The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Packet 2006 07 24AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JULY 24, 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. Update on Safety Camp & National Night Out, Beth Hoiseth, Crime Prevention Specialist. B. Key Financial Strategy: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update/Retail Market Study. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS C. Invitation to National Night Out. 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. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 10, 2006 - City Council Summary Minutes dated July 10, 2006 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated July 10, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: - Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated June 27, 2006 - Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated June 27, 2006 b. The Preserve at Bluff Creek, Project 06-12: Approve Access Agreement with Ryland Group. c. Item Deleted (Chanhassen West Business Park: Approve Addendum B to the Development Contract.) d. Amendment to City Code, Chapter 20, Section 1259, Concerning Electronic Reader Board Signs. e. Longacres Drive Stormwater Pond Outlet Improvement and Lyman Boulevard Sewer Repairs, Projects 06-08 and 06-09: Reject Bids and Authorize Readvertisement for Bids. f. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, September 30, 2006. g. Authorize Purchase of Grass Rig, Chanhassen Fire Department. h. C.J.’s Coffee & Wine Bar, 600 Market Street, Suite 170: Approval of Request to Amend the Liquor Licensed Premises for a Charity Event on September 30, 2006. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE 2, a. Sgt. Ross Gullickson, Carver County Sheriff's Department. b. Chief Gregg Geske, Chanhassen Fire Department UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. LAKESIDE, 125 Lakeview Road, Applicant: Sienna Corporation: Request for a Planned Unit Development on 26.34 Acres Rezoning the Property from R12, High Density- Residential to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential, with Variances; Preliminary Plat for 29 Building Lots, Two Outlots, and Right-of-Way for Public Streets; Site Plan Review for a 234-unit Residential Development, Including Two-, Three-, Four- and Condominium-Unit Buildings, and a Community Building; and a Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot with Variances. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Beth Hoiseth, Crime Prevention Specialist DATE: July 14, 2006 SUBJ: National Night Out The 23rd Annual National Night Out will take place on Tuesday, August 1, 2006. The program is designed to heighten crime prevention awareness, promote neighborliness and strengthen police/community relationships. This is the 6th year that Chanhassen has participated in National Night Out. To date, 40 neighborhoods have registered their block parties with the City of Chanhassen, and will receive visits from either the Chanhassen Fire Department or representatives from the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. The attachment illustrates block party locations and times that participants will receive a visit. The National Night Out message will focus on reminding citizens that their involvement is vital in helping to keep Chanhassen a safe city. Lake SusanPark Lak e Ann Park Rice Marsh Lake Park NorthLotusLake ParkLake Minnewashta Regional Park (County Park) Sun s e t Ridg e Park MeadowGreenPark Kerb er Pon d Park Lake Susan Prese rve Bluff Creek Preserve Park CathcartPark MinnewashtaHeightsPark Pheasant HillPark CurryFarmsPark City Ce nt e r Par k StoneCreekPark RoundhousePark HermanFieldPark GreenwoodShoresPark CarverBeachPlayground Par k Prairie Kn oll Park PowerHillPark ChanhassenHillsPark BandimereHeightsPark Bluff Creek Golf Course Raguet WildlifeManagement Area MN Valley NationalWildlife Refuge Minnesota Landscape Ar b or e tum SugarbushPark ChanhassenNaturePreserve Minnesota Lands capeArboretum Park Ple a san t V i e w Pre s e r v e Park Park BluffCreekPreserve Bandimere Park So.Lotus Lak e Park ChanhassenEstatesPark CarverBeachPark Lotus Lake Lake Riley Lake Minnewashta Lake Lucy Rice Lake Lake Susan Lake Ann Lake Virginia Lake Harrison RiceMarsh Lake ClasenLake LakeStJoe ChristmasLake L yman Blvd (C.R . 1 8) Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18) Pio n e e r T rail (Hwy 1 4 ) U S 2 1 2 F l y i n g C l o u d D r i v e US212 F ly in g C lo u d D ri v e Powers Blv d ( C . R . 1 7 ) G a l p i n Bl v d (C.R . 19 ) Audubon Road Au dub o n R o a d ( C . R. 17) U S 169 & State Highway 101 H w y 1 0 1 G r e a t P l a ins Blvd P ow ers Blvd (C.R. 17) Gr e a t P l ai n s B l vd H w y 1 0 1 Great P l a i n s Blvd State H w y 5 State Hw y 5 Arboretum Boulevard Highwa y 41 Hazelt ine Blvd ( H wy 41) Galpin Blvd. (C.R. 117) State Hw y 5 Minnewashta Parkway St a t e Hwy 7 Haz e l t i n e B l v d (Hw y 4 1 ) Ch a n h as s en R d. H wy . 10 1 Lake Point DrCul-de-sac - 8:15 Castle Ridge Ct - 7:30 552 Mission Hills Dr. - 7:00 Minnewashta Pkwy Beach Lot - 6:45 8090 Hidden Ct - 6:00 Minnewashta Heights Park - 6:45 7460 Windmill Dr - 6:00 Sunset Ridge Park - 8:00 2460 Bridle Creek Trl - 7:30 Red Oak Lane - 8:00 9366 Kiowa Tr - 7:15 7310 Kurvers Point Rd Beach Lot - 7:30 8581 Osprey LN - 6:30 Suffolk Dr - 6:00 2456 Autumn Ridge Crt - 7:30 Pontiac Court - 8:00 Carver Beach Park - 7:30 8560 Alisa Ct - 7:00 425 Chan ViewHeritage Park Apts - 6:30 Stone Creek Par k - 7:00 North Bay Beach Lot. - 6:30 W Lake Ct- 6:30 Melodie LaneCul-de-sac - 6:30 Tristan Knoll - 6:30 1930 Whitetail Ridge Ct - 6:45 Vasserman Ri dge Par k - 7:30 7572 Walnut Curve - 6:002828 Coach Ln - 7:30 920 Saddlebrook Pass - 7:30 Springfield Park - 6:00 705 Santa Vera Dr - 6:30 Prairie Flower Bl vdGazebo- 6:00 Summit Cir Cul-de-sac - 6:30 8220 Market BlvdLake Susan Apts - 6:30 2071 Sandpiper Trl - 6:30 6330 Near Mountain Blvd - 7:30 6213 Cascade Pass - 7:30 8026 Dakota Ave - 6:45 9510 Foxford Rd Beach Lot - 8:15 Flamingo Dr - 8:15 NATIONAL NIGHT OUTAugust 1, 20066:00 - 9:00 PM G:\Eng\Joleen\Crime\NatNightOutJuly 12, 2006 h N MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Director DATE: July 24, 2006 SUBJ: Retail, Office and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential Jim McComb will present a summary of the finding at the City Council work session. The presentation will be in a PowerPoint format. An electronic version of the entire study is available on the City’s web page under “What’s New”. A hard copy of the documents will be handed out at the work session. g:\plan\ka\marketing study\worksession cc 7-24-06.doc Announcement for the Mayor – National Night Out The City of Chanhassen will be celebrating National Night Out on Tuesday, August 1, 2006. National Night Out is an event designed to encourage citizens to get out and get to know their neighbors; promote crime prevention awareness; and, to provide an opportunity for public safety representatives to visit with Chanhassen citizens. The City of Chanhassen takes great pride in continuing to be a safe place to live and work. Keeping Chanhassen safe is a partnership effort between citizens and those who serve this city. National Night Out supports this effort by reminding citizens that their involvement is vital in maintaining safety in Chanhassen. With citizen participation, we can make an impact on crime in Chanhassen. On August 1, 2006, representatives from the Carver County Sheriff’s Office and Chanhassen Fire Department will be visiting Chanhassen block parties. Join the Chanhassen event by organizing your neighborhood gathering. Register your block party by calling 952- 227-1610. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:45 p.m.. