of the round about. That particular location and it makes for a nice neighborhood park. In addition to Outlot H, Lot 1, which is a 21,000 square foot lot shall be incorporated into the borders of the park and combine those two parcels total, 4.72 acres. You subtract the dedication amount which is 3.79, we will be required to purchase .93 acres. The applicant paid $235,000 per acre for this property and if you do the math on that, we’ll, the City shall pay $218,550 for our additional .93 acres. The applicant, D.R. Horton has agreed to rough grade and cover seed the park site. Construct a 20 stall parking lot and for those improvements we will agree to pay $50,000 in a not to exceed amount so…pay the actual construction costs for those improvements. There’s two access points currently being evaluated for the park. One off of the main street, which is Street D and one off the cul-de-sac. There are again pluses and minuses to both those locations. Staff would be interested in hearing your viewpoint on that. From the commissioners standpoint. The engineers and the planners like to weigh into those type of issues but we’d certainly like to hear from you as well. And so that’s the park issue. Trails. The Peterson plat will have access to that trail we talked about and there’s no need for additional comprehensive trail plan construction as a part of this plat. However they will have multiple connectors to the trail, city’s trail system. This acquisition of the park or recommendation to acquire this park did not come to the commission without significant negotiations between staff and the applicant. As you can imagine when you come in and pay $234,000-$235,000 per acre, our park fee’s based off of a land value of $125,000 per acre and so any applicant would just as soon give you the cash versus giving you the land. But we have the dedication ordinance in place and we have a responsibility to provide our new residents with public parks and so they understood that and they understood our ability to take that property so we negotiated on a few other items in regard to assessments that our engineering department looked at for D.R. Horton and they had come to the conclusion that they will agree with this recommendation. They offered to be here this evening to speak to the commission but they also had another meeting to be at so with their agreement with our recommendation, I suggested that they did not need to be here. Since they had another commitment. Be happy to answer any questions of the commission and I would imagine that upon acquisition of this property we will start development in a very rapid fashion because we’ll have a graded site and with a parking lot ready to go with a couple of thousand new residents coming our way so we’ll want to play a playground and ballfield… Spizale: Would this be a rough idea what the park would look like? What you’d have in the park. Hoffman: Just conceptually. We will master plan with the commission. Have a park planner come in and meet with you and go through the exact design. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 23 Spizale: But you’ll definitely have a playground area. Definitely have a soccer field. Definitely a ballfield. Hoffman: Yeah. I wouldn’t label it a soccer field. More of an open field area. Spizale: Okay. Stolar: Well is that something for us to consider given some of the previous comments we’ve had about soccer space and such? Hoffman: Well yes, but then in a neighborhood park we’re not traditionally scheduling, trying to restrict scheduling team sports so. If we were building another community park, which we will be shortly at hopefully a school site, then we’ll be able to. Atkins: Is this going to be constructed before the new road goes through? 212. Hoffman: The park? Atkins: Yeah. Well the whole. Hoffman: Concurrently. Concurrently at the same time. Atkins: And is this very close to that Liberty Heights, or the Liberty one that we were just looking at? Is it like directly across the street? Hoffman: Across the creek. Atkins: Creek. Hoffman: Across the creek, yep. Atkins: Okay. Hoffman: The property, Liberty is the, if you look at the cover page. Liberty at Bluff Creek is this one right here. Atkins: Okay. Hoffman: And the creek’s right there. And then you can see the townhouse units at the bottom of the page. That’s the other townhome development that they’re working on and that accesses out onto Audubon. All of these properties are coming in at the same time. Scharfenberg: So what will the trail access to get to this park will be what? Since it’s right along a road or street, will be what? Just sidewalk. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 24 Hoffman: Trails. Scharfenberg: Trails. Hoffman: Trails on both sides. 10 foot wide trails. Obviously access to the residents on the south side of the creek is going to be better than those on the north side. They’ll have to travel down and come back up the hill. But you’re serving these 81 homes and then I think it’s 371 homes to the west of here in the townhomes development. So you’re serving approximately 450 homes at this particular park site. Stolar: So for the Degler property we couldn’t get what we were originally envisioning. Are we getting any parkland over there? Hoffman: No. The creek corridor. You haven’t reviewed it yet but our staff’s current position is that we’re not seeking additional parkland acquisition on that property, but the creek corridor and the creek trail will be one of the amenities that comes through. It’s not in for preliminary review, preliminary plat. At that time you will see it but that’s our current position. Stolar: Okay. So this MUSA area, we’re really, I’d love to see at some point what the actual density per park is given all these plats of real parkland because really it’s, if the recommendation is for every 75 residents, they’re going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 probably per acre. Or more. It’ll be more than that. Could be close to 300. I think that’s something worth telling City Council. Hoffman: I believe you’re right. If the, we have enough park acreage in the community to meet all future development and all future residents but it’s not located in the right spots. We still have to have it every one half mile from a home so, that’s where the… Stolar: You know I think if we could have some assessment of you know as we get pretty close to understood if we can just run that by us and because I think that still relates to the whole land prices are much greater than, there’s no incentive for them to give the land. Right now they’re better off giving the fees. Hoffman: Correct. Stolar: By at least half, it’s half the cost. So congratulations to these guys and to yourself for working out a way to get the land with what seems to be a fair compromise of giving some and selling some and working together so I think that’s great. And appreciate it. I think this does need a vote so is there a motion? Scharfenberg: Move to accept staff’s recommendation for the Peterson property. Murphy: Second. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 25 Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for the Peterson subdivision: 1. The designation of a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, including Outlot H and Lot 1, Block 4. This property shall be transferred to the City by Warranty Deed with 3.79 acres of the site being dedicated/donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased by the City of Chanhassen. The City shall compensate the owner/ applicant $218,550 in total compensation for said 0.93 acres. 2. That the applicant rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the City. The parking lot shall include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of the park shall be submitted to the Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design, engineering and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. BOULDER COVE: RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7, EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST 62ND STREET. Hoffman: Boulder Cove is a property located north of Highway 7. It’s going to be developed into a couple of different types of units. Townhomes and two single family properties as well. In the general vicinity of Cathcart Park. If you’re familiar with that neighborhood park. It’s an interesting park site. It’s shown here on one of the attachments. It’s owned by the City of Shorewood but it’s within the City of Chanhassen and the church across the street originally owned the property and then they donated it, or dedicated it to the City of Shorewood for a park since the church was in Shorewood. And so now we have a multi-jurisdictional facility where we mow the grass and trim the trees and they own it and take care of the capital improvements and the design. Both residents of Shorewood and Chanhassen use it as a park. It’s located just a block to the west of the proposed Boulder Cove. Provides good access for parks and so staff is recommending that we accept park dedication in lieu of land acquisition. Trails. There is one section of the regional trail system within the vicinity. It’s the South LRT running from Hopkins to Victoria and it’s, there’s no trail head at this location but there is a direct access just one home away from Cathcart Park, and then the corridor slices northeast and southwest. So if you move into the Boulder Cove development you’re going to have convenient access to both the parks and trails, and staff is not recommending any additional construction of trails at this point of the development. It’s our recommendation that the Park Commission recommend that the City Council accept full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, and as a condition of Boulder Cove. Stolar: Any questions? Do I have a motion to approve the staff’s recommendation. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 26 Murphy: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation. Spizale: Second. Murphy moved, Spizale seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve that full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2006 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Ruegemer: It’s kind of an FYI on behalf of Nate tonight to kind of give the commission the Easter Egg Candy Hunt date. It will be April 15th out at the Chan Rec Center. Sure to be, there will be information, he’s putting all that information together right now to distribute through the schools. Looking for volunteers. Stuff like that again so if the commission would like to help out in any way with that, feel free to give myself or Nate a call and we can put you on a task. The reservations have already been made for the facility. Entertainment has been secured last October. So we’re pretty much just kind of falling into place here and just wanted to give you, the commission a little update as to when the dates are going to be. Stolar: Thank you. Any questions? Spizale: Jerry, what time of the day is this? Ruegemer: 9:00. Spizale: 9:00. Ruegemer: Everything will be over by about 10:30. Hopefully being a couple weeks later we’ll have, we’ll be outside and warm. Stolar: Hopefully. Without any rain. Okay, next. DADDY DAUGHTER DATE NIGHT EVALUATION. Ruegemer: Thanks. Daddy Daughter Date Night, a successful event again. Held February 9th and 10th. Thursday and Friday nights out at the Recreation Center. We had really good numbers on Friday night and roughly about 30 to 32, 35 couples roughly on Thursday night so a good event. We changed up the catering a little bit this year. …and that was a rousing success so, but the kids certainly enjoyed that and I think the dads appreciated that as well to get their kids to get a little something at the event so. A lot of the components were the same again this year. The dance with the DJ and face painting. Balloon sculpture. One of the events was the same. We had great help again with Nancy Gagner. She’s one of our, kind of our craft instructors and Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 27 Sailor Johnson also assisted Nancy with that. They’ve been with, involved with the event for a number of years so it was a nice transition for Nate. His first year with the event to have some seasoned staff to help him with that so, Nate did a great job on really paying attention to all the details on that. Very thorough with decorations and details of the event and did a great job his first time around. We kind of looked at continuing Friday night is by far the successful, most successful night. That fills up I would say a week or two after the newsletter goes out on that and if we had 3 more Friday nights you could probably fill those up as well, so we’re looking to, potentially looking to expand that and possibly holding a Saturday night event option again next year. Either we eliminate the Thursday and just go Friday to Saturday or provide all three options, which we certainly can pull off from a logistic standpoint. So look into that and Nate made some improvements this year on kind of the photo options of that as far as keeping track of the, kind of the sequential picture taking corresponding with the people who are in the picture, as far as identification so, that worked our really good this year and we’ll continue on with that. And just a simple, you know just kind of logistics placements. Runway out. That sort of thing with that. All accounts, everybody that attends has a fantastic time. We’ve certainly had our mayor, Mayor Furlong attend, along with some city council members and other members of the commission. Kevin was there this year. So everybody seems to really enjoy the night out with their daughters. Kind of a little special time so, it’s a great event. Stolar: Any questions? Great. FEBRUARY FESTIVAL EVALUATION. Ruegemer: Seems so long ago, doesn’t it? Stolar: Have we finished the investigation into the winning fish yet and the situation there? Ruegemer: That’s an ongoing task. So just you know, it was another fun year. Certainly we had some challenges with ice conditions and all that but all that being said, we sold the same amount of tickets as we had last year. Identical to the numbers so it was a great event. Down to the ticket. 1,061. So great event again. Had a lot of help. Great help from community members. Park maintenance staff did a wonderful job again on preparing the site, and also facilitating the logistics of the event during the day of the event. I want to thank all the commissioners that were out there providing help with the prize board ticket sales. All the above so we couldn’t have done it without you. And it was a little bit of a chilly day out that day so we appreciate everybody taking the time and coming out and helping us again and seeing really first hand what a wonderful event it is. We’ve got some people who enjoy it. We have people there that haven’t missed one yet in 13 years so, it’s a tradition that’s engrained not only with our community but even really people outside of our community that keep coming back so. It’s a fun event. You know kind of looking at the comments regarding the deal. It certainly was helpful to have everything labeled. I hope everything, you know the coordination within the prize board area. The commissioners were really responsible for really went smooth with that, which we try to take a look at labeling and numbering and putting things in order and hopefully that helps with the speed and ease of distribution during the event itself so we’re certainly always looking for comments or suggestions to certainly to help out with that. You know great to announce the prizes as well as names and ticket numbers. Fred did always does a wonderful job with that and Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 28 I think people really try to make an effort this year to go out and go out into the community and really try to lower our expense overall. Kind of bridge the gap between revenue and expenditures and we did a better job this year on going out. Did a lot of door knocking this year. I did a lot of door knocking after Corey had left and certainly was one of my goals was to make the debt a little bit more friendly as far as expenditures versus revenue so we did a better job lowering the event by about $1,100-$1,200 in expense to bridge the gap so, always looking for ways to cut expense without cutting the overall experience for our participants. You look at the overall, really the overall prize per participant that the won a door prize. It really was a phenomenal value this year for a $5 ticket so we did a great job on getting a number of books donated from a publishing company here in town, and just a lot of other callers came through with a lot of value baskets and desserts and there was just a lot of great event. Gander Mountain donated poles and other types of items. Ivan Sinclair donated some fishing poles and other, ice auger and some other prize board items so it really was a great event. It was fun to get out and make some new sponsor contacts and get excited and rally people around the event so. Overall we certainly talked amongst the staff as to way we can improve again next year. Eliminate some costs with that. It does seem like we’re, you know the advertising that we do certainly is beneficial but you know are we kind of at the point now where it’s kind of engrained in people’s mind as to when the date’s going to be and I’m looking to maybe look at doing maybe some different advertising next year that we can eliminate maybe some of the ads in the paper to save some costs somehow that way but, just really looking for the commission tonight, if there’s any items or general comments, suggestions that you were willing to pass on tonight that we can improve the event or you know kind of looking forward to it so. Murphy: I just think people were really pleased with the prizes and winning whatever they won. They were just glad to get something. So I think that went really well with the amount of prizes that we had. Stolar: The question, a couple things on the prize thing. If they could add another sheet, and I don’t know if that’s going to be easy or not but one of the things, you know I’d take the sheet and I’d go running and then I’d come back. Well they had new numbers so I have to wait for those to be written. If you had like two runner sheets, then I could just you know take one, because Fred was waiting on me a lot. It wasn’t fun. He’d be sitting there waiting. I do have a question about the, just when looking at the numbers. The total expenses didn’t match in the two areas, and I’m sure that’s just a typo. Ruegemer: On what, actually I have an updated one. Stolar: And like when we see prizes here for Cabin Fever Sports and Sheraton Bloomington Hotel, those are where we bought prizes, correct? Ruegemer: If you look at, Cabin Fever Sporting Goods, yeah. Jeff does donate the portable fish house for that and certainly then we supplement. Stolar: With buying other. Ruegemer: Correct. Buying some other prizes. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 29 Stolar: And the hotel, same thing? That’s one of the prize. Ruegemer: Actually the Sheraton Bloomington Hotel is the PA system for the ice. Stolar: Oh okay. Ruegemer: We actually did go out for about 2 or 3 quotes on that this year. Sheraton is who we’ve used for the past you know 10 plus years for that and they definitely did sharpen their pencil on us after they knew we were kind of going out for some other options. It’s expensive, without question. Stolar: But you’ve got to get the right equipment there. Ruegemer: Yeah. When you’re stringing out you know 1,200 feet of cable and. Stolar: Right, they set it up and they take it down? Ruegemer: Yep. Stolar: It’s worth it. Ruegemer: Turn key for us, yeah. We just provide power. Stolar: Yep. The only thing, and I’m going to play off of something that Todd did this year which is, it would be fun to maybe have a ice fishing lesson there. Like maybe the half hour beforehand, a couple people go around and coach or do like what you did with Dave… Be kind of fun. See a couple volunteers out there. Either the Friday before or you know like people can come at noon and there’ll be a few holes set up with some. Hoffman: Beginner area. Stolar: Yeah. Actually you could set up a beginner’s area where someone just kind of walks around and. Hoffman: Yeah, we could get some Lions. $5,390.32 is the actual total expense on the updated sheet. 5390.32. Stolar: For $90 of investment, boy was that worth it. That was a great payback. Murphy: I have to say it took me a while to thaw my feet out. Stolar: The year before of all the water that was on there, that had melted, actually this year went out and bought different boots just, and they worked great. Hoffman: Thanks again for all your help. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 30 Atkins: I just want to know what Minnesota Gambling Control Board is. Ruegemer: The $50? Atkins: Yeah. Ruegemer: We have to go through a permit application process to get, since it’s considered a raffle. That’s why if you look on those fish tickets there that’s X065 number. That’s all based on, it’s gambling essentially so we have to go through that State agency to get a permit to host that raffle. Hoffman: Through the Chamber of Commerce. Ruegemer: Yeah. So we do that process every fall. We go through the Chamber of Commerce actually did pass an ordinance that we don’t need board approval anymore. The Board of Directors did pass that so on an annual basis they automatically give us the official okey dokey and we go through that process and get everything approved so. Atkins: Do you have to do that for the 4th of July? Ruegemer: No. Stolar: Correspondence section. Anything anybody needs to. Murphy: This was pretty neat. Hoffman: Which one is it? Dog? Murphy: Yeah. Stolar: For the Shorewood. Murphy: Funding raiser going. Stolar: That’s where it was. The foundation, the Shorewood Parks Foundation. Murphy: I haven’t seen that anywhere. Atkins: Me either. …distributed in Chanhassen? Hoffman: I received it in the mail. Scharfenberg: Is there any update Todd on that process for Marty? Hoffman: No updates. Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 31 Stolar: Well even though there are no updates, I would like to ask for him to come to either the March or April meeting. If that’s possible. Even if he has no updates so we can ask him questions. Hoffman: Sure. Murphy: I would also like to contact him just to see what I can do to help maybe make this more visible in Chanhassen. Stolar: I guess the question I have is, even if we raise all this money, if Marty’s group isn’t going to do it, it doesn’t really help us to have the money. It’s a time constraint and resource constraint for us more than the money right now. Hoffman: I didn’t receive the nomination form but I see Karen included in the packet, for the Distinguished Service Award last year. I’m not sure if we talked about that or not. I think we did. Stolar: We reviewed the nominees last year. Hoffman: At this point you’re eligible to make a nomination of the community. As an organization you can make a nomination for a person to be considered. And today’s the deadline. Stolar: Are we going to see who was nominated again? Hoffman: You will. But you also have the opportunity to nominate somebody if you so choose as a commission. Stolar: Also remember the gala is April 29th. Your names are on the list to get an invite. Hoffman: Is there any desire by any member to nominate a person? Atkins: Did you say Karen was nominated? Oh, I don’t know why I thought I heard that. Karen Engelhardt. Stolar: I think if you have somebody, I guess now would be the time. Just one other quick note, this letter for Dale. It sums up a lot of things he and his group have been doing for this community. I thought that was great. Really appreciate it. Hoffman: Nice letter. Stolar: Alright. Does anyone have any other business to bring towards this committee? I guess I can wrap up my final committee report. We’re done with the Surface Water Management task force. There’s going to be a public hearing March, when is the Planning Commission meeting? Park and Rec Commission – February 28, 2006 32 Hoffman: The 7th. Stolar: The 7th. So March 7th, Planning Commission is going to have a public hearing. They now own the recommendations and the watershed districts, all watershed districts have to review it and give their input. Carver County has to review it. Give their input. City Council’s seen a briefing of it. I didn’t think, I guess you could bring in a March to bring our deal into it so maybe why don’t we put something in March and I’ll just, I’m trying to get at summary document from them so I’ll see if they have the updated exec summary yet and we’ll use that as our input document. But I thought a lot of it was done really well and again as I mentioned last time, the key thing was, we were able to classify water bodies, including calling a couple of them pristine, meaning you really want to focus on them and keeping them with extra regulations and codes and stringent adherence to codes to make sure they don’t get disturbed and those would be Seminary Fen and the creek. Hoffman: Assumption Creek. Stolar: Assumption Creek. So, and City Council when they were told that didn’t seem to have any comments at that time but it was just a preliminary briefly for them. And then from a parks perspective, just we’re going to continue to try and make the city the show case so one of the things we’ll talk about is some things downtown that Lori may propose which the parks, Dale’s crew maintain downtown so maybe some things there. Native vegetations and things like that to help improve runoff. Of course that runoff goes…we were just talking about. Do I have a motion for adjournment. I guess there are no other committees right now going on. Motion for adjournment? Spizale moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Karen J. Engelhardt, Office Manager DATE: March 20, 2006 SUBJ: Approval of 2006 Liquor License Renewals Attached is a listing of all of the liquor licenses that are renewed annually by the City Council. This renewal is for the licensing period of May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007. As of this writing, staff has not received all of the necessary documentation from every license holder. This is typical and no license will be issued until all documentation is complete. Staff has completed background investigations on the applicants and the operating manager of each establishment. This background investigation includes criminal history, outstanding warrants, and driving records. No negative comments were found on any of the applicants. Staff also reviewed property tax and utility bill records for each applicant. One establishment’s utility bill is delinquent and this amount will be collected prior to issuance of the license. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 2006 liquor license applications as listed on the attached sheet contingent upon receipt of all necessary documentation. Approval requires a simple majority vote of those City Council members present. Following Council approval, I will forward all of the licenses to the Liquor Control Division at the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for final processing. The state requires that these documents be in their office by April 1, 2006. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2006 Liquor License Holders 2006 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES Fee (All fees listed include $200 Sunday Sales fee, except High Timber Lounge) · Axel’s, 560 West 78th Street $6,315 · Chanhassen Dinner Theatres, 501 West 78th Street $13,304 · Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar, 590 West 79th Street $9,809 · High Timber Lounge & Meeting Rooms, 545 West 78th Street (no Sunday Sales) $7,862 · Houlihan’s, 530 Pond Promenade $9,809 · Chanhassen American Legion Post 580, 290 Lake Drive East $9,809 · Buffalo Wild Wings, 550 West 79th Street $9,809 · Chipotle Mexican Grill, 560 West 79th Street $6,315 · Rey Azteca, 7874 Market Boulevard $6,315 · Jacob’s Tavern, 7845 Century Blvd. (approved but not under construction yet) OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LICENSES · MGM Liquor Warehouse, 7856 Market Boulevard $200 · Cheers Wine & Spirits, 530 West 79th Street $200 · Byerly Wine & Spirits, 780 West 78th Street $200 · Century Wine & Spirits, 2689 West 78th Street $200 · Winestyles, 600 Market Street, Suite 140 OFF-SALE 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSES · Kwik-Trip #402, 2201 West 78th Street $58 · Chanhassen Citgo Company, 380 Lake Drive East $58 · Cub Foods, 7900 Market Boulevard $58 ON-SALE 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSE · Bluff Creek Golf Association, 1025 Creekwood Drive $410 · RSS Golf, 825 Flying Cloud Drive $410 ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSES · Na’s Thai Cafe, 566 West 78th Street $410 · Byerly’s Restaurant, 800 West 78th Street $410 · Happy Garden Restaurant, 2443 Highway 7 West $410 · Frankie’s Pizza, Pasta, & Ribs, 7850 Market Blvd. $410 · CJ’s Coffee & Wine Bar, 600 Market Street, #600 $410 Total $83,191 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works DATE: March 20, 2006 SUBJ: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertisement of Bids for the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01 REQUESTED ACTION (Simple Majority Vote) The City Council is requested to approve the plans and specifications and authorize advertisement of bids for the 2006 Street Improvement Project. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2005, the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for this project. On January 9, 2006, the City Council received the feasibility study and called the public hearing. On January 23, 2006 the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. DISCUSSION The Pavement Management Program has identified the street segments for this project as needing improvements at this time. Bolton & Menk, the City's consultant for this project, is completing plans and specifications for the project. The plans are on file in the Engineering Department. A brief summary of each of the proposed improvement areas is provided below. Koehnen Area The streets in this area are recommended for reconstruction. These streets are 35 years old and are in need of replacement. The streets currently do not have concrete curb and gutter. The reconstruction area includes approximately 1.05 miles of street, including West 63rd Street, Koehnen Circle East, Koehnen Circle West, Cardinal Avenue, Blue Jay Circle, Audubon Circle and Yosemite Avenue (from 6440 Yosemite Avenue to the City limits). Concrete curb and gutter is proposed to be included in the street design. Also, the street improvement project will include replacement of all watermain, replacement of some sanitary sewer, installation of storm sewer and construction of stormwater treatment ponds. Todd Gerhardt March 20, 2006 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc The watermain in this area is cast iron which has resulted in 23 documented watermain breaks. It is recommended to replace the watermain in this area along with the water services in the right-of-way. Televising of the sanitary sewer indicates that portions of this utility are “egged”, sagging and/or cracked. Bolton & Menk, the consultant engineer the City has contracted for this project, recommends that portions of the sanitary sewer exhibiting “extreme” sagging or segments that are cracked be replaced. Storm sewer will be installed and will outlet to one of three ponds that will be constructed in conjunction with the project. The ponds will treat the runoff before discharging to other water bodies. Forty percent (40%) of the street rehabilitation costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners within the project area. The preliminary assessment amount for the Koehnen area is $7,100/lot and is proposed to be assessed over a 10- year period at 6% interest. As directed by the Council at the public hearing, streets in this area will remain approximately their same width of 28, except for Yosemite Road that will be widened to 32’ based on state aid standards. Retaining walls will be constructed were necessary to ensure a properly engineered design for slope stability. Staff will work with the property owners to obtain temporary construction easements to grade on private property to reduce wall quantities after the award of a construction contract. Todd Gerhardt March 20, 2006 Page 3 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc Chanhassen Hills Area The Chanhassen Hills area project includes resurfacing or rehabilitation of the streets. These streets are 15 years old and are recommended for milling and overlaying. The streets have been sealcoated twice and can no longer be maintained adequately with preventative pavement management techniques. Improvements consist of milling the pavement and paving a minimum of 2” bituminous. Damaged, “alligatored” pavement areas will be removed and repaved prior to the overlay. Severely damaged curb will be replaced. Draintile in back of the curb is also proposed to be included at various locations. The water table in this neighborhood is very high and most properties with sump pumps run all year long. In 2000, the City had a sump pump inspection program that identified several properties in this area with illicit sump pump discharges connected directly into the sanitary sewer. At that time, all of the illicit discharges were removed. In working on the Inflow/Infiltration program, this area again has become a concern for illicit discharges. By including the draintile in with the street improvement project, the City will give the residents another alternative to discharge the sump pump water into a city-maintained system. Forty percent (40%) of the street rehabilitation costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners within the project area. The preliminary assessment amount for the Chanhassen Hills area is $1,698.15/lot and is proposed to be assessed over an 8-year period at 6% interest. Todd Gerhardt March 20, 2006 Page 4 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc Lake Ann Park Parking Lots Also included in this year’s street project are proposed improvements to the parking lots at Lake Ann Park. Most of the drives and parking areas are in very poor condition and are in need of reconstruction. The improvements include reconstruction of the roadways, realignment of roadways, reconstruction of parking areas and overlay of parking areas. Also included will be placement of concrete curb and gutter in parking areas. Todd Gerhardt March 20, 2006 Page 5 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc Funding Funding for this project is proposed as follows: ITEM ESTIMATED COST 2006 CIP Project Number ST-012 (MSA) Street Reconstruction $ 1,561,073 ST-012 Rehabilitation Area (Chanhassen Hills) 661,300 ST-018 (Pvmt. Mgmt.) Subtotal, Streets $ 2,222,373 Lake Ann Park $ 321,235 PK&T-051 Storm Sewer 586,011 SWMP-019 Todd Gerhardt March 20, 2006 Page 6 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction 185,679 SS-014 Watermain Reconstruction 544,585 W-024 TOTAL $ 3,859,833 For the street projects $764,385.50 is proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners. The estimated costs for storm sewer improvements are higher than the budgeted amount since the detailed storm sewer design was not complete when the budget amount was determined. Staff will be obtaining an alternate bid for storm water pipe using different materials to help offset these costs. The estimated watermain costs are high due to the unforeseen increase in the cost of watermain pipe. Potential new revenue that was not budgeted for in 2006 may be able to be used to help offset these costs. The tentative schedule for this project is as follows: Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bid March 20, 2006 Assessment Hearing/Adopt Assessment Roll/Award Contract May, 2006 Start Construction June, 2006 Construction Complete October, 2006 The project start and completion dates are later than originally anticipated due to changes in MnDOT’s State Aid review process. It also took longer then anticipated to designate Yosemite as a Muncipal State Aid Route. The route designation is required prior to MnDOT reviewing and approving construction drawings. The City’s consultant is prioritizing the preparation of Yosemite Avenue plans in an attempt to get the project back to the original anticipated schedule. Currently, MnDOT is still finalizing the route designation. If the route designation is not completed soon and MnDOT's plan review is longer then anticipated, the Koehnen project area may need to be delayed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the plans and specifications and authorizes the advertisement of bids for the 2006 Street Improvement Project." Attachments c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Gregg Geske- Fire Chief Sherri Walsh – 1st Assistant Chief Randy Wahl - 2nd Assistant Chief Mark Littfin- Fire Marshal Ed Coppersmith – Training Officer DATE: March 15, 2006 SUBJ: Monthly City Council update Fire Department Overview: Staffing is at 46 active firefighters as of March 15, 2006, allocation is 45 PTE’s. We have had 88 calls as of March 12, 2006, down from 101 calls at this same time in 2005. We had one of our members, Dale Gregory, Battalion Chief, reach a monumental milestone in March. He has been a Chanhassen firefighter for 35 years. Fire Training: In April we will concentrate on NIMS, National Incident Management System training. This is a 16 hour required class for our responders in order to be certified. We need to be certified by September of this year in order to receive grants and any disaster assistance. Fire Marshal: The cause of the fire on Lotus Trail was the improper installation of the wood burning stove and chimney flue. The home was determined to be a total loss. Mutual aid was received from Victoria, Chaska, Eden Prairie and Excelsior Fire Departments. As of this date, we have no time schedule for demolition or rebuilding. We had no other fires to report. New Construction – The Chanhassen Water Treatment Plant is the only major building project under construction at this time. There are a number of smaller remodeling projects underway at Wells Fargo Bank, the Golden Chalice Restaurant, and Vessco, Inc. Mr. Todd Gerhardt March 15, 2006 Page 2 We are conducting re-inspections of many of the apartment buildings and motels/hotels. Last month Emerson, General Mills, Banta Corp., along with other office manufacturing warehouse occupancies were inspected. Businesses along Lake Drive East are scheduled to be inspected in the next one to two weeks. In the past few months, we have been utilizing Firehouse software for tracking businesses, the different types of occupancy, and inspection record retention. Rick Rice, Betty Eidam, Ed Coppersmith, and I recently attended a Firehouse software class at a Mankato sectional fire school. Fire Inspections: The past month has been a very busy one for the Chanhassen Fire Department. We finished up the month of February with several live burn trainings at 9715 Audubon Road, which were done on regular Monday nights and two Saturday mornings. Also, the Fire Department received training on conducting fire suppression and rescue operations on new style vehicles which have hybrid engines and new airbag designs. The Department also received its annual training on Right to Know and Haz Mat refresher. Fire Prevention: Not much to report at this time. There have been a couple of fire station tours for some of our local scout troops. Once the snow melts and summer arrives, we will be getting requests for bringing fire trucks to local block parties and neighborhood events. We always get a wonderful turnout from our firefighters who like to participate in these types of events Mr. Todd Gerhardt March 15, 2006 Page 3 March 16, 2006 Mr. Dale Gregory 7091 Redman Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Dale: Congratulations and thank you for your service as a Chanhassen Volunteer Firefighter for the past 35 years! You and your family should be very proud of your dedication, performance, and devotion to your community and fellow firefighters. Firefighters like you, who give up a considerable amount of time and energy for the good of others, is what makes Chanhassen a “great community.” I am pleased to hear that you will continue to serve the Fire Department and commend you on this tremendous accomplishment. Thank you for the part you play in making Chanhassen a safe place to live. Sincerely, Todd Gerhardt City Manager c: Mayor & City Council Halla Greens March 20, 2006 Page 2 The first option reflects 4 foot high lights. The level of illumination is minimal leaving dark areas within the parking lot. 4 Foot High Light fixture The second option shows a mix of 15 foot and 4 foot high light fixtures. This option provides an improved level of illumination. 