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman REVIEW 2005 AUDIT, HLB TAUTGES. Greg Sticha reviewed the 2005 audit process and introduced Melanie Accola and Dave Mol with HLB Tautges. Melanie Accola passed out a hard copy of the power point presentation which reviewed the four reports issued for the City of Chanhassen. In the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report it shows that the City received a “Clean Opinion” for the 2005 financial statements, and that the City also received an award from the GFOA for “Excellence in Financial Reporting” for the 2004 CAFR. Dave Mol explained the steps needed to receive this award. Mayor Furlong asked about the number of other cities that received the award. Dave Mol reviewed in detail each of the following: Statement of Activities, Summary of Financial Activity, Collection Rates, General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Capital Project Funds, and Enterprise Funds. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the “transfer out” items and where it shows how expenses correlate to capital improvements. Melanie Accola reviewed the State Legal Compliance Report and Report on Internal Control, noting the only reportable condition is the need to address payroll timesheet approvals, especially in the fire department. Greg Sticha explained the policies that have been implemented to address the fire department timesheet deficiencies. Dave Mol reviewed the items Statement No. 44 through Statement 47 under Recently Issued Standards and the Audit Committee Letter. Councilman Lundquist asked for the status of the findings noted in the audit report for 2004. Mayor Furlong thanked Ms. Accola and Mr. Mol for their effort and the detail in the report. Greg Sticha noted that any issues raised by HLB Tautges, corrective action is taken immediately and that the City has had a very good working relationship with HLB Tautges, but that the 3 year contract will be going out to bid this year, following the City’s “Best Practices”. HIGHWAY 212 UPDATE, PROJECT 03-09. Paul Oehme gave a power presentation updating the City Council on the progress of Highway 212 construction through the city. Councilman Peterson asked for an update on park property (Fox parcel) and how the interchange with Powers Boulevard will work. Paul Oehme showed the schematic for the Powers Boulevard bridge, noting that a railing is proposed on the trail side of the bridge only, but light fixtures are proposed on both sides. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification of the trail circulation in the area. Paul Oehme showed the proposed site for the City Council Work Session – July 10, 2006 2 future fire station to be located in southern Chanhassen. Todd Gerhardt explained the possibility of the Highway Patrol locating an office and a couple cars at this new facility which may be helpful in securing the site from MnDot. Mayor Furlong asked about the timeline for installation and payment of lighting standards on different bridges. Paul Oehme reviewed the estimated costs for improvements, noting that the total cost adjustment on the total project is estimated at about $95,000 below the contract price. Mayor Furlong directed staff to continue trying to tie up the property from MnDot for the future fire station. Paul Oehme reviewed the trail proposed along Lyman Boulevard, adjacent to the Don Sinniger property, and what is being done to reduce the number of trees that need to be removed. Councilman Lundquist asked about the need for a trail between Quinn Road and the park and ride site. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 7:00 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JULY 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong welcomed audience members. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 26, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 26, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 20, 2006 e. Approve Amendment to Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program. f. Abra Auto Body & Glass, 60 Lake Drive East: Approval of Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile Body Repair Shop and Site Plan Approval for a 14,430 sq. ft. Expansion to a 4,074 sq. ft. Building. g. Resolution #2006-47: Approval of 2006 Transfers: Revolving Assessment Fund & Capital Replacement Fund. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. City Council Summary – July 10, 2006 2 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked to speak on the Lakeside application. Jerry Paulsen requested that the City Council give close scrutiny to any variances that are requested for shoreline property. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, LOT 3, BLOCK 2, ST. HUBERTUS, VACATION FILE 06-02. Public Present: Name Address Josh & Julie Pickard 104 West 78th Street Brian Nustad 7791 Erie Avenue Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. Brian Nustad, 7791 Erie Avenue asked that his property be considered in the vacation request. Staff noted he could make application to go through the process. Mayor Furlong closed the public hearing. Resolution #2006-48: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve a resolution vacating eight (8) feet of alley right-of-way located along the north property line of Lot 3, Block 2, St. Hubertus. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. LAKESIDE, 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD, APPLICANT, SIENNA CORPORATION: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM R12 HIGH DENSITY-RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL WITH VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TWO, THREE, FOUR AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS, AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES. Public Present: Name Address Lee Wear 17836 Bearpath Trail T.J. Adams 154 Lakeview Road E. Thomas J. Bastasz 179 Lakeview Road E. John Bowlsky 18482 Bearpath Trail David & Clara Adinolfo 18779 Bearpath Trail Heidi & Scott Frederiksen 18626 Bearpath Trail Stephanie & Tom Drees 14727 Boulder Point Road Dan Brattland 18355 Nicklaus Way City Council Summary – July 10, 2006 3 Steven Schwieters 10072 Gristmill Carter Nichols 18808 Bearpath Trail Tom & Sue Knight 9154 Bearpath Trail Ron Case 9237 LaRivier Court, Eden Prairie Wallace Anderson 8067 Timber Lake Drive, Eden Prairie 9014 Lake Riley Road Gail Thorpe 17543 Bearpath Trail Pat Shepard 17615 Bearpath Trail John Jeffries 18767 Bearpath Trail Bruce Carlson 8988 English Turn, Eden Prairie Valerie & Ken Ross 8976 English Turn, Eden Prairie Ken Brooks 17894 Bearpath Trail Melissa Shockley 18775 Melrose Chase Chris Honaas & Craig Wildfang 18397 Nicklaus Way Steven Tighe 17846 Bearpath Trail Andy Birrell 17934 Bearpath Trail Sue Phillips 17950 Bearpath Trail Nancy Ness 17704 Bearpath Trail Marlene McEwan 17627 Bearpath Trail Nick Stockwell 17627 Bearpath Trail Ginny Gospard 17615 Bearpath Trail Warren & Mia Bielke 18719 Bearpath Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the height and setback variances for the condominium buildings. John Vogelbacher with Sienna Corporation passed our books detailing the project, addressed changes made in the plan since the City Council saw this item at a work session, and addressed issues brought up at the public hearing. Councilman Peterson asked the applicant to address the issues of elevations and sight lines from neighboring properties and tree loss caused by the trail on the Chanhassen/Eden Prairie border. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the number and location of guest parking for the condominium buildings. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification of sight lines across the fairway, height variance for the condominium buildings, setbacks for the townhomes along the fairway, sight lines across the lake and timing for construction. Mayor Furlong asked about architectural plans for Building C and asked staff to comment on their review of the storm water calculations. Mayor Furlong opened the meeting for public comment. Scott Frederiksen, speaking on behalf of a number of residents of Bearpath and as an employee of Welsh Companies, a large commercial real estate firm, brought up the issues of notification and communication by the developer, broken promises by Sienna Corporation in regards to tree loss, PUD zoning related to green space, and reasons for not granting the variance requests. Ron Case, Eden Prairie City Council member, asked the council to consider the residents of Eden Prairie as well as Chanhassen residents when making their decision. Bruce Carlson, a resident of Bearpath, requested that bonding be required for completion of the project. Wally Anderson, 9014 Lake Riley Road stated his concern with traffic on Lake Riley Road. Tom Bastasz, 179 Lakeview Road and President of the North Bay Homeowners Association stated Sienna Corporation has answered their concerns with regards to setbacks, landscaping and stormwater runoff and asked that the City Council approve the City Council Summary – July 10, 2006 4 development as proposed. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive expressed concern with the height of the condominium buildings, that the OHW was not on the preliminary plat and therefore impervious surface calculations could not be accurate, when rezoning property to PUD the plan must provide balanced housing types for all income levels, lack of a traffic study, and questioning the number of variances. Mayor Furlong asked the applicant and staff to address the issues raised by the residents. After City Council discussion the following motion was made. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 06-26 for Lakeside development. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. THOMAS SCHWARTZ, 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK. Public Present: Name Address Eric V. Doremus 7371 Bent Bow Trail Paula & Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail Michael Nelson 7357 Bent Bow Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this issue. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the colored map showing setbacks, conservation easement, etc.. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on impervious surface calculations The applicant, Thomas Schwartz provided historical background on the work performed on the property. Councilman Lundquist asked the applicant if the work done to restore the drainage swale was approved by staff. Mr. Schwartz explained that it was built by Lundgren Bros. Construction and he has assurances it would suffice. After commission discussion, the following motion was made. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 06-22, Variance request at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. GARY CARLSON, 3891 WEST 62ND STREET: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR-STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQ. FT. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Dale Keehl 3841 West 62nd Street City Council Summary – July 10, 2006 5 Gary Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Luke Melchert 112 2nd Street W, Chaska Maureen and Molly Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Megan Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the timeline and background information. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification of the different colors on the map. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about the distance between the garage and the house. Luke Melchert, representing the applicant, clarified the variance request. Molly Carlson spoke in support of granting the variance for the garage to store and protect her equipment. Dale Keehl, 3841 West 62nd Street spoke in support of the variance. Gary Carlson talked about the negotiations he’s had with Josh Metzer regarding granting of the variance. The council discussed tabling this item to give the applicant time to remove the 7 structures on the property before bringing the item back before the council. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table Planning Case 06- 23 for a variance and intensification of a non-conforming use for the property at 3891 West 62nd Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong commended the city staff for a great 4th of July celebration. ADMNISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt provided an update on the search for an Assistant City Manager and an update on a deck fire at the Lake Susan Apartments. Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everyone here with us in the council chambers, and for those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us this evening. At this time I would ask if there are any modifications to the agenda that was distributed. If not we will proceed with the agenda that was distributed with the council packet last week. Seeing none. Move to our first item of business which is our consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 26, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 26, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 20, 2006 e. Approve Amendment to Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program. f. Abra Auto Body & Glass, 60 Lake Drive East: Approval of Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile Body Repair Shop and Site Plan Approval for a 14,430 sq. ft. Expansion to a 4,074 sq. ft. Building. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 2 g. Resolution #2006-47: Approval of 2006 Transfers: Revolving Assessment Fund & Capital Replacement Fund. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’d like to request that the Lakeside development be open for public comment. Mayor Furlong: We will take some public comment. Not extensive. The public hearing was at the Planning Commission but we will take some public comment. Debbie Lloyd: I appreciate that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thanks. Any other items for the visitor presentations? Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Good evening Mr. Mayor and councilors. I hope you give close scrutiny to any variances that are requested for shoreline property. I think our lakes are our most valuable asset that we have in this community. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, LOT 3, BLOCK 2, ST. HUBERTUS, VACATION FILE 06-02. Public Present: Name Address Josh & Julie Pickard 104 West 78th Street Brian Nustad 7791 Erie Avenue Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This application is to consider the vacation of an alley way located at 7791 Erie Avenue. The subject property is shown on this sheet here. The alley way is on the north side of the property. 78th Street is located here and 101 is just to the east. This alley way is dedicated for a number of years. The City does not have any need for this alley way nor do the surrounding properties. There is a sanitary sewer located at this facility. We are recommending that the right-of-way be vacated at this time and a 10 foot drainage utility easement be dedicated at the time that the property is developed. The subject property here is shown at this location. The property is currently vacated. The property owner’s looking at developing a single family home. Access will be provided off of 78th Street, thus no secondary access is necessary off of the alley on the north side. Again it’s an 8 foot alley way that would be vacated. A 10 foot drainage utility easement would be required at the time that the property is developed. 39 properties were notified of this public hearing for the vacation of the alley way. I recommend that a public hearing be opened at this time to consider the vacation. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 3 Councilman Lundquist: Paul, the two properties to the west there, between Erie and this property. That has already been vacated, is that correct? Paul Oehme: No they’re not. The property to the east at the southeast corner, that alley way has been vacated when that property was developed. The two properties to the west have not been vacated. The properties could come in at a future date and also request the vacation of that alley way. We would require a drainage utility easement though be required. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? If not, I’ll open up the public hearing. Invite interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Brian Nustad: Hi. My name is Brian Nustad. I live at 7791 Erie Avenue, which is the two properties that run along west. I would like to consider that as vacated property as well. Mayor Furlong: This is to the west of the current applicant? Brian Nustad: Yeah, I own Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 2. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess the question is, what’s the process that he has to go through there? Paul Oehme: The property owner would have to come in and apply for a vacation. There’s a form you’d have to fill out plus a fee associated with that and go through the vacation process… Mayor Furlong: So it’s not something we can deal with tonight? Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: You’d have to file a formal application with the City. Councilman Lundquist: You’re not objecting to this one though, right? Brian Nustad: Not at all. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, we’d follow the same process that we’re doing tonight. We may want to contact the other property owner to see if they’d be interested at the same time and then do them all at once. Mayor Furlong: Any other, anyone else wishing to speak at the public hearing on this matter? If not, without objection then we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Any discussion on this? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve as published. Councilman Peterson: Second. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 4 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Resolution #2006-48: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve a resolution vacating eight (8) feet of alley right-of-way located along the north property line of Lot 3, Block 2, St. Hubertus. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. LAKESIDE, 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD, APPLICANT, SIENNA CORPORATION: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM R12 HIGH DENSITY-RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL WITH VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TWO, THREE, FOUR AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS, AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES. Public Present: Name Address Lee Wear 17836 Bearpath Trail T.J. Adams 154 Lakeview Road E. Thomas J. Bastasz 179 Lakeview Road E. John Bowlsky 18482 Bearpath Trail David & Clara Adinolfo 18779 Bearpath Trail Heidi & Scott Frederiksen 18626 Bearpath Trail Stephanie & Tom Drees 14727 Boulder Point Road Dan Brattland 18355 Nicklaus Way Steven Schwieters 10072 Gristmill Carter Nichols 18808 Bearpath Trail Tom & Sue Knight 9154 Bearpath Trail Ron Case 9237 LaRivier Court, Eden Prairie Wallace Anderson 8067 Timber Lake Drive, Eden Prairie 9014 Lake Riley Road Gail Thorpe 17543 Bearpath Trail Pat Shepard 17615 Bearpath Trail John Jeffries 18767 Bearpath Trail Bruce Carlson 8988 English Turn, Eden Prairie Valerie & Ken Ross 8976 English Turn, Eden Prairie Ken Brooks 17894 Bearpath Trail Melissa Shockley 18775 Melrose Chase Chris Honaas & Craig Wildfang 18397 Nicklaus Way Steven Tighe 17846 Bearpath Trail Andy Birrell 17934 Bearpath Trail City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 5 Sue Phillips 17950 Bearpath Trail Nancy Ness 17704 Bearpath Trail Marlene McEwan 17627 Bearpath Trail Nick Stockwell 17627 Bearpath Trail Ginny Gospard 17615 Bearpath Trail Warren & Mia Bielke 18719 Bearpath Trail Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. The subject site is located off of Lyman Boulevard and currently has apartments on the site. The Lakeview Hills apartments. To the south of there in the City of Chanhassen is a Rottlund project called North Bay. That property was also guided for medium to high density, and then on the Eden Prairie side the Bearpath property. The applicant is requesting a zoning change. It is zoned R-12, and I want to take a few minutes to talk about the zoning change any why we ended up, the staff recommending that, and then there are some variances requested with that. I’ll take some time to talk about that. In addition they’ll be asking for a site plan approval, and besides the variance a conditional use for a beachlot. The project itself again is requesting a PUD. I want to make some corrections on some of the, or clarifications on some of the variance requests. But first I’d like to talk about the entitlement on this property. It’s currently zoned R-12, and my tenure with the city we only had one other piece of property that actually had a zoning in place and that was a PUD project, the Lake Susan Hills which was done and that actually had a R-12 and actually took almost 15-20 years to build out. This is also a piece of property that because it had apartments on it, was zoned R-12 and has for a long, long time, so when it has a R-12 zoning on it, there’s certain rights that go with it. Obviously the 12 units an acre being one. In the last few years, working with the property owner Mr. Liefschultz, we met with specifically the last 2 years, met with numerous developers looking at what type of project would be coming in on this piece of property, and looking at what also the city has, their housing goals. What’s also coming into the city and there was at least 3 specific property owners, or developers that we did meet with the City. I believe that there’s 3 specific ones that I’d like to talk about. Ryland Homes, Centex and…and kind of some of their visions for the property and why staff supported this one over the others that they were proposing in relation to some of our goals. The most recent projects that we’ve approved have had a significant, in the 2005, a significant amount of townhouses and certainly one of the goals that we look at, in looking at projects is diversity in housing type, and then working with the underlying property owner, that was one of the things. While they met the intent if they didn’t change it, they’re obligated to approve it. They met all the requirements. We were certainly guiding them towards looking at different products. One thing that we’ve always told you that we try to strive for looking at the larger piece is bringing in 2 or 3 different products, so we always had that as a goal. But everything that we were seeing on some of the developments were a typical townhouse type project, which you’ve a lot, specifically 35 feet high with the large walls in the back which one of the issues that we just dealt recently with the Town and Country project. Again when we looked at this one, now we do have this in the city, but we always try to encourage a different type of product. This is one that was being proposed for it again. This has underground parking. We do have this product moving forward in the city now but at the time that we met with the developer, that was one of the products that they were advancing. Again it’s common entry with an elevator and then underground parking. And then the character, urban row which actually now we also had just recently approved in the last 6 months. Some of this product too. So reviewing that with the applicants and the property City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 6 owners that we were talking to, we already felt that that was