15 Foot High Light fixture Staff is recommending all lights with the exception of the light located in the center island of the parking lot be shut off one hour after sunset. The shaded area is the extent of the illumination. The shaded area is the extent of the illumination. Ha l l a G r e e n s Ma r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 Pa g e 3 Se p t e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 Ap p r o v a l Ma r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 R e q u e s t M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 R e q u e s t Recommendation Cl u b H o u s e 4 0 ’ x 6 0 ’ 40 ’ x 6 6 ’ 40 ’ x 6 6 ’ Approval Ou t d o o r s e a t i n g ar e a s 10 ’ x 6 0 ’ c o v e r e d po r c h w i t h o u t sc r e e n i n g a n d a 1 , 4 1 3 sq f t p a t i o 13 ’ 4 ” x 4 0 ’ s c r e e n e d v e r a n d a o n e a c h e n d o f th e b u i l d i n g a n d a 1 , 0 0 0 s q f t p a t i o 13 ’ 4 ” x 4 0 ’ s c r e e n e d v e r a n d a o n ea c h e n d o f t h e b u i l d i n g a n d a 1, 0 0 0 s q f t p a t i o Approval Ma i n t e n a n c e bu i l d i n g 30 ’ x 6 0 ’ 6 8 ’ x 1 2 0 ’ w i t h a 2 4 ’ f u t u r e ad d i t i o n 3 4 ’ x 6 0 ’ w i t h s c r e e n e d o u t d o o r st o r a g e a r e a ( B o a r d o n B o a r d Wo o d e n f e n c e ) . Approval Ba l l w a s h i n g - di s p e n s i n g ma c h i n e b u i l d i n g No n e P r o p o s e d 3 2 ’ x 2 4 ’ B a l l w a s h i n g b u il d i n g 1 0 ’ x 1 0 ’ B a l l d i s p e n s i n g a n d p o p ma c h i n e b u i l d i n g Approval Sh e l t e r b u i l d i n g No n e P r o p o s e d 1 6 ’ x 4 0 ’ t e a c h i ng s h e l t e r b u i l d i n g . T h e u s e wa s o r i g i n a l l y a p p r o v e d w i t h o u t a s h e l t e r bu i l d i n g a n d a s a n a u x i l i a r y u s e t o t h e g o l f co u r s e . op t i o n a l A p p r o v a l Li g h t i n g L i g h t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e bu i l d i n g Pa r k i n g l o t l i g h t s • 15 ’ L i g h t F i x t u r e s • 4’ L i g h t F i x t u r e s Al l l i g h t s w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f th e l i g h t l o c a t e d i n t h e c e n t e r is l a n d o f t h e p a r k i n g l o t s h a l l b e sh u t o f f o n e h o u r a f t e r s u n s e t Approval of 15’ Light fixtures Te m p o r a r y st r u c t u r e No n e P r o p o s e d R e q u e s t f o r a t e m p o r a r y 1 2 ’ o c t a g o n b u i l d i n g to s e r v e a s c u s t o m e r a n d e m p l o y e e b u i l d i n g . Re q u e s t f o r a t e m p o r a r y 1 2 ’ oc t a g o n b u i l d i n g t o s e r v e a s cu s t o m e r a n d e m p l o y e e b u i l d i n g . Approval Bu i l d i n g M a t e r i a l Wo o d w a s u s e d a s a n ex t e r i o r m a t e r i a l f o r th e u t i l i t y b u i l d i n g Ri b b e d m e t a l i s p r o p o s e d a s t h e e x t e r i o r ma t e r i a l f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e b u i l d i n g a n d ba l l w a s h i n g b u i l d i n g ( r i b b e d m e t a l i s n o t pe r m i t t e d a s a n e x t e r i o r f i n i s h o n a b u i l d i n g ) Vi n y l s i d i n g A p p r o v a l Ho u r s o f Op e r a t i o n Su n r i s e t o S u n s e t R e q u e s t f o r a n a m e n d m e n t t o a l l o w 6 : 0 0 a . m . to 1 1 : 0 0 p . m . T h e c o n d i t i o n a l u s e p e r m i t cr i t e r i a l i m i t s t h e h o u r s o f o p e r a t i o n a n d ma i n t e n a n c e o f a g o l f c o u r s e f r o m s u n r i s e t o su n s e t . Req u e s t f o r a n a m e n d m e n t t o al l o w C i v i l S u n r i s e t o N a u t i c a l Su n s e t . Approval Halla Greens March 20, 2006 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT “The City Council approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2003-4 CUP – Planning Case 05-39, for the construction of a golf course with a club house as shown in plans dated received January 6, 2006, with the following amendment to condition #9 of the existing conditional use permit and adding conditions 10, 11 and 12: 9. No exterior lighting shall be permitted with the exception of safety lights which includes parking lot lights and drive aisle lights. The height of the light pole may not exceed 15 feet. All light fixtures must meet ordinance requirements. All lights with the exception of the light located in the center island of the parking lot be shut off one hour after sunset. 10. The applicant/owner/lessee shall apply pesticides only when needed. Use products that are most effective, target specific, and present the least hazards to people, wildlife, and the environment. 11. A retail pro shop is permitted within the clubhouse. Retail operations shall not occupy more than 20% of one floor. Retail sales are limited to food, beverages, and golf-related items. 12. Hours of maintenance operation shall be limited to Civil Sunrise to Nautical Sunset.” SITE PLAN REVIEW “The City Council approve an amendment to Site Plan Review 2003-7 SPR – Planning Case 05- 39, for the construction of a Club House, a Maintenance Building, a golf ball washing building and a lean-to for a golf course as shown in plans dated received January 6, 2006, with the following added conditions: 1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements for parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 3. The applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for the maintenance building, golf ball washing building, and lean-to that meet the design ordinance requirement. 4. Comply with all conditions of the MnDOT review letter dated November 23, 2005. 5. The temporary 120 square-foot octagon building is permitted for a maximum of 12 months from the day the City Council approves this application or when the certificate of occupancy for the club house has been issued, whichever comes first. Halla Greens March 20, 2006 Page 5 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with MnDOT and Carver County permits and approval on any grading that takes place along the north and west side of the property. 7. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. 8. All plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 9. The golf ball washing and golf ball dispensing building shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. 10. The maintenance building may not be used for “Halla Nursery” related items nor exceed 2,040 square feet in area. The outdoor storage area shall be fully screened by a board on board wooden fence. The height of the fence shall not exceed 6½ feet. 11. The trash enclosure located west of the maintenance building shall be constructed of materials similar to the club house building.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. March 2006 calendar showing Civil Sunrise to Nautical (Twilight) Sunset times. 3. Ball Dispenser Building. 4. Maintenance Building. 5. Site Plan showing location of Maintenance and Ball Dispenser Buildings. 6. City Council minutes dated March 13, 2006. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-39 halla greens 03-07 site plan amendment\revised staff report to council.doc 123914v06 RNK:r03/17/2006 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Don Halla requesting a Site Plan Amendment and conditional use permit amendment for a golf course: HALLA GREENS – Planning Case No. 05-39. On March 20, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Don Halla for a conditional use permit amendment and site plan amendment for the property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the applications which was preceded by published and mailed notice and has made recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential – Large Lot. 3. The legal description of the property is: The NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota (“subject property”). 4. On September 15, 2003, the City approved Conditional Use Permit 2003-4 and Site Plan 2003-7 SPR for a golf course on the subject property. The applicant now seeks amendments to the previous approvals. 5. The table below summarizes the proposed changes: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSED Club House 40’ x 60’ 40’x 66’ Outdoor seating areas 10’ x 60’ covered porch without screening and a 1,413 sq ft patio 13’4” x 40’ screened veranda on each end of the building and a 1,000 sq ft patio Maintenance building 30’ x 60’ 34’ x 60’ with enclosed outdoor storage area Ball washing/dispensing building None Proposed 10’ x 10’ Ball dispensing and Pop machine building 123914v06 RNK:r03/17/2006 2 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSED Shelter building None Proposed 16’ x 40’ teaching shelter building. The use was originally approved without a shelter building and as an auxiliary use to the golf course. Lighting Lights attached to the building Parking lot lights Temporary structure None Proposed Request for a temporary 12’ octagon building to serve as customer and employee building. Building Material Wood was used as an exterior material for the utility building Vinyl is proposed as the exterior material for all buildings. Hours of Operation Sunrise to Sunset Civil Sunrise to Nautical Sunset (approx. ½ hour after Civil Sunset, also known as twilight). 6. The City Council shall issue such conditional use permit only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: a. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning chapter. c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 123914v06 RNK:r03/17/2006 3 h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. l. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Article IV of the Chanhassen City Code. 7. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b. Consistency with this division; c. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; d. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e. Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. 123914v06 RNK:r03/17/2006 4 f. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 8. The proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan, meet ordinance requirements. DECISION The City Council approves the site plan and conditional use permit amendments applications. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 20th day of March, 2006. ATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN _______________________________ _____________________________ Todd Gerhardt, City Clerk/Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 2006 HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD Public Present: Name Address David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Boulevard David & Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard Sandy & Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail Dave Wondra 9590 Foxford Road Tom Anderson 9371 Foxford Road Magdy & June Ebrahim 521 Pineview Court Steve Shipley 261 Eastwood Court Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant before you tonight is requesting an amendment to the conditional use and site plan approval that was granted for a golf course located on Pioneer Trail and 101, on the southeast corner. The plan itself has changed since the original application. The cover part of your staff report was, what was originally approved and what the applicant, Mr. Halla is proposing. Instead of going through that, what I would like to do is if you turn the page is go through what Mr. Halla’s requesting and what the staff is recommending. And with that, this did go to the Planning Commission. There was some ambiguity at the Planning Commission regarding the motion and I know that caused a little bit concern with the, with some of the neighbors but the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing February 7th to review the project and the Planning Commission 4 to 2 voted to deny the requested amendments. So with that the staff took the lead to get the application where we felt it met the issues regarding, where we could attach reasonable conditions for a conditional use and the site plan. Have them make those modifications and that’s what I’d like to spend some time going through. So on the north is the Pioneer Trail, and this would be the driveway coming in. The original club house itself was 44 by 66 and that’s, or what Mr. Halla’s requesting and that still is what we’re recommending for approval. There was outdoor seating. It’s been changed to kind of a veranda on each side, and the staff is supportive of that. There was a maintenance building and Mr. Halla’s requesting a 68 by 120 with a 24 foot future. The staff has recommended denial of that. That size, but back to the 1,800 square foot that was previously approved. We think that’s in excess of the size of this operation. Again the ball washing machine, we believe that can be incorporated into the maintenance building so we are recommending denial of that. There was a shelter building that they used for teaching and the staff is recommending approval of that shelter building and that was 16 by 40 feet. Lighting. The applicant wanted to use two different size of heights, 25 and 15. Staff is recommending 15 feet around the entire site. The lights themselves, I’m just showing this just, I know you can’t read it but just for your edification. This is photometrics. This was submitted. We do require a half foot at the candle…anybody read it but I just want you to know we have reviewed that. But the lights themselves, there’s lighting here. And there’s lighting on the driveway coming here and then back towards the maintenance building and those we’re recommending 15 feet. Again just for clarification city code does require parking lot lighting. I know we were asked by the residents that Bluff Creek Golf Course does not have them. That golf course predates most of us here that were involved in the city. The most recent golf course that the staff worked on, actually I worked on is the Rain, Snow, Shine Golf Course and that one does have parking lot lighting and that is consistent with city City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 2 ordinance, but actually this one we actually went down a little bit lower and I believe they even have that’s 15 feet which city ordinance allows 30 feet. So we did recommend 15 feet overall. The applicant had requested some at 25 and some at 15. There was a request for a temporary structure, …building to serve customers and employees building until that’s complete. That’s fine. Staff did recommend approval of that. And then the other one we had a concern with was the ribbed metal on the exterior building for the maintenance building and the ball washing. We recommended denial on that. Again we don’t know how long the life of this building would be so we are making consistent with the city ordinance which requires non-metal and it would be used as an accent. And then the request of hours of operation. We’re again going back to the original conditional use. Again fitting in with the neighborhood, and that request for the extended hours was denied. At 11:00 it’s dark so you couldn’t be golfing then. So with that, again this is just a change. I’m not going to go through unless you have specific questions on the use of the building itself. If you turn to page, findings of the changes are all found throughout the staff report but the conditions itself then are, what we’ve done is taken the original site plan condition. Whatever shows up in the original conditions of approval for the site plan or the conditional use. Those conditions starting on page, the recommendations starting on page 18 would be in addition to those original conditions or shown as modified, if that makes sense. So that’s what we are recommending for approval on the conditional use and the site plan itself. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the, now I lost my page. Go to the lights first. If this was not a, anything more than a sunrise to sunset operation, would our ordinance still require, and I understand the safety element of the ordinance and that but if it’s a sunrise to sunset operation, would we need lights there? Kate Aanenson: Yeah and that’s very similar to what we have at RSS. Sometimes people, there is a building, sometimes people go in and visit for a little bit afterwards. We have restrictions on what they can serve down there too but it’s very similar and there’s also parking lot lighting down there. Councilman Lundquist: Well Rain, Snow or Shine, I mean they’re open when it’s dark. You go in the winter time, they’re open til 9:00 and it’s dark at 5:30. So I mean that’s not a. Kate Aanenson: Again I’ll go back to what the city ordinance says. You know what we look at too is the safety issue too. Backing in… Todd Gerhardt: Yeah Mayor, council members. The lighting in the parking lot also acts as a security. If you don’t have lights in the parking lot you could have individuals go in there at night, park and run around the golf course. By having lighting it provides security for our policemen as they drive by to see what’s going on in the area. Golf courses are notorious for teenagers to hang out and do property damage so it also provides a security. Councilman Lundquist: On the other conditions as I read through here, we’re requiring some berming and other stuff around the parking lot so that parking lot’s not visible from the street and neighbors. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 3 Kate Aanenson: Well what’s intended, you would still be able to see a car but really it’s intended also to screen some of the car lights so you’re not, those aren’t shining on adjacent properties. Councilman Lundquist: So would that parking lot be readily visible from 101 and Pioneer? Kate Aanenson: I think you’d be able to see if there’s a car in there but not necessarily the lights so you still could see the top of a car. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I believe you can pretty much right now so. Councilman Lundquist: Right. The extra, the 16 by 40 building, on that plan that you have in front of you. Show where that is proposed to go? Kate Aanenson: This is the larger storage building. Councilman Lundquist: No, not the 60, not the monster one. The 16 by 40 teaching shelter building. It may be in relation to where the club house is proposed to go. Kate Aanenson: It’s a wing wall building and I don’t see it on the plan. Erik Olson: Right, the drive…is right here. The little teaching shack would be on the west side of the driving range, approximately right around this area. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s open on the outside. Yeah, 3 sides. Councilman Lundquist: Like a RSS? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Okay. Other, and refresh my memory on the ordinance, what the lights. Do we have a minimum requirement for foot candles or height of lights or anything like that in the ordinance or does it just say, got to have some lights in the parking lot? Kate Aanenson: Well there is a photometrics here so we try to look that it’s evenly distributed and then it drops at the half foot candle at the property line, which this does significantly before you get to that. The 30 foot, based on the character of the neighborhood, since he was already proposing 15 on a majority of them, we felt 15 would be consistent throughout there but we wouldn’t have as much spill. We certainly understand that that’s changing the neighborhood by having additional lighting there, and whether it’s along the street lighting and that, those neighborhoods there. Councilman Lundquist: So does the ordinance require a minimum height of a light or is it just say we’ve got to have some lights. Kate Aanenson: Well the ordinance says 30 feet. Because he had. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 4 Councilman Lundquist: Minimum of 30 or maximum? Kate Aanenson: Maximum. Councilman Lundquist: And is there a minimum standard? Kate Aanenson: You know to get a parking lot light less than that might be, I’m not sure would be desirable or effective. Roger Knutson: Could just comment. It has to be a parking lot light to light the parking lot so presumably there’s some minimum height. I don’t know what it would be to light the parking lot. Kate Aanenson: Well and the other part of that is, we may have more poles to get the same amount of lighting so you might have the same illumination, or more illumination so it’s a mathematical thing too. Councilman Lundquist: So there’s a standard in there that talks about foot candles? I’m searching for something other than. Kate Aanenson: We tried that too. Tried to find some other way to mitigate that but you would actually, you may have more poles and more lights to try to get to that, if you want to 10 feet or something. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So the standard in the ordinance is about, there’s a maximum and then there’s a standard for foot candles of illumination that are required? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s the two variables. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to clarify, is that illumination requirement that maximum illumination in the parking lot or at the property line? Kate Aanenson: At the property line but there are industry standards and we go back to the literature to review that. We don’t have that built in our code but we would work with Beth Hoiseth, our safety person to look at that, and that, going back to what city manager said, that’s kind of the safety issue part of it. How we balance that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate. Mayor Furlong: Other questions, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, when I was a new Planning Commissioner I think when this came on the first time so I have a history with this sort of. I don’t remember discussions regarding lights at that point. I know there was discussion regarding wells and the watering of the course. Why wasn’t that ever brought up or you know talked about back then? City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 5 Kate Aanenson: Well I think that the applicant, as you can see by the request, as a different need and different desires than the original, the original applicant so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I don’t want to put you in a spot but what different needs? I mean what’s changed with this whole thing? Kate Aanenson: Well I think clearly one would be the building itself. If you look at what the original building looked like. Zoom in on that. A little bit more rustic. I think the current applicant has a little bit more highly stylized building so I think that would be some of it too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In regards to lighting the parking lot? Kate Aanenson: No, in regards to the use itself. That’s where I was going back to. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh, okay. Kate Aanenson: So this conditional use, and the site plan amendment, there’s several things that are being requested. The applicant didn’t want to stay with those same standards. So one would be the highly articulated building and assuming the additional parking to provide more people to come there. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And what are the club house hours? Kate Aanenson: Well the original request was for sunrise to sunset and then this applicant wanted to go to 11:00 p.m.. Councilwoman Tjornhom: For the club house and the golf course or just? Kate Aanenson: Well there’s no lights on the golf course. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So you can’t golf at 11:00. Kate Aanenson: You could try but. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well it wouldn’t work, and I don’t golf but I’m assuming… Kate Aanenson: Well, and that goes back to the building itself so, right. So if you can’t golf, which is they’d be doing something at the building. Councilwoman Tjornhom: At the club house, that’s what I’m trying to get at. Is that what brings the safety concerns and the needs for lights? Kate Aanenson: Well if you look at the conditions of approval, that’s where we recommended denial of extension of hours because then you’ve got a segment of time between the, when you can’t golf and. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, you have to go home when you’re done golfing. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 6 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, you can lounge a little bit but pretty much that’s the intent and that’s the same condition that…a curfew that while they’re golfing in the winter then it’s not intended to be a club house or you know some other type of establishment. That it’s really ancillary to the primary use which is the golf. So it’s an opportunity to visit. Meet the pro, whatever but it’s really intended to be part of the same, not a separate commercial type use. But it’s related to golf. And that was the recommendation for not, for denying and not extending the hours. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Peterson, any questions at this point? Councilman Peterson: You know one of the things Kate was that we were originally intending to put lights on the building. Was the building in a different spot originally so that we were going to off light the parking lot with off the building? I mean I assume it would be because right now it wouldn’t really be possible would it? Kate Aanenson: It would be difficult. I mean you could put them in the soffit over the door the way the. Councilman Peterson: But if we did that, the lighting would be more intrusive to the neighbors than it would with down lighting now right? Kate Aanenson: Right. I mean if you put it, if you put in under the soffit here, it would provide lighting just for that door otherwise yeah, you’re right. It would be the height of the building at 27 feet, if you put somewhere, could be higher. Councilman Peterson: And you’re going to put spots and it’s just going to be a glaring thing in the night. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and those tend to be, that is a nuisance, the calls that we get sometimes when a business goes next door that we have to work to get it shielded and pointed down. And then you might not get the park, or the area for protection that we’re talking about before in the parking lot. Councilman Peterson: What kind of discussion did you have with the applicant regarding the maintenance building more than doubling in size? I’m confused by that. I don’t know whether you’ve had any discussions or we can ask the applicant the same thing. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well I think you know we always try to find that proportionality to say, if this is intended to be related to the golf course, it seems excessive for that size of a course and we kind of looked around to see what other size of maintenance buildings and it just seemed in excess of what you would need for this golf course. So we recommended that it be significantly smaller. Councilman Peterson: Okay. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 7 Councilman Lundquist: Kate, one more on the parking spaces. I mean as I drive by I guess I see that the parking lot’s already there so, but it’s not often that we have applicants come in with four, with even barely meeting the number of parking spaces and certainly not with 4 times. Any concerns from staff on all that extra hard cover when you know ordinances require or that’s an applicant driven figure and that’s how many people they can get out on the course at a time or? Kate Aanenson: Some of both, yeah. I don’t think that, based on what they would consider the practice, that’s what they felt they needed. We did put a condition in here regarding that there’s no commercial kitchen so it’s not being used for that type of facility. For that, but if there was some, if you had something after league or something like that where they did, they catered something in, I think that’s kind of what they were looking at possibly too. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, as I went this weekend down to Rain, Snow or Shine I think I counted 64 parking spots and I guess I’d look at it as a similar deal. I mean they’ve got a little short course there. They’ve got their little putt putt thing and the other stuff going on, and just one of those things, I wonder if the parking lot needs to be that, I mean it’s there. It’s already, it’s approved. You know it’s fine. I just wanted to know if you’ve got any, if staff had any concerns about all that extra hard cover when. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. We constantly look at ways to try to reduce the impervious surface and you know they have a 45 acre site so my guess they’re substantially below the minimum. We work with them in trying to determine what they need to operate the business and I guess that’s what we agreed to. Mayor Furlong: I may have some follow up questions for staff after we hear from the applicant. Are there any other questions for staff at this point? If not, is the applicant here this evening? I know you are because you came up once already. Erik Olson: Good evening Mayor, council members. Fellow neighbors and citizens. My name is Erik Olson. I’m a resident of Chanhassen. I reside at 9855 Delphinium Lane. I’m also the manager of Halla Greens Golf Course. I’m here tonight to give you a brief history of our involvement with the course and then go over the issues about the buildings, the hours of operations, the lights. Hopefully we can get that straighten away tonight too. Just a brief history. About 6 years ago Don Halla leased his property out for the construction of a golf course. Back in November of 2004 the lease was essentially given back to Don. He had to decide between completing the construction of the course or letting it revert back to a tree farm, which is what it was originally. The decision was made by Don and his wife to basically go ahead with construction of the course and you know build something that the whole community can enjoy. By the time we got involved the previous lessee had already received all the people permits from the city and during the process of building and growing in the courses last year we came to realize that some changes were needed in order to basically improve the operation of this golf course and that’s basically why we’re here tonight. We’ve worked hard with the staff to try to fix all the different issues that we’ve been having. We’re pleased that they like the new club house. The old one was basically you saw a picture of it, a 40 by 60 pole barn with cedar siding. Looks like something you’d tie a horse up to and go into a saloon basically. The new one is, it’s just lightly larger. 40 by 66 and like staff said before, we’d have two enclosed porches on the east and west sides and it would be built using vinyl shake siding with simulated cedar textured siding. An example of the color and style that we would use and like I said before, staff has City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 8 given approval for this. Do want to bring out just one other picture, and you can see this a little bit better than the one that was already here but this is basically the design of the new club house. It’s similar in style, looks to the Chaska Town Course club house, if any of you are familiar with that one. The maintenance building as approved is a 30 by 60 pole barn. Storage of equipment is really the main problem here. We would only be able to store about 25, maybe 30% of the equipment that we have inside and then the balance of it would have to be kept outside the maintenance building in an enclosed, fenced in area that’s required basically by city code. This, even though it’s outside and enclosed in a fence, you know you’ll probably still get to see some of the equipment sitting back there. Not very attractive and it’s also you know very damaging to the equipment itself, forcing it to sit outside in the elements all the time. What we proposed is a 68 by 120 foot metal pole barn building. The construction material that’s similar to the one, Hazeltine Golf Club just built down the road as far as the metal that they used. This is an example here from the colors and the metal itself. Now in regards to the variance that we’re requesting the use of metal on the maintenance building, I understand why the City wants the material to be wood. Wood looks very nice. But with the materials that we would use, and really the way the buildings are designed, we don’t feel it would be a blight on the community in the slightest. In addition, we already have metal buildings around the entire property already. We don’t feel that we’re adding anything different or out of place to the surrounding community. There is both commercial and residential metal buildings around the site. The commercial ones are in the northwest corner of the property and west side of the property. Commercial, residential basically on all four sides already. You know in regards to the size a little bit too, I’d like to talk about most golf courses, if you go into their maintenance area, they have a lot of equipment sitting out. You know there’s piles of dirt. There’s piles of sand. There’s you know equipment that doesn’t work anymore sitting out in the yard basically, and with this increase in size basically we’re allowing it all to be brought inside…I know there’s some concern brought up in some of the staff reports that the nursery, Don Halla’s other business would be using part of this building to help out their endeavors over there and I would just like to stress that that wouldn’t be the case at all. This is strictly golf course operation and equipment being used in the building. We also respectfully ask for two other buildings that weren’t thought of before. One is a ball, staff refers to this as a ball washing building and that really isn’t the correct definition. We can wash the balls in the maintenance building. That’s not the problem at all. What we need is a building to house the ball dispenser for the range balls. Holds the baskets there. The balls themselves. Extra balls that we have. The washing can take place over in the maintenance side. That isn’t a problem, but basically we need that building in order to operate and run the driving range. Without the club house built yet, you know that’s really what we’re planning on, or we’re planning on building first in order to get this golf course open this spring. A driving range is always the first thing to open up on a golf course, but we need something to house the ball dispenser. Keep it safe at night. Keep it locked up. The other building is a lean-to teaching shack on the range to provide privacy and really safety for the golf pro and students. I pointed out earlier where it would go on the driving range. Both these buildings can be built using the vinyl siding that I showed here earlier. Something similar in design so everything looks nice and attractive. But you know if it helps matters we would be willing to eliminate the teaching shack structure in order to get approval for the ball dispensing building. The variance on the hours of operation is also very important to the success of this golf course. Right now we have approval of limiting our time of operations from sunrise to sunset. As you know there’s a lot of light before the official sunrise and plenty of light after the official sunset. We would like to be able to conduct our business the exact same way every golf course near us does, as well as basically every golf course in America does. And let me explain a little bit what I mean by that. The first City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 9 tee time is usually at sunrise. The official sunrise time. Typically a half hour before that, the ground crew’s out mowing, moving the holes on the greens. Putting the flags out. Things like that, and the last golfer that comes in, when they can no longer see the flight of their ball. I don’t know if any of you are golfers here but if you’re one of the last ones out on the tee time and you know it’s getting toward dark and you don’t want to feel like you’ve spent money for nothing. I mean you’re staying out there and hitting that ball as long as possible until you basically can’t see anymore. Behind that last golfer on the course, the ground crew’s again is out trailing behind them. Removing the flag sticks from all the greens for the night. Picking up any garbage they see laying around the course so it’s not flying around over night. Basically by doing things this way, three things are really accomplished. One, the grounds crew is kept safe from being injured by a ball. Two, the golfers aren’t inconvenienced by and they’re really kept safe from maintenance being done on the course while they’re out there playing their round. And three, it allows us to maximize the usable playing time over the course of a day. We’d respectfully request that the sunrise to sunset definition be changed to say, light to dark or have a time stipulation attached. This 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. that was listed was really given to the city staff as an example of something that we wanted to see as opposed to just sunrise to sunset. I mean that was never designed to be the exact times that we wanted to remain open. It was just meant as an example. So you know, the light to dark or even if we could have something like a half hour before sunrise. Half hour, hour after sunset. Something like that. This would basically allow us to compete fairly with our competition and keep our employees and customers safe. Lastly we request to be able to put in the parking lot lights for the safety of the employees, the customers, property itself. The 15 foot high poles that the staff recommends is perfectly acceptable to us. We don’t have a problem with that. I know that some of the neighbors do have a lot of concerns about these lights and I’ve talked to David before and I’m sure that’s why he’s here tonight too is to see what the decision is on that and basically as an act of good faith and to show that we do want to be good neighbors, we’d be willing to withdraw the request for parking lot lights, although I don’t know if city code allows us to do that or not. I mean that’s something that you’ll have to decide. This could be you know a wonderful community asset but you know we need your help basically on some of the variances with buildings and the longer hours of operations and possibly with the lights. How you decide to do that. I just want to thank you for your time and if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for Mr. Olson. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Olson, if you can, can you explain the original lessee, Mr. Saatzer, is he involved with the golf course anymore at all? Erik Olson: You know I’m not really privy to that information but I believe he’s a small, has a small percentage of the investment on the course. From my understanding. Councilman Lundquist: So I’m curious that with the original proposal with Mr. Saatzer as the primary lessee and all of that, that Mr. Halla was fine with everything that was going on as long as Mr. Saatzer was paying the rent. Now that’s not the case anymore. You don’t feel like it’s a viable, a viable business anymore? Erik Olson: Well from my original understanding, Don Halla’s only involvement in the original proposal is he was strictly leasing the land to Ron Saatzer. And that’s as far as that went. When he essentially gave back the lease to Don, how can I put this? The original plans, everything was City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 10 done to a minimum. Kind of just to get by. Don just wanted to build something nicer. Bottom line. That’s why you see the difference in the club house. The difference in the maintenance building. Instead of having a smaller building and having things left out you know, we get a bigger building and put everything inside so nothing is viewed. The hours of operation I don’t think were really thought of before in that initial approval from Ron’s side. When we were building it and looking at it, knowing how golf courses operate and I have a list if you want of the work start times for basically all the surrounding golf courses. When they start their play. When they end their play. When they’re watering schedule is. It’s all basically the same. Kind of coming in late to the approval process we just wanted to try to make some changes to better the course. Councilman Lundquist: So what’s your thoughts on tee times? How often, what’s the gap going to be between your tee times? Erik Olson: 8 minutes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And you think of a, I mean that’s a pretty, you feel like that’s a pretty aggressive tee time for a short course? Do you expect that you’re going to have mostly beginners? You know all levels of play or what do you think is your primary target? Erik Olson: Well it’s not like the 9 holes down at the bottom of the hill, the Rain, Snow, Shine Golf Zone I think is the other name he goes by. That course is, I think maybe the longest hole he has is 60 yards. So that’s really designed for the absolute beginner. You know someone just starting out. This course is going to be more difficult. It’s not really designed for that type of beginner. We’ll have teaching pros available for beginners to learn and you know the driving range for them to practice on, but it would really be better for them to go down at the bottom of the hill if they want to play a round. This is designed more for you know the hacker can still go out and have fun on it. But if you’re you know a first day of golf is your day that you’re playing Halla Greens, you might not have that much fun. You might not have much fun on any course for that matter but, you know our course is going to be a challenge. Councilman Lundquist: What’s the longest hole? It’s 1,500 yards for 9 holes. Erik Olson: We have two par 4’s. Both dog leg left’s. The longest being 333 and then the other one I think is 318. 317. Something like that. Councilman Lundquist: So par 29? Erik Olson: Yes, it’s par 29. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. The ball shed, whatever. The 32 by 20. Is that what that is? I mean as I walk around other golf courses, when I think of a driving range, I mean there’s a thing like the size of a pop machine that you put the bucket under and then like two pop machine depths behind it where they store you know 500 or 600 baskets of balls. And so when I think of you know a place for all of that, I think you can, if you put 3 port-a-potties together it probably fits in that size so can you, you know help me understand why you think you need the size of that building to put a ball dispenser and some baskets in. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 11 Erik Olson: Sure. Basically going around to all the golf courses, I talked to the golf courses that had ranges and the person that was involved with the range and took a look at what they had as far as the building that stored their range balls. Their ball dispenser and for the most part you’re right. They’re maybe 15 by 15 side of a building at the, you know on the larger end. 15 by 20 maybe on a couple of them. Like maybe down by Deer Run I think has a pretty good size one. But talking with these people, the one thing they always wanted was for the building to be bigger for more storage. You’re always buying more range balls. Range balls get lost. Stolen. Damaged so you’re constantly having to have a new supply of range balls brought into the course. The best way is to have a whole bunch of balls already on the facility available to you instead of waiting for shipment. So with the size that we came up with, basically that was the size that all these other driving range managers ideally would have liked to have on their bench. You know for their use. So that’s the size that we came up with. If it would help matters, I mean we’d be willing to sit down with staff and maybe come up with a different size or more appropriate size, if that makes you feel more comfortable. Councilman Lundquist: That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Peterson: Speaking on the same realm of building size, as I offered earlier. You spoke of storing stuff inside a maintenance building that you would normally have outside. Was that the assumption to the best of your knowledge when the original building was proposed at 30 by 60, that everything else be stored outside? Number two, you know I look at the schematic of the layout of the building, it looks like you’re storing some golf carts inside and is that primarily why you want the extra space? What are you planning on putting in versus out? Erik Olson: Right now we do not have golf carts for the course. This larger building would basically house everything. From the fertilizers. Have a chemical room inside. Like I said before you know with the 30 by 60, I’m sure Ron was going to get what he could inside that size and you know, you’re basically forced to leave the rest out. You know you’re leaving your, we’re going to have, a golf course has to have piles of soil for maintenance out on the course and replacing divots. We’ve got to have sand for top dressing the greens. Those piles are typically outside and they’re typically covered with some sort of tarp. You want to keep them as dry as possible. It’s just much easier to work with the material when it’s dry as opposed to wet. Some of the stuff you can’t work with it when it’s wet so, we were envisioning all of this moving inside the building and basically removing anything out of sight from the public. Including in the future, if we choose to have golf carts available for our golfers, we’d have room inside the maintenance building then for storage of the carts overnight. Councilman Peterson: Okay, and what’s the intent of the additional 24 feet? Is that anything specific in mind for that? Erik Olson: You know that would be probably for additional carts. I don’t know off hand. Sandy Halla: When they’re handicap they have to…so a normal person would probably want to do that. The people who wanted help would be able to do… Erik Olson: So additional golf carts basically is what that would be for. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 12 Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Question on the teaching shelter. I guess we’re going building to building here. You had mentioned and again could you point out where, that’s not on the, is that on the site plan that we were given or not? And if it’s not, if you could point where that is. Erik Olson: If you could zoom in…this area. This is the building right here. This is the west hand side. It’s probably, this is the driving range tee box and from that tee box, I’m guessing here but it’s maybe 20 yards away from that tee box. You’d have this side, this side and this side and then open in the front, with a roof on the top. Basically a lean-to and they’re shooting out. Being used only for iron practice. Not for woods practice. They have to go back to the tee box. We don’t have the room for them on that, but it’s basically in that area and just provides a safe haven. Get them off and away from the other clientele using the driving range. Mayor Furlong: So the, to move them away or get them away from the other clientele using the driving range, that’s just a preference spot on the course? Erik Olson: You know some of the golf pros like to do that. If they’re on the tee box, say we section off an area. Mayor Furlong: The driving range? Erik Olson: Yeah. The driving range tee box and they’re teaching. We have an area sectioned off for them and they maybe have 5-6 students there. If I’m trying to pick up some free lessons. Don’t want to pay them to spend an hour with me, you know I might try to get as close to them as possible to pick up what information I can. Eavesdrop basically and so some of the pros like to basically have a separate teaching shack where they can teach in privacy. And because of the area that it’s at, it’d have to be enclosed on the three sides just to provide safety. There is netting going to be installed along the side, but even with that netting we would still want it to be sided just for further protection. Mayor Furlong: Some of my other questions have been asked. You commented on them so, okay. Other questions at this point for the applicant? Okay. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Erik Olson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: There was a public hearing held at the Planning Commission and I don’t want to repeat that this evening. At the same time if there are some residents or other interested parties that would like to provide some comment to the council based upon changes that occurred between the Planning Commission and now, I would certainly entertain…comment there as well. So if anybody would like to provide some comment, they can come forth at this point. State your name and address for. Dave Walstad: Good evening. My name is Dave Walstad. I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard, which is directly south at the end of the driving range. I just have a couple quick comments regarding hours of operation which to me is the main issue for me. It seems like the City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 13 applicant wants to have it both ways. First of all stating that it’s light for so long before and after sunset, that they should be allowed to operate and then saying they need lights to provide safety. To me the reason for the lights are more safety for the building versus safety of personnel and I’m not sure if that issue is really the same. Are they allowed to light, for instance we allow parking lot lights, building lights, 15 feet tall, whatever height, does that mean they’re allowed to operate 24 hours a day? Are they there for only on for timers? To shut off now after sunset. That would be something that I think should be considered. If it’s truly for people that are on the course, I think that can be restricted. And secondly, the other issue seems to be again, you mentioned in the previous hearing it was talked about residents and the areas that they were in being large lot and yes, you’re very correct and that’s why we bought our property was to maintain that type of atmosphere. Yes, we realize a golf course is a conditional use and that’s permitted. However, we do wish to make sure that it’s understood that this is not a commercially zoned area where some of the other golf courses might be operating in that type of zone. And so again the concern over the hours of operation was brought up significantly at the Planning Commission hearing and I don’t want to belabor that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Dave Walstad: But that’s, I think that’s all I need to say at this point. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Anybody else? Like to make comments. David Gatto: Good evening Mayor, council. My name’s David Gatto. 9631 Foxford Road. I’m speaking on behalf of the 37 families that live on Foxford Road, on Pinecrest Road and what’s the other one? Audience: Eastwood. David Gatto: Eastwood Court. And I’m going to not try to repeat what I said in the commission meeting, but what we’re going to discuss tonight, it looks like what you’re discussing tonight is really a substantial change and an expansion for a business and a business plan that wasn’t, that hasn’t really operated for one hour yet for the original proposed business. What we’ve approved so far, what the city’s approved so far is really what I’ve heard folks say is a ma and pa, pop executive golf course and driving range, a small club house with outdoor seating. A reasonable maintenance building. We’ve got a big inconsistency with the staff and the conditional use permit did specifically talk about safety and lights. You talk about safety in the background narrative of the staff report. You talked about lighting in the executive summary under what was, and then under lighting it says lights attached at the building. So what I put in the e-mail to all you folks, the residents at Lake Riley Woods will hold the City responsible for those notifications and notices to us that you did address safety and you did address light and that’s what it said it would be, and that’s what everybody said would be great. Let’s have this little golf course because that’s all light and it’s going to be present. With their change tonight, what I appreciate these folks saying is that they are, they’re a bit flexible with regards to the parking lot lighting. If they’re flexible with regards to the parking lot lighting, I think they’re going to find that the residents just north of this golf course are going to be very flexible with regards to the things that we will support them in. These other things that they’d like to do now. We also have reasonable expectations the business would operate from sun up to sun down. So you permitted the above described business in a very special part of your city, and we’ve heard a lot of that City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 14 tonight. And we think this very special part and corner of our city ought to stay that way. It has rarity and character. It has nice homes. It has big lots, and it has strict association standards that we have enforced even if it’s been painful to some of us sometimes. We have dark. We have quiet nights out there, and no one thought much about this small corner of Chanhassen yet. I mean even to the point to where we don’t have any sewer and water. The sewer and water is long went past us to the west and to the north, and to the south, and we are all eagerly awaiting in a couple years when the freeway opens and the commuter traffic, the east/west commuter traffic is pulled off of Pioneer Trail and that corner of Chanhassen’s going to be pretty unique. Now what we’re asked to consider is a business described plus a larger and more deluxe club house with more seating outside. A maintenance building that’s more than 2 times with future expansion capabilities. A ball washing facility that’s bigger than a large 3 car garage. I agree with you Brian. I’ve been around golf courses since I’ve been about this high and I’m not understanding that one myself, but I could be wrong. A teaching shelter 40 feet long. The staff approved it. They didn’t even know where it was on the plan. A temporary shelter because the applicant didn’t build his original permitted club house. He’s worked on the course for nearly 2 years. We’re now going to have potentially expanded hours. We have lots of extra lights. And we hear that they might want to sell beer in the future, so the original plan was a quiet day time business. It generally didn’t impact our neighborhood. The new plan will physically affect the unique beauty and landscape of our neighborhood. The expanded hour and lights and capacity of people will impact the quiet and private nature of our neighborhood after dark. I’m sure I’ll be able to hear people talking and yakking in those porches that are going to be each side of that club house. If they’re drinking beer and carrying on after dark until 11:00, I know we’re going to hear them yakking and carrying on. I know that’s going to impact my…and it’s going to give me great concern for my safety…golf courses and parking lots attract potentially undesirable people. As it stands out there now and everybody knows, we’ve got our wives and our children that go out walking before the sun rises. After the sun sets. This couple here, I’ve seen them almost every night before this morning. They’ve been out after dark walking. So we really think that limits our enjoyment. Our comfort and these changes are going to negatively affect our property values out there. So as it stands now, and I again, the flexibility in the parking lot means a lot to us but as it stands now the larger club house we think is okay. We don’t like the larger maintenance building. We don’t like the outdoor seating area. We don’t like the big ball washing building. We don’t like the teacher shelter. We certainly don’t like the parking lot lights. The temporary shelter, we noticed the staff lets them keep it up for a year. We don’t understand that. We think that the City should give them their temporary shelter for about 4 months. That’s about how long it will take to build a nice building. The approval that changes the hours, obviously no. We’d like the materials still made out of wood. So council, you’re now asked to carefully consider that your own city’s general issuing standards. You’re number one, you know the changes in our opinion will most likely affect our safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of our neighborhood and therefore the City. We noticed the staff report glosses right over that and says this doesn’t affect it. Your number 3, the changes as proposed will change the essential character of our area. Your number 7, the changes will be detrimental because of traffic noise and light glare. Number 10. The changes are not aesthetically comparable with what we have out there now. And number 11, it will depreciate my property value. So I thank you very much for listening to me and I want to know if you have any other questions for me. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 15 David Gatto: Thanks very much for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Gaye Guyton: Good evening. My name is Gaye Guyton and I also live kind of adjoining the golf course. 10083 Great Plains Boulevard. I’m here tonight as one of the people who was really supportive of this in the beginning. The idea was almost that the short course be a service to the community. A park. A place where kids and their parents and families and older people could come and play golf. Short 9 hole course. Very family friendly. Neighborhood friendly. The lighting was addressed at that point so that there’d be lights just on the outside of the building. Not big lights on the parking lot. The idea that we got from coming to these meetings when the original conditional use permit was put out was that this was not a big commercial venture. This was a service. This was for fun and this was to benefit the community. And I think, especially in light of the last meeting, which I won’t go over but I just have heard such things that are concerning to me where this golf course is getting compared to Interlachen. To Hazeltine. To Minnekahda and to Deer Run. Those are big businesses that were planned for as a business. Not something that was coming into a residential neighborhood that was already existing, and it seems almost as kind of visions of grandeur for this little 9 hole golf course where it started to try and think that it is something that it’s not. Where a country club would be. Where it would have longer hours of operation and need to be lighted because worried that people are going to be out on the course at night. So I would just ask that you please consider, or in light of the residents, what was originally planned that so many people were so excited about. How that’s going to impact us. The fact that in the last meeting they talked about a fleet of lawnmowers starting out about 5:00 in the morning to be able to prepare the course for the day’s golfers. That’s nothing that we were you know ready for and to really limiting to sunrise to sunset so that the people who were there first can enjoy having a golf course near us but not be impacted negatively by the kinds of changes that they’re making and we would just appreciate… so thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Judy Walstad: Good evening. My name is Judy Walstad and I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard. Our home is on the south side of the golf course. We are directly behind the driving range. I just have one question I’m going to ask and then two short comments. I can’t remember the height of the new proposed club house, but I’m assuming that this upper part is not being used for any, it’s just a one story. Okay. So it’s not any business conducted on the top floors. I’m just asking because our house is tall and. It’s like a one story usage building. Kate Aanenson: …32 feet to the top of the cupola. This right here is to 27. Some office space above… Judy Walstad: Okay. The other question, I just wanted to make a comment about Rain, Snow and Shine which is the golf course down on 212. I know they do have lights but I also know that they operate at dark and I also know that there are no residents around there that would impact that so it’s a very convenient, and a desirable location for something of that nature. And the other comment I would just like to make is in the maintenance building. Depending on position of lighting, that could impact our homes. I would just like to ask the applicant to consider City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 16 minimal lighting and to have it possible not shining on the front of our yard. That’s all so thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sharon Gatto: Hello Mayor and council. Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford so directly north of the course. We’ve been very excited to have the course, and as it’s been stated we’re losing that enthusiasm due to change. But as a golfer I play par 3’s and executives all summer long once a week. I play on a foursome. So here’s what I’ve experienced. First of all, I’ve never seen a teaching shelter on any of them, and I’ve taken some lessons on Braemar, which is a much larger course. They have maybe a tee box for the range. They have it set aside, or they have a couple holes we play on, but I’ve never seen a teaching shelter so I have to say from my experience that it’s unusual. Also, going to the liquor that might come about. Yes, most of them sell liquor but when I’m the last off the course, they’ve shut it down. So they have regular hours of liquor too. None of them usually go beyond dark, and sometimes I am playing the last off the course. I feel the teaching building might be a detriment if it was near Pioneer and seen, visibly seen by the public. So now it sounds like it’s further back. That might have been established…but we do have a unique corner of Chanhassen. Bringing in the executive course they’re in a sense intruding on the neighborhood so I feel they should be working in the best interest of the neighborhood and not in the best interest of their pocket books to try and get the most people in and the most amount of time and the most daylight hours. I think they need to be, blend in with the neighborhood residents stand out. And as far as, some of this sounds like we’re in downtown Chan. Where we’re in a business district and I’d just like you to recognize that we’re still a neighborhood that was there first and we would like the blending in to become a part of us, and we will use it. Sitting out on the deck at night, we don’t want to hear, we don’t want to see lights. I mean that’s why as you mentioned, we bought into this neighborhood. We bought into the large lots. The quietness and we would like to maintain that and we appreciate your help with that, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Steve Shipley: My name is Steve Shipley. I live in Lake Riley Woods, at 261 Eastwood Court. I’m also a President and owner of POS Plus located at 8185 Upland Circle in Chanhassen. I had an experience about 5 years ago of building a property in Chan. I was green. I didn’t know what was involved and I became accustomed very quickly on permits and all those different things that you had to have in order to build a building. I spent thousands of dollars on a building permit. My understanding is those dollars were used to pay city officials to come and do inspections. I also spent a lot, thousands of dollars for a bike and trail fee. So I’m pretty familiar with the building process. When you take a look at the lights that Mr. Halla’s installed, I don’t think he had a permit to do that. He just went ahead and did it. You take a look at some of the e- mails that were written, that are on record, and especially about a couple people here, he’s not been a very good neighbor. He doesn’t respect people’s private driveways. He does not respect the dumping of certain materials, of which I’m not too sure of. So what I’m getting at is you’re allowing a person to operate a business like this and he seems to be kind of a cowboy. That he does pretty much what he wants to do. So I would ask that you give that some consideration. Especially on the lights. I mean this was, the application was dated January 6th of 2006. Those things were put in last fall. We just kind of had, went ahead and did business on his own. Also, when I built my building I was required to have an area for garbage. I do not see any area on this City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 17 to hold garbage containers. Alright so, again we need continuity in what people are supposed to do so I’d just ask that you take that all into consideration. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? I see we have a representative here from our Planning Commission, Mr. McDonald. Is there anything you’d like to follow up on after public comment here. The course of action that took place at the Planning Commission. Councilman Lundquist: Come and talk on our birthday Jerry. Mayor Furlong: Happy Birthday. Jerry McDonald: Thanks a lot. That’s it, tell the whole city. I’m Jerry McDonald. I was the Acting Chair of the Planning Commission and I guess one of the things that happened at our meeting, same thing’s happened at your meeting. We ended up running rather late that night and there were a lot of issues that came up. I think paramount to all of us looked at was this did seem to be a change from what was originally there. And we had some problems I think grasping what that was based on what the neighbors have told us. What the plans were. It did appear that this was more or less creeping commercialism within an area that was residential. We’re very sensitive to that, as you’re well aware. We went through this with the Reykjavik’s thing. We’ve been through it a couple of times but there are certain neighborhoods that are unique within a city and we try to respect that. It was the same thing here. The motion, there was a lot of confusion about the motions, the way it came out. The intent after polling everybody on the commission, we all agreed to vote against any expansion and we probably went over what our jurisdiction was and we probably went over what we were allowed to do, but the intent was to turn it down. That’s why the motion that came before, we did not vote on staff’s motion because we rejected that. We came up with the lower lights. I think we came up with 4 foot height, and basically turned down most of the rest of the commercial application. The expansions and those things. Those motions failed before us. The only two people who voted for the motions were the gentleman who made the motion and… That was pretty much it. The rest of us were against it. That’s what happened at the commission. After hearing all the comments from the neighborhood and everything such as that, you know I had made the comment that they actually needed to work with their neighbors because there was no support at the Planning Commission, which is unusual. Generally someone will come up and will support, there were compromises that were made back and forth. I’m glad to see today that they’ve decided to at least compromise on the lights but that was something that was missing at that meeting was the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing. And I think we picked up on that as a commission and that was one of the reasons why we rejected the plans. It did, as I say, it got very confusing because it was almost midnight and I think that we probably were not as clear in our objections and why that we should have been but the bottom line of all this was that we did not see the support there. It appeared that this was something that was different from what was originally sold to everybody and we didn’t understand why the changes were being made. That was not made clear to us and again there was no consensus within the neighborhood to support these changes so based upon that, that’s why we rejected what staff had put together and we came up with a proposal that probably doesn’t you know beat the mustard of what we should have done but the intent was that we didn’t think the plans should go forward. If you have any questions about any particulars. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, any questions? Very good, thanks. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 18 Jerry McDonald: Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lot of comments. Lot of information. I guess as we finish up here, we’ve heard a lot of public comments this evening that was consistent with and covered a lot of the areas covered in the public hearing as well, and I guess response from staff with that or with other things or information that you heard prior to your original report. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess, we agreed that the building should be smaller. I think we’re all in concurrence with most the changes except for the driving, teaching area. That’s fine if the council choose to remove that. We recommended down sizing the building. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: We also felt the ball washing machine seemed excessive and did recommend denial of that. We also have the same concerns and have from the beginning. We recommended the denial of the extension of hours and I think the concern’s valid that it might become kind of a quasi hangout as opposed to ancillary to a golf related use which is the intent of that. I think the one issue we still have disagreement on. Just some other thoughts I had taking notes, I guess for the square foot of the building, I think it’d be prudent to ask for what’s, what has been done before with the city attorney, what’s going inside the building. Even though we’re going to have storage, if we’re building it to put the sand in and the salt, we want to see what’s going in. Even at the smaller size. I think it might be prudent to deal with what’s being actually stored in the maintenance building so we can have some control over that. The 4 months for the temporary building. Typically a commercial building might take a little bit longer. That was the intent so I’d agree, it probably doesn’t need to be 6 months. We can figure out a reasonable time. What that should be. A temporary building. Sounds like they want to get some revenue out of that yet this spring while they’re building the other building so we can look at a reasonable timeframe for that. So really I think that, there’s a lot of concurrence on. The square footage of the building itself, an extra veranda, I’ll let the council decide on that but I think the other one that I still have concerns on, and I guess I’d ask for maybe the city attorney’s input too and that would be having no parking lot lighting at all. We talked about a couple of things. One is security on the building and then you know trying to separate that. I did look at the photometrics and actually the brightest spot is right underneath those lights. It drops off pretty quickly when you get to the end of the parking lot. It’s already at a half foot so the property line, you’re at zero quite a ways in from the property line. Obviously there will be some lighting if we turn the lights off at 10:00. Then we still need some security lights. We will through a different type of security lighting, that would be something that we could look at to make sure there’s nobody in there but still security in the building. We’d be willing to look at that with the Crime Prevention Specialist. Mayor Furlong: Okay quick question. Help me understand with regard to the lighting and the photometrics. When we speak to what can be seen at a certain point, a half candle. Is that the amount of illumination that’s coming directly from the light itself or is that a reflective light off of? Kate Aanenson: It’s coming from the light itself. Mayor Furlong: From the light itself. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 19 Kate Aanenson: Right. So really once you get to the edge of the parking lot and you’re at a half a foot, once you get beyond that it drops off at a pretty much. Mayor Furlong: You say half a foot. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, half a foot candle. I’m sorry. Yeah, so it’s dropping off. It’s relatively, you know even when you, there’s also ambient light. If you’re downtown it’s a lot different than you are out in an area that’s isolated. For example, Bandimere Park has taller lights and so those are probably in excess of, they might be a little taller than 30 feet. I mean those are much higher. Much brighter. Different type of lighting. Maybe Lake Susan I guess would probably be a better one. When you’re playing softball in the dark. It’s a different type of lighting than we’d have for parking lot lighting because there you’re trying to do a function underneath, but to separate the security at the time that the parking lot, and there were some other ways to look at security of the building. There’s two approaches for people coming and going. Then also secure the building as the city manager mentioned. You want to make sure there’s not, it’s not an nuisance down there. Mayor Furlong: What causes the light noise, if you allow me to use that expression in terms of adjacent property owners? I mean obviously if a parking lot is lit, you’ll be able to see what’s lit. That’s reflective light. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s a lot of interesting discussion on that. We actually, we have a former councilman that was very interested in that and spent a lot of time looking at too much light, and down in that area where there isn’t a lot of light, it’s going to seem like a lot because it’s already kind of a dark area. Whereas when you’re in the downtown, there’s already street lights, parking lot lights, so the spillover is more, while it gets dark in certain areas, it’s not the same so I think it’s just the fact that there’s no lights down there now. I believe that the nursery probably has lights on their buildings right now. On the 101 side. These people are on the north side of Pioneer and it seems that some of the people on Delphinium gets, we hear complaints on that too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Thoughts. Comments. Additional questions. Councilman Peterson: Where do you start? Mayor Furlong: Yeah. I’ll get the discussion started here with what has been expressed I think accurately is that there’s a change in scope in terms of how this golf course is anticipated to be operated versus what came through a couple years ago. We heard references and it was mentioned tonight by one of the residents that spoke, references to the town course and Hazeltine and Deer Run and others. Those are different levels of courses than I think what was, this community was originally discussed. Councilman Peterson: Well but is that really true because if they’re going to put somebody on the course every 8 minutes, did that change from 2 years ago or a year ago? I would beg to differ but the number of people on the course hasn’t changed. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 20 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well but they’re going to make a faster course where before it was, when I was on the Planning Commission it was supposed to be a teaching course for kids and a place for families to go and have fun and so now it sounds more intense where you’d better know how to golf. You’d better get going. There’s no time to just kind of putz around and you know practice your swing or whatever. I think it probably has changed to a faster moving course. Councilman Lundquist: Your handicap is directly, adversely proportional to the length of time to takes you to play a hole. Mayor Furlong: Is that a technical term? Councilman Peterson: But to my point, there may not be, there may be 50% more people there likely. It’s maybe 10% more people, I don’t know. Mayor Furlong: No, it may not be the number of people. I guess what I was referring to is the nature of the buildings. The maintenance. The, you know the amount of activity dealing with the operation of the course. Not necessarily the number of golfers going through. You know that’s where I see a change and it is a function I think of the change in operation. Change of management ownership that’s occurring here. Councilman Peterson: And that clearly has changed. I would agree with you on that. Should I continue or should. Mayor Furlong: That’d be fine. You know, we’ve got a number of issues before us and at some point it might make sense to I guess maybe start with some general thoughts and then go down the list and see where we are and if we’re in agreement or not. Either with staff’s recommendation. With the applicant’s request. With the residents or Planning Commission. I mean we may be some back and forth, depending on where we are I think it makes sense to evaluate what the motions that we have existing and we might, you know if we’re in agreement with all of staff’s recommendation, then we have motions in the staff report tonight too to move forward. But there may be some other things so that’s why I’m saying. You know maybe we start with some general comments and then make sure we get an understanding of where all of us are on each of the different items. Councilman Peterson: I can do some general comments. The balance that I struggled with is that this is, at the end of the day a business and we want to help businesses succeed within reason. And if this business is now asking for some changes that are reasonable, which is the ultimate question, to enhance the success and the viability of the business, then I think we need to consider that. So that being said, that’s what I’m doing. I’m considering their request because I want to have a successful business in Chanhassen. I don’t think anybody wants it to fail. So you know I’ll kind of go through points as presented. The club house I don’t think the 6 foot variance is substantial and you know I think we’re getting a much higher quality building than I think this neighborhood better also so I certainly haven’t got a problem with that. The outdoor seating area seems to be reasonable. The maintenance building seems to be unreasonable. You know I look at it and I look at the design of it, you know I see, I see a huge building for what they’re talking about but yet if they’re taking stuff from outside and putting it inside, and we get a high quality exterior of the building, then is that better? And that’s something I want to hear more about is, you know I think everybody would agree, much rather have stuff inside stored out City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 21 of the view versus having stuff outside stored which they are certainly capable of doing. You know right now it’s designed for 68 by 120. You’ve got, there’s a 40 foot work bench. I kind of shake my head at that. There’s supposed to be 10 golf carts in there. Without the expansion so it does seem to be over kill and I’m not of course an expert but just logic says that 68 by 120 with a 24 foot addition seems to be an unreasonable request. Now, what I don’t know is, should it be 35 8 and can you accomplish that? I don’t want to get into that. I’d rather have staff and the applicant figure that out but, and that may be having them spend more time presenting a succinct idea of what’s inside and what’s outside. If we don’t give them any more than the 30 by 60, where does that mean that’s going to be outside? And ultimately the residents around there prefer it to be a bigger building and have less outside, so I don’t think we’re going to answer that tonight. Ball washing building. You know again that seems overly large and I think we can downsize that. And what we don’t want to do is have an outhouse style out there either, so you want to have something that takes care of their needs but not, not necessarily granting them all their 30 by 24. The teaching shelter, you know I’ll look for other comments on that. I don’t know whether or not 16 by 40 certainly seems to be an awfully large building also. The temporary structure. I’ll go back to lighting in a second. The temporary structure certainly is logical to ask for that and grant that. We can probably put in here something that 30 days after the CO granted on the main building, the other one has to be gone. Or whatever day that would be but you want to give them a building up until the time that their other one is ready. The building materials, I don’t feel any reason to move away from our building standards on that one, particularly in the residential area. Hours of operation. I guess if you would have asked me to interpret sunrise to sunset, there’s a meteorological definition to that and then there’s a real definition. Even the FAA has a twilight definition too so, you know I would probably say a half hour before and after sunset and sunrise. I think that’s actually the legal definition from an FAA standpoint. Defining twilight. I would assume that people would golf until they can’t golf anymore. If sunset was at 8:57 that day, and you can still get a half hour of reasonable light, then they can be out golfing so, I think there’s a reasonable summation that can be made there. To lighting, clearly don’t like the 25 footers. You know I think, I think it would be reasonable to have some kind of lighting, whether it’s low voltage landscape lighting or whether it’s the 14 footers. You know I’ve historically been kind of biased. I don’t like a lot of light. I think our ordinance is probably more than what we need. I was the one that was the champion to turn off the street lights so I’m coming from the opposite extreme. But I think we can work on that and give something the residents can live with. The low voltage landscape lighting that can clearly light the parking lot can be a very attractive amenity and done well, as well as the 14 or 15 footers can look very nice too. If they’re down lit and they’re not going to be offensive to the neighborhood, and they’ll certainly light the parking lot. You know in closing I think it’s been brought up a couple different times. We can’t forget that this is a commercial business going in a residential area and that’s, you know that’s the balance that we all respectfully have to take on tonight and, but we decided that we’re going to allow this commercial business in here and we now we need to have it be successful. We need to have it look good and some of these requests are clearly reasonable. Some of them I think need some more work. And whether or not that means tabling it to get a better definition and request of what’s inside and outside. What the lighting is and what it’s going to look like. You know I’m certainly open to that. And I’m obviously open up to listening to what my fellow council people and mayor would have to say about it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 22 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I thought about 10 minutes ago was I’d like to see this tabled also just because Mr. Johnson I think has said he was willing to compromise on some issues. Kind of a give and take thing to try and give a reasonable proposal going. But if that doesn’t happen I have to say that I kind of took my, what I thought was important, you know I’m going to start at the top and I, for me it’s maybe too simplistic to say that if you don’t change your hours of operation, you keep them where they were originally placed, then you really don’t need additional lighting because there really isn’t that much of a safety concern then so, keep the hours where they’re supposed to be then for me there is no lighting issue. Yeah, it is a business and I want it to be successful but when it first came in it wasn’t necessarily built to be a big business. It was supposed to be just a mom and pop recreational golf course and I think that if these proposals that are before us now had come in 2 or 3 years ago, they would have been addressed and probably not, it would have been denied 4 years ago so I really go back to that time when I was there and I have to respect what we did there and I just always try to think about who, you know who was there first. You know the neighbors were there first. You bought your lots because it’s quiet. It’s dark. It’s private and I have to respect that. If the golf course was there first and there was development coming in, I’d probably have a different view but that’s kind of where I stand on these issues. I’m sorry but I really don’t have a problem with the bigger maintenance building if it does keep junk from being in sight. I think your neighborhoods are better off having stuff enclosed. It looks neater. It looks cleaner. There’s always an attempt for crime to come in and steal things or kids come in and drive where they do. So I guess for the building stuff I just, I don’t see it as that big of a deal. The ball machine, I’ve never seen a ball washing building so I can not comment as to what it should look like or what it should be. You know I think if we hold the golf course to architectural standards and make the buildings look decent, I just don’t see how you can have a problem with that basically. Making the club house bigger once again, I think the draft of what I saw, it’s an improvement from what there is now. Someone said it, something you could put your pony up to and go have a beer or something. You know kind of something out of the wild west and I think we’re probably more progressive in Chanhassen than that so I don’t have a problem with making the club house bigger and the outside seating seems reasonable. We only have 3 months out of the year to enjoy the outside and I think we should be allowed to do it as much as we can. And the building material once again I just think we need to hold to those standards we set back 4 years ago and keep it looking neat and nice. That’s what I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: I’m kind of probably a unique situation. Mr. Saatzer first proposed this, he contacted me and so I was, spent several hours talking to, meeting with Mr. Saatzer. Helped facilitate that with the city staff so I’m very familiar with the original proposal. The vision behind it and what Ron was trying to do. And Bethany as you just said, I think the key point for me really is had this proposal that we were looking at now come through 2 years ago, I’m quite certain I would have voted against it so, that’s really where I go back to is you know the unfortunate thing is that there’s been some you know things business wise that have happened between the current applicant and the previous applicant, and you know things happen and things happen for reasons. At this point I don’t feel obligated to approve any of the changes because you know those are decisions that are made outside of us and I think to make a decision like that and then come and say hey, I’m not going to be successful unless you give me these things is you know, it’s really not our issue because we didn’t force the change to begin with. I don’t want to see a business fail, but you know we didn’t cause the original issues so I don’t feel compelled to City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 23 get in the middle of that. You know Mr. Shipley made some comments I think, there’s a lot of stuff that goes on. There’s a lot of history. There’s a lot of things. When I look at this proposal I’m looking at it on the merits of the proposal, not with the parties that are involved or not involved. It’s not required to be a good neighbor as a business. It’s certainly encouraged and appreciated but it’s not in any way required. When we look at the difference between, you know one thing we fact a lot of times is the who was there first and of course we have the famous not in my back yard. I mean every time we put an infill development in, you know we get 300 e- mails and calls from residents that don’t want to see the wildlife and everything else destroyed that was you know living 50 feet down in their front yard before their house was built so, you know however that said, in this particular piece I’m not concerned with necessarily who was there first but with what the character of that neighborhood is. And when you look at things like large lights or 15 foot, 25 foot, whatever it is, you might have a half a candle, foot candle at the edge of it but you can’t deny when you stand 500 feet away from the edge of that that you’re going to see lights there. You’re not going to be able to see the sky and the things the same so, so overall I keep going back to the major changes. It’s not the original vision that was there. To go down specifically, I think the club house and the veranda is not that big of a deal. I’m okay with that. The maintenance building, I guess I’m kind of in the same place as Craig. 60 by 30, is that big enough? Well, you know maybe. Maybe not. 68 by 120. That seems a little bit excessive so is 1,800 the magic number? Is 2,000 the magic number? You know I don’t know. I think again it all depends on what you’re looking at. The ball washing and some of that stuff, I mean I think is just unreasonable. Unreasonably large for that scale of course. The teaching shelter I think if tastefully done, it seems to be in a location that’s not too intrusive. I can be convinced. The lighting, I would say I’m either would lean towards ground, low voltage ground lighting to allow some visibility you know so that you can see if there’s a person in there or if there’s a car parked in there rather than pitch black. Just for safety of the people I would prefer to have I think lights, safety lights around the building and some of that and keep that area as dark as possible. I think our ordinance Kate as you stated doesn’t require, we have maximums but not minimums and I really want that area to remain kind of dark and secluded and to have that overall character. But still be sensitive to the fact that you know, there’s a business there. There’s a wide open area there. If the deputy drives by or a resident just happens to be walking, you want to be able to see if there’s something that doesn’t look out of place there so, if there’s a way to do that, but you know not make it intrusive. Temporary building. I think we want to be real careful there. Maybe put some stipulations on that building. Has to be on the parking lot or something so that we don’t get into a hassle about you know, the building is there. We’ve given a Certificate of Occupancy and now we get into a scuffle about you know when did we come out? Are we going to have to walk in there with a crane and actually physically remove that or how that works so, let’s be careful and put some conditions maybe to make that beneficial to that more to pull that out. Building materials, definitely not in favor of that variance. Hours of operation. Craig, I’m with you there. I think that reasonable, when I think of sunset to sundown, I think of you know if you can see with the naked eye without lights, that’s reasonable to call it sunset, sun up to sunset. You know again to preserve the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood, you know I think leaving it at sunrise to sunset is fine there so, and so just to summarize again, I think my biggest issue with this as I see it, as a vision of what we started with and what we’re at now are two completely different things and that’s where my biggest problem with the entire proposal is. There’s been a change that was not initiated by the City. Was initiated by a lessee and an owner that’s now initiated, you know pushing this change and it’s considerably different than what that was and again had this come in 2 years ago, I would have City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 24 voted against it because it just doesn’t fit that character of that neighborhood. Those are my comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay, we’re three comments. Three different sides of the issue here so, maybe we’ll get four and make a box. I think the number, a number of the comments that have been made already go back to and I think where Councilman Lundquist finished up is the change. It’s different and the question is, is that difference, does it matter where the initial issue is? The City didn’t have an issue? You know I travel to what’s a reasonable use here in terms of whether the requests are meeting our ordinances and our comprehensive plans. Try to go back to that. I think that there have to be some reason and judgment in that and we’ll go down the list and I think in some cases there are reasonable requests and other cases there are unreasonable ones. I was very pleased to hear tonight the applicant’s offer to withdraw the lights in the parking lot. That was an issue that was clearly a struggle for some of the residents. Perhaps there’s some compromise there that is in the offing now that did not exist at the Planning Commission meeting, which I think goes back to some of the comments we heard this evening was, some lack of