a pretty strong housing type we already had in the market, and we wanted to encourage something different. So when we met with the Sienna Corporation came in with again we always want to see the different products. They came in with 3 different products, which we were excited about. The one being the condominium. The two’s and the three’s, and we felt strongly that that met first off our goals. Then we got into the land use and they certainly wanted to go forward with the entitlement of the R-12 zoning. But for us to make it work, there’s some trade off’s that we wanted. One was a lot of green, open space and actually look at, they hadn’t identified some of these products. They certainly wanted to go with a more vertical product, but as they worked through and they went out and sought partners to come in on the project, we wanted some green space. Some trails. There’s the trail on the Eden Prairie side. Opening this up. Varying the heights as we talked about with some of our projects that we looked at most recently. Different roof lines. Different openings. And looked at that. And the current zoning on the property allows this property line, …to Eden Prairie, right now the R-12 zoning allows you to be within 10 feet of that property line. So we thought it was a trade off to that to do the PUD would allow greater setback. What the staff report recommended was a variance from this line. So one of the first setbacks that we’re looking at is the setback of the 50 feet. So you can, which the overall PUD requires for, as we got clarification and I wanted to, I did put out for you a revised setback from the applicant because they had most recently moved this building back. This is what the PUD ordinance says in Section 20-50… For the single family, the clustered single family low density, you have to be the 50 foot back, so that notification to them is right because some of these slightly move into that line from the 50 foot. What it says for the multi family attached, it needs to be as high as the building. I did get clarification from this interpretation from the city attorney and that Section 20-505. So what they’ve agreed to do is, submitted this model. Revised drawing. Moved the building back. Now one of the condominium buildings actually has a flat roof and that was a point of discussion too when they met with us early on is that we could make all the buildings flat roofed, and that’s something that we’ve always encouraged in the city is actually a pitched roof. If you look in the core of downtown, that’s one of our stronger themes is the pitched roof for the residential look. So and the staff weighing, why do we support this design? The height of the building. This is also in the shoreland district, the 35 feet. The height variance. We would end up with a flatter roof, so the staff supported the height variance to get that look on this corner. The Building B the condominium project that actually has the flatter roof and then Building C would again have the pitched roof, and that would be up against the wall for the new 212. I’m not going to go through a lot of the products. I’m going to let the applicant just take a few minutes to go through some of the products but I want to talk about the rationale. Does the council have any questions on the rationale for the PUD? The setbacks. I think there was a concern that they asked what to get some relief. We wanted that because we felt like looking at the other products, to get the density, the entitlement that was there, we would have ended up with maximized height of…is out there today and we wanted different looks out there and that was our goal is to get some open space. In order to get the PUD ordinance…50% as opposed to the 35%. They’re only at 42 so they didn’t maximize that. But we would have had to combine products and gone to a different type of building in order to maximize that, or gone with a different developer. Again staff supports this because you know 6 parties that we talked to, we felt this was the strongest as far as design. And trying to balance that price point between North Bay and Bearpath. So with that, that’s kind of the rationale so we talked about this building being moved back 40 feet. So that would meet the setback requirements. Still needs the height City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 7 variance…shoreland regulations. These buildings along here would need to maintain the 50. There still is an encroachment on some of those, probably 10 feet. Not to the 30. And again this one would still need a height variance as would this building. Otherwise everything else would need a height variance. Mayor Furlong: Just to clarify, Building A you’re saying they’ve already modified to move that back. They were at 30. Now they’re at. Kate Aanenson: 42. Mayor Furlong: 42, and Building C would also be 42? It’s height back from both the north and east property line? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s just a small triangular piece and we’ll work through that through the design to make that work. Again the height of that… Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilman Peterson: So that means the variance is no longer. Kate Aanenson: But the setback on that site. Well the condominium project, it still would apply to the lower density on that and be smaller, and I think we want to make sure we get that clarified correct in the ordinance. This all, was late this afternoon that we got clarification on the height issues. That staff actually interpreted incorrectly. Mayor Furlong: I guess to clarify that. Would, if Building A is moved back to 42, which is it’s current proposed height, if the height variance is granted, then at 42 they would meet the setback. There would be no setback variance for A? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And staff is recommending that all the twin homes on, or townhomes on the east property line be pushed back to at least 50? Kate Aanenson: No. We would still support the variance on those, yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I thought those were already at 50. They’re not? Kate Aanenson: No, there’s a few that encroach in a line and that was part of, specifically on Lot 11. On Lot 11. You need to zoom in on that Nann. The line runs through the lot. There’s a small portion of probably 10 feet that would encroach in. Again the compromise is you can make it work but you’re, what you’re doing is reducing some of the green space. There’s some other, what we believe was some rationale basis for some of this. We have no condominium or apartment building in the city that has 2 underground apartments. Two underground parking spaces per unit. It’s a very unique building. Having said that, there also is typically when you have one underneath and one guest parking, you can share that opportunity for that guest parking City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 8 when someone’s gone for the day, so we felt strongly we can make sure, that because they have a beachlot and a common pool, that there was adequate parking for those uses too. So build up some of the parking. Could we go with less parking and make it meet the impervious? Yes, I guess. I think that would make it less inferior and… Another reason that the staff supported the variances, all the projects that we looked at, and meeting with the developers, this certainly far exceeded all the design standards as far as material and looks to anything we have in the city so again that was another rational basis that we felt like. And again, looking at the proximity, there is a beachlot across the street, so for this view shed here, and the distance between this and the homes we felt was adequate too for that, and looking at that…variance. I’ll let the developer again go through the units itself. I’ll just talk a little bit about the beachlot itself. There was some concern, actually the beachlot meanders quite a ways and borders the Eden Prairie side, kind of on the north, or southeast there. And some of the residents over there were concerned about having two beachlots. Two sand areas. The developer did agree, while it is permitted on the code, did agree to eliminate the one and just have the sand beachlot on the property here. It does, based on the area, and the, of the property itself and the shoreline regs, does meet the requirements to allow for 2 boats and up to 6 docks. So that’s common. I’m sorry, 6. Mayor Furlong: Two docks. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Two docks, 6 slips. Thank you. So that is common with some of the other beachlot associations that we have when we’ve approved that standard. Not just leaving a little…and adequate size to make that work, and we believe that’s a nice enhancement. The way it is being used right now is that, there is, it’s a non-conforming beachlot so by bringing this project forward, you’re actually bringing the beachlot into conformance. It’s non- conforming because there is an unmonitored boat launch there right now. So that would go away. All launching would have to be done at the, at a controlled situation on the Eden Prairie side. So we feel strongly that that’s a good thing that happens. Get that cleaned up. And more control. The association itself would manage that beachlot as opposed to right now it’s a little bit of a free for all out there, although we do try to regulate it… So any questions on the conditional use itself? Mayor Furlong: Questions? I guess for clarification. They’re still asking for the variance from the 1,000 foot? Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to address that? Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you. The beachlot itself is all association members of the association have to be within 1,000 feet. Not all associations meet that requirement. We think it makes sense to have everybody that belongs in this subdivision, belong to that association so we are recommending a variance on that. Mayor Furlong: And if I understood from the Planning Commission minutes, one of the reasons is by re, the requirement is 80% of the units have to be within that 1,000 feet, is that correct? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 9 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So by re-platting or moving the boxes around, they could meet that requirement. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Correct. And that also brings up another point. Actually Building C doesn’t fall within the shoreline district either. So it would fall into that height requirement, and I did include in your packet, in the update, we did include, we do have other apartment buildings. For example when we did Villages on the Pond, the PUD, the Lake Susan apartments which are in a shoreland district, that PUD was given an overall 50 feet in height and those apartments out there are 48.5 feet in height. So, and I also gave you a table with the other apartment buildings in town. The only one that we’ve approved recently at 35 feet was the most recent one we did at Gateway North. At the new intersection of 101 and 212. Otherwise everything else is 40 feet or above. So again I just want to reiterate the rationale for going with the PUD. The setbacks were actually less under the current zoning so. Mayor Furlong: And a point of clarification on the height. There’s a difference in terms of the height to the peak versus to the average. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: 42 to the average? Kate Aanenson: Or 41. 41.5. We just went to 42. I recommended they go to 42 just to be. Mayor Furlong: Okay, but that’s to the average. And that’s the same standard used for the other apartment buildings in the staff report? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Is to the average? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: So then we have actual. Kate Aanenson: And that’s the same as we’d measure a residential home. The same methodology. To the average peak. Mid point of the pitch of the roof. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And again, we didn’t feel like a flat roof was appropriate for this design so. So with that, I just want to point out on the conditions of approval. I know there’s a couple questions that came up. Building C was left out of the design. The condos in Building A, the more luxury, larger ones. In Building B, a little bit smaller. Building C, the architecture has to remain. We’re approving the PUD standards as the buildings are represented and as the City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 10 developer will show you tonight with the materials. Those are all set out in the staff report on the conditions. On page 25 of your staff report. A. So it says they must comply with the development standards. If you wanted to add Building C, that those would be the design standards. Approving, you’re approving the site plan but it is correct that Building C is not shown in the architectural detail but it’s, it would be our recommendation that it mirrors the other 3 materials. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Would that come through for final approval? Building C, that would come before us? Kate Aanenson: Yes, for site plan, correct. And you will see all of these back for final. Mayor Furlong: But would they have C completed by the final plat? Was that your question Councilwoman Tjornhom? Kate Aanenson: But what I’m saying is. Mayor Furlong: We can put the condition in there. Kate Aanenson: We had a, right. We have a footprint for C. No matter how it’s subdivided internally, it has to match externally, so it would look exactly like the other two buildings in material. The brick. The stone. The 80% brick and stone and that, and they’ve agreed to that. I just want to make sure that you feel comfortable and that it’s in the condition that way. Mayor Furlong: Which condition was that? Kate Aanenson: That’s on page 25. Condition A. Where we say, incorporating the development design standards and the staff report, we have design standards for all 3 products. The townhouses, the club house, and then the condominium building. I think we want to say buildings. And then we reference the two different, the site plan and then the building material which they’ll be going through here in just a minute. So this would be. Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying that would be in the A, the rezoning motion? If I’m following you correctly. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. This is building, this is how they’re represented. There isn’t a sheet for Building C so we’re saying it’s implied that these buildings look similar in style. That that Building C would be of similar materials. So I just want to clarify there are four motions then too. So one would be approving the rezoning. B would be the plat itself. Creating the lots. C would be the site plan approval, with the variances. And then again you need to modify the variances in the staff report. Including the different standards, the height of the condominium buildings. And then D would be the conditional use for the beachlot, with the variance which would include the entire project have access to the beachlot. Councilman Peterson: Kate do you want to talk to, or can you talk or would you rather have the applicant talk about the setbacks and the sight lines for the townhouses on the east property line? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 11 I’m trying to get a sense of what the sight lines are going to be with the elevations of those townhouses over there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think they can go through that while they’re going through the materials and…through their book. Otherwise if, when they’re done if you still have questions, I’d be happy to answer those. Mayor Furlong: We’ll probably have some more questions. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Unless there’s any right now. Did you want to address to staff? Go ahead. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, did you want to address the question with the trees? Kate Aanenson: Sure, and they’ll address that too but you know I didn’t point out that it did go to the Planning Commission on June 20th by a 5 to 1 vote. Majority of the Planning Commission believed that by granting the variances they got a superior project, except for there was one that was concerned about the height variance. The developer will talk about the trees. They’re working to try to save the trees. I know there’s one issue too and that was the trail on the Eden Prairie side. We want to make sure, I want to make sure we get that in the conditions and work through the language on that. That it’s our understanding that the trail still goes through, and that’s the one that goes out towards 212. Goes through…the Eden Prairie side, because they’ll be putting sidewalk and trails connecting to that too. Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Why don’t I invite the applicant up at this time and address the council. John Vogelbacher: Good evening. My name’s John Vogelbacher. I’m with Sienna Corporation and we’re the developer of the Lakeside community. I also brought a number of our plan books, if any of the council members or members of the audience would like to grab one of these books. It’s basically our, primarily our application, excluding the engineering sheets, but it does represent pretty much the whole scope of the project. If any of the audience members would like to come up and grab one of these, they’re more than welcome. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Vogelbacher, is that the same one that we got emailed to us? John Vogelbacher: Yes sir. I’ll try to be brief in my description of the project. I know that the council has had an opportunity to review this in a workshop and there have been some changes that we’ve made through the process over the last 6 weeks or so in terms of changes made to the project. Primarily one of the changes, when we first made our application and came to the council in the workshop was the trail that’s located on the eastern boundary of the Lakeside project. When we first came to the council we proposed that trail on the western boundary of the site. After review and application over at the City of Eden Prairie, they denied the application for us, or the plan for us to move that public trail you know in through our project, and so it’s located in Eden Prairie right on the eastern boundary of Lakeside. And so different than the City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 12 concept plan that we had shown you at that meeting, the trail is located on the east and there’s a landscape plan that is proposed for the trail itself. There’s also some re-grading of that area, and that is primarily for two purposes. One, to get the two sites to blend together so you have an attractive land feature on the western side of the golf club. And also to take the trail and drop it down so that it fits into the landform. It will eventually end up being over than what it currently would have been planned in the city of Eden Prairie. What the existing topography is out there now. Another modification was the condominium building A. That plan, if you recall, that was kind of more of a traditional double loaded building. Meaning a hallway down the middle and condominium units on both one side and either side of the hallway. Now this Building A, which is called the Heritage, is a single loaded corridor, meaning you have glass and an exterior façade on one side of the hallway and then you have condominium units on the other. There’s a total of right now the plan, this particular plan would indicate 39, although Mr. Harriss, the architect can elaborate. I think we’ve dropped that down now to 36 units. Very good looking building. 80% brick or stone in it’s fascia treatment. And one of the things we wanted to do there too was we wanted to put a roof on that building so that it fit more in terms of the residential setting that it was in. It is a 3 story building and again, as Kate had indicated, there’s 2 parking spaces for every, or actually in this particular building right now it’d be in excess of 2 spaces for every condominium unit. Other components of the project is the beachfront lot and we would like to combine the dock feature there into one dock and I believe by ordinance we’re allowed up to 6 boat slips. And what we’d have there is association owned and maintained boats for the use of the residents. A lot of nice features there down on the lake with landscaping, a gazebo, a lot of gardens and a beach, so that would be part of our amenity plan that’s on the lake. Another important component of the project is the center park that runs between the town homes and that has a 14 foot waterfall at the north end that has a 8 to 10 foot wide stream that runs from the north back down to the south and recirculates, so there are some photographs in the book in regards to that particular feature. The same company that built the stream at Windsong, which is a golf course on the west side of town. That’s Rabine Construction would be building that feature for our project. In our packet there’s a number of both private and public trails. We’d be installing a public trail on Lyman Boulevard, and it would connect to the Eden Prairie system. Bearpath would be constructing the Eden Prairie trail this year as well as the continuation of the Lyman Boulevard trail, which is on the north side. The Chanhassen trail, but that will continue down to the east, all the way down to Riley Creek on the north side of what is Riley Lake Road and would do a connection and so we’d have a whole series of trails that would eventually run and go up underneath 312 and over to Rice Marsh Lake and would create quite a very nice feature there for both our residents as well as residents in the area. We have 3 different products on the site. We have the condominium buildings which we’ve talked about. Charles Cudd would be doing the townhomes that are fronting the golf course, and those are twin homes. In the sense of moving this along, when the Planning Commission we had our builders give an expression and describe their units. I think what we’d like to do tonight maybe is hold off on that, and then if you have some questions about the style of the unit, or the look of the unit, we can certainly have each one of the builders, Steve Schwieters from Wooddale is here. Rick Denman from Charles Cudd, and John Harriss who is the architect for the condominium buildings is here as well, so they’d be able to address any questions you have in regards to those units. I think one of the issues that we had when we were at the Planning Commission was our neighbors to the west. The North Bay residents that were there. We had some storm sewer issues that was a concern of the residents and their ponding that’s on their property. We’ve City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 13 modified our storm sewer plan so that all of the storm water that comes off this site comes to our sedimentation and treatment pond which is on the south end of the site before it exits and goes through a series of pipes that runs over to a sedimentation pond that’s in the North Bay project, and with that we believe we’ll have a higher degree of water quality as it leaves the site. We’ll also have a pump and a recirculating irrigation system that would use that pond as it’s water source, which again I think will keep the water clarity of that pond at it’s highest