cooperation between the applicant and the neighbors. And I think we said earlier, there’s no requirement to do that. We have found it successful in the past when that occurs but there’s no requirement to do that and so sometimes when that doesn’t happen you get a little more choppy as you’re going through the public process here in terms of the Planning Commission and City Council and I think we’re witnessing that tonight. Overall you know what we’re trying to do here and what I think we’re coming with different perspectives and we heard it tonight too is the property owner, this is a conditional use with the property. A legal use to put a golf course in this land and they’ve got a right to operate their business, as most business owners do, and yet we’ve got the neighborhood there, the surrounding property owners that want to maintain their current lifestyle. Their quiet enjoyment and how do we balance that and try to minimize or eliminate any impacts of the neighbors, while at the same time providing the property owner to make sure they follow our ordinance and continue forward. That being said I think there’s some judgments on these things that allow us to do some of that balancing. The club house I think is you know given what is being proposed, it’s not significant. The significance there is in the design that I see and the look of it and I think that will likely be an improvement from a view standpoint, from a look. The maintenance building, I guess what I heard this evening I just don’t, have not heard the justification for the need. I’ve heard some statements but I haven’t heard anything that justifies the need for that. Just with the work that the staff has done to try to evaluate is this a reasonable request or not, which I think is a very good way to go about it, what do other golf courses have and this one was clearly significantly larger and I just can’t, I’m not, I can’t see it. Is the 1,800 enough? It was a couple years ago and while there is change, you know the thought went into and Councilman Lundquist you said, you’re personally familiar with a number of discussions that took place. You know that a lot of thought went into the operation of a 9 hole executive course. Par what, 29. That’s not a Hazeltine. It’s not a Town Course. It’s not one at Deer Run. It’s not those. It’s a different type of offering of golf than what’s there. The ball wash building, I’m not looking for you know a couple of biffy’s next to each other but from a size standpoint, you know that’s what you see. You just don’t, I can’t get my arms around any justification for a building that size, nearly 800 square feet if I did my math right, for a piece of equipment that distributes buckets and balls. You know it’s just, it’s just not there. So I’m struggling with that. I agree with staff on that. There should, it should be incorporated. The shelter building, I mean it’s far removed. I’m struggling with the justification for each of these. Based upon any sort of need. I just don’t, I just can’t get there. The temporary building, I agree with the comments made this evening and you know I think that should be allowed. We do that City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 25 with a number of property owners. We did that with Lifetime Fitness for example so they could start selling memberships before their clubhouse was built. Here, putting some restrictions on it, I think it was mentioned 30 days after occupancy or I think certain number of months from the approval makes some sense to require that and to make sure that’s done. You know the building materials I think, I don’t see any reason to change there. Hours of operation, we’ve had some discussion there. The concern that I heard more from residents there was the lawnmowers going early in the morning and people sticking around on the patio talking and working after night. It would seem to me to try to accommodate that by not, and I understand Councilman Peterson your thought about a half hour before, half hour after. That’s pretty typical. Maybe what I would suggest for a compromise there is to start at sunrise, rather than half hour before so there’s not lawnmowers out there running around before sunrise, but allow the half hour after sunset because it is still twilight, especially during the golfing season. You can see the ball and you keep hitting and you know for a 9 hole course, you’re probably going to zip around it pretty quickly but that will allow somebody starting an hour or so before sunset to continue and finish up. And so I might throw that out as a potential balance there between the business owners desire to operate a business, which they should do, and the concern from some of the residents and neighbors with regard to noise or other problems with regard to that. I think I mentioned the lighting. It seems to me there can be some compromise there that will work and still provide some light. Anything I believe would have to be any, well it would have to be designed such that it’s shielded. It’d have to be down lighting. Shielded, which I think was talked about here, but to find some way to minimize what’s going to be seen. It’s going to be different. It is, even lights on a building there is going to be different than what exists now. Lights on a building, even if they’re shielded will generally be shining out. These lights will generally be shining down so perhaps there’s some benefit to down lighting versus up lighting but it looks like there might be some compromise there, which I’d kind of like to see. So it’s, this is a tough one because it is a change. It’s a change in scope in how this business is going to be operated within their rights to operate a business, not only check that and balance that from a reasonableness standpoint given the neighbors and their rights to minimize any disruption to their enjoyment of their property. So I think those are my thoughts. Any follow-up? It seems to me, was I correct that everybody was generally consistent with the proposed clubhouse as we talked through? With that. I would keep that. The outdoor seating. Veranda with the patio generally okay with that as well. Maintenance building, I heard generally not okay but justify it. If we can get some, if we know what’s going in there from a justification standpoint and need, and we’ve got documented need to operate a 9 hole golf course, what’s there and how they’re planning to operate, I think you know 1,800 square feet may not be appropriate. Something bigger might work but, I mean is that generally or? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Are you pretty firm on the 1,800? Councilman Lundquist: Well no. I mean that’s not a magic number but I think my, if it gets much bigger than 1,800, you’re going to get less and less support from me. The farther away that number gets from 1,800, the less support I’ll have. Mayor Furlong: Kind of like lighting the property. Yep, no and I’m 100% with you on that. 100% with you. You know outside storage, we want to minimize that but to the extent that it’s City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 26 not visible, it may be prudent to have some things stored outside as well. Ball washing, I didn’t hear a lot of support for that. It’s current size, is that correct? Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely… Mayor Furlong: Eliminate or coordinate that in with the existing building or different proximity and significantly reduce. Shelter building. Again, thoughts there. Clarify. Councilman Lundquist: I can go either way. I’m just, I mean in the spirit of compromise, I guess we can allow that. If it wasn’t there, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. Mayor Furlong: Sounds like with, it’s far enough away or it’s far enough towards the interior of the property that I don’t think the residents have a significance about that. Lighting. I think we had 5 different opinions out of 4 of us on that one so, looking to do something there. It sounds like the applicant’s willing to come up with some compromises and I think we’d like to pursue those. At the same time look at recognizing that some light, whether it’s landscape light, I heard mentioned I think or something else might be something that might work. Temporary structure, I think you heard some thoughts and ideas on that. Is everybody generally consistent with that? Something more limiting than and/or clear as to the length of time, likely shorter than what, the 12 months in the report. Building material I heard general support for what was, for no change there. And hours of operation, I didn’t hear a lot of support for the request of 6:00 to 11:00. We talked about sunrise to sunset. Half hour before, half hour after. Is there some thoughts there or, we had 2 or 3 thoughts pulled out? Councilman Peterson: I’m not indifferent to what your recommendation was to do sunrise and then. Mayor Furlong: Half hour after sunset? Is that what, is that the FAA definition for twilight. Councilman Peterson: Well both. Morning because you can see before sunrise so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, understand. Councilman Peterson: It goes back to do we want mowing lawn at 6:00 a.m.? The answer’s no. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, it’s one thing to see. It’s another thing to be, to hear and. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do we have us the ordinance that regulates when they can be mowing or when people can start, commercial businesses can start mowing? I mean do they fall into that category? Councilman Lundquist: We let garbage trucks out before 7:00 in the morning. Kate Aanenson: We have a nuisance ordinance. Mayor Furlong: So let’s take a look at that then and see what. Kate Aanenson: We’ll apply those standards. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 27 Mayor Furlong: Give us some guidance there. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Like I say, overall I would tend to be more restrictive on that than less. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments? It sounds like here is we’re moving towards a tabling so the staff can work with the applicant on a couple of these things and also make some modifications to the recommendation. Any other comments or thoughts or questions you have for clarification? Kate Aanenson: Point of order before you table. Our next regular meeting, as you just approved would be in a week. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure we can, we may be able to turn it around. Tomorrow. But otherwise. Mayor Furlong: If we can’t, are we running out of time? Kate Aanenson: Yeah…otherwise it will be pushed to April 10th. I do want to get some comments from the sheriff’s office. …that’s fine, I just want to make sure that the crime prevention specialist and the sheriff’s office comment and a couple other things too. Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. Kate Aanenson: But I’m just not sure of the turn around in one week so, I’d like to go to April 10th, if that’s okay with the applicant. Mayor Furlong: You know I think a lot of these issues, you know a little more thought is fine than try to push it through. I guess the question is, do we have the time to do that. Roger Knutson: I believe, according to the application it says they’ve waived the time lines. Maybe we just could have them confirm that they’re okay with us taking this up, at this point until April 10th. Don Halla: Could we have an approval of the club house building so we could get construction going on that? The temporary. Roger Knutson: You really can’t piecemeal it. Sandy Halla: Even when we’ve had a discussion, we’d be willing to do whatever it is that you needed…do what it is that you wanted us to do… Mayor Furlong: Ma’am, I’m sorry. Could you come up to the microphone and just give us your name and address. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 28 Sandy Halla: …we knew that the house really was what we thought everybody would think would be the right size and that would be something that people would enjoy being in. And that wasn’t overly done we didn’t think… What we really worked on was trying to have a place that folks…to be able to do that so this particular thing, I don’t think that we would change it any way whatsoever and it didn’t sound like anybody else here would change it. That there wasn’t any reason that… We really wanted this to be something that all the young children, and we thought…we’ve got grandchildren here and to go play golf at the age of 16 or whatever… So that it isn’t the dollars that we’re trying…and there’s so many places that really aren’t really affordable so that we were trying to do that. And as far as what we were talking about now with the equipment, I think that we felt when we came here, we didn’t want a great big thing. We’ll have to…and we wanted it to be so that people could use it…handicap and are getting a little older and want to have something there… So I think that anything that you think that we shouldn’t be doing now, we’re okay with it. If we’ve gone to no lights, John Kosmas is gone right now, the architect that was here last time, and…what was okay to do…one person wanted it there and the next person didn’t want it at all and as far as we’re concerned, there’s soft lights going down and if nobody gets hurt or killed, you know…that’s all that really we’re talking about. We don’t need people out at night or early morning or whenever else it happens to be, so that that’s not what we’re looking for. …okay, I think that’s too big. Fine. I think that we didn’t, I don’t know how we got into that, we didn’t think that actually…would be as important as the golf ball situation to be able to get golf balls back out there… If that’s all it is…so that’s all we are trying to look at it and so it isn’t that we have to have anything…we want to do. What we consider a good place there and not what some people…how that would make it work with what people really wanted and so that’s where we’re at so we feel, feel free to say we don’t want it or whatever else that would be helpful… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Councilman Peterson: What I’m hearing is we can probably get this done by Monday. Kate, the only thing that seems to be, the struggle might be the police. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’ll do our best to get it on there… Mayor Furlong: Let’s see if we can get it done. Kate Aanenson: …you might not get it out in Wednesday’s packet but we can commit to get it out and keep it on Monday, that’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Well let’s do what we can. It sounds like they want to, they’re flexible and you’ve heard out comments and unfortunately we have a short turn around here but, which will put some strain on you but. Kate Aanenson: I just need to make something, say something for the record. We’ve had 2 or 3 different people working on 2 or 3 different opinions. Just heard another opinion now so I think it’s prudent that we get it in writing as the City Attorney said and button down that it’s all consistent and this is what happened at the Planning Commission. We’re late, in the 11th hour so tabling I think is the prudent thing. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 29 Mayor Furlong: No, and that’s where we’re going because we want to make sure that we’ve got something that’s clear that the applicant and the residents and the council know what we’re talking about and what we’re voting on so, I think that is important. We’ll try to work as quickly as we can for the applicant but at the same time we’ve got to make sure that we’re, that we’re getting everything covered and so, if there is a delay we apologize for that but we want to make sure that we don’t have confusion down the road either, which would not be good for anybody so. Sandy Halla: …I understand that…so they’re not firing up the golf course carts… Mayor Furlong: Right, understand. Thank you. Anything else from staff? Any other comments from council? Todd Gerhardt: I just wanted to note one thing. The original plan did show the trash enclosures be screened so. Kate Aanenson: It is addressed in the staff report. And we’ll follow up on those sort of things. Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Then at this point is there a motion to table? Roger Knutson: If you could just wait a moment. Kate Aanenson: We need just a signature. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: While we’re waiting too then, when this staff report becomes available, you can go to the city’s web site and download upgraded project and the new staff report will be done hopefully by the end of the week. Mayor Furlong: Okay, to the extent possible there might be a new cover memo but if we can red line the existing…so we can see changes. Kate Aanenson: Will do. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. I know you usually do but that way residents and the applicant as well, and the council members. David Gatto: Can we work as a task force with these folks? I mean as I hear them, when they’re talking to the sheriff and it’s going to go. I mean are we going to be able to work with these folks at all? Mayor Furlong: Well I think from a process standpoint certainly that’s able. There’s no requirement that the property owner work with the neighbors. I think what we heard tonight was an accommodation to some of the issues that the neighbors were raising. David Gatto: Well it’d be nice if we could come here and say we support it because otherwise we’ll come back and otherwise you might…what we’re considering doing if you pass it. City Council Minutes – March 13, 2006 30 Kate Aanenson: I just want to be clear, I think we understand they don’t want lights. My point is I want to make sure that if the public safety says something, this council has that information. I think everybody understands that you don’t want lights. David Gatto: We’ve said what we’re going to say now and I mean I volunteered to be on a task force. We want to work with you folks. We want to. Kate Aanenson: Okay, no. We’d be happy to follow up on that. Get that information that we have prior to. Mayor Furlong: I mean there’s nothing that precludes the applicant and the neighbors getting together and meeting if they want to. At the same time I think from a staff standpoint, which is what our objective here is tonight after all the comments we’ve seen, is to try to keep this process moving forward in a manner that’s consistent with what we’ve heard and what we’re trying to accomplish here for everybody and balancing that. So. David Gatto: And we’re all in the community together. Mayor Furlong: Yes sir. David Gatto: We want to work with you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Knutson, we’re okay now? Roger Knutson: Yes we are. Mayor Furlong: To move forward if there is a desire to table. Is there a motion to table? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table the Site Plan Amendment and variances for the construction of a golf course, Halla Greens, located on the southeast corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and thank you to everybody sticking around tonight and contributing to the discussion.