level, and of course again I think assist in the type of clarity of water that would leave the site. As you know Sienna is the developer of Bearpath Golf and Country Club and another issue at the Planning Commission was the tree loss and the setback and the height of the condominium buildings as they’re related to residents that are in Bearpath. At Sienna we have met with the homeowners association and have met and talked with a number of residents on a number of occasions, and we have, believe that we have attempted as best we very can to address that. We’ve moved the building back and we’ve modified our emergency overflow grading plan which originally ran right behind Building A, and to describe it in engineering sense, we do have catch basins and storm pipe in the back yards of Cudd twin homes, but engineering requirements would provide that you must have an over surface emergency overflow for that any rain events that would let’s say over come or over spill your storm sewer system, or if you have a blocked catch basin. Where would the water go? So that, our preliminary plat submittal, that particular, this is… land behind Building A and to the south down to Lyman Boulevard. We’ve since gone back and looked at the engineering on that and modified that to take it back out to the street, which would be run between Building A and the twin home there. The first twin home to the north of Building A, and that allows us to keep the existing grade behind Building A at it’s existing condition. And so with that, what we have is the ability to save a number of different large significant trees that are behind that building. So in addition to the additional setback that we’ve provided for, that Kate had talked about, we’re also able to save 3 large significant trees that are within that corridor between the condominium building and the golf course. One is a 33 inch burl oak which is a magnificent tree. It’s a beautiful tree. It’s two 33 inch stems that come out of the base and it’s canopy is probably 150 feet of width and it’s probably maybe 40 to 50 feet tall. Right next to it is a 13 inch hickory. And then to the north is a 28 inch ash which is probably 60 feet tall, and I think these, this representation there is pretty accurate relative to the canopy of these trees. They’re significant. They’re large and I think it does provide for a screening or a buffering and a softening of this large building. As we talked to the residents of Bearpath, there’s no question that by building this building that the golfers, the residents, they’re going to see it. We believe it’s a very, very good looking building and it’s well done. It’s very high caliber building. We like the fact that there’s a roof on there because it gives you a lot of variance in the depth of the roof line itself. There’s probably as many as 12 to 15 valley’s and gables just on the face that overlooks the golf course. And we do believe that the trees that we’ve been able to preserve will soften that building and even help it set itself into the golf course in a much more attractive situation. Other than that I believe that the plan itself is pretty consistent with what we talked about at the Planning Commission and the workshop that we were at. I won’t necessarily go through all the different sheets in here. We do have a number of different illustrations in here and I guess what I’d like to do is maybe just answer any questions and sort of open that up. If any of our questions would be towards our builders, we can address that. I’m sure our Bearpath residents have quite a bit to say and we’re certainly, we welcome them. And if I can mention to you and to them, we’ve done really the very best we can to put an excellent, high quality project on this site. We tried to address their concerns the very best that City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 14 we can. This particular site, it’s made to have observation and views of the golf course. We think we’ve done it in a professional and high quality manner and we think that the landscaping that we provided will help mitigate some of the tree loss that occurs as we re-grade this area. We’re actually planting as many trees as we take down, and I think it’d be a very attractive and a benefit for the Bearpath community in the sense that something was going to happen on this property and we’re certainly as the golf course owners that we’re involved in it so we can do something that’s a very, very high quality. So I’ll just step away from the podium and let the council, if you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Vogelbacher. Councilman Peterson: John, going back to my earlier question. Can you paint us a picture of two things. I’d like to get some sense as to what the sight lines are going to be with the town houses on the east side, particularly the ones that are going into the setback area. You know there’s a berm out there now and there’s a fence on top of that. I guess I’m, I also want to get a sense of where the property line is. And then secondly, speak if you will about the trail on the Eden Prairie side and how many trees are going to have to be taken out because of that, if any. John Vogelbacher: The fence that’s currently on the site is not the property line. The fence is generally somewhere between 40 to 50 feet east of the Chanhassen boundary and our property line. So that’s a dimension relative to let’s say a perspective from looking at the golf course or looking at from a housing perspective, it’s really not the property line but it tends to kind of look that way when you see it. Our particular plan includes re-grading what would be the west side of that berm. Generally would not go any farther than the existing fence that’s there. In some areas it might but it’d be very marginal. Maybe 10 or 15 feet, and the purpose there is to, is to shape and combine these two properties together so that right now if you looked at the existing contours between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, you have steep slope. You have an irregular boundary that as the two sites come together and not very attractive. And this is a very high quality project. It’s at the very top end of the market, and for us to build something like this, we need to go and we need to re-shape that so it looks like a golf course. And so that would be what we would do. As it relates to the fence, we would take the fence down. It’s currently a chainlink fence and then we would install a new fence which would be an ornamental fence which is what you see on the Pioneer Trail. That’s the type of fence that’s a wrought iron looking fence. That fence would be set down below let’s say the top of the berm so that from a golfing perspective in many areas you would not even see the fence. On both sides of that fence we landscape so it’s attractive from the west side. From the Chanhassen side, and we also need to create kind of some separation between the public views, which is bound on the east by the fence, and of course we don’t have a, we’re not installing a fence on the west side or on the Chanhassen side, but we are installing trees and shrubbery to kind of define space so that there’s a public area and then there’s a private area which are the back yards of the townhomes and the rear side of Building A, the condominium. I hope I answered your question. Is that? Councilman Peterson: Well as a follow-up, just to give me a sense, as you walk out the rear of one of those townhomes, are you going to walk straight out and then kind of down to the fairway, just to give me a sight line view. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 15 John Vogelbacher: Yeah, the berm stays just as it is today and so that, the top of that berm, let’s say at it’s highest point is around 916 and that would be about the elevation of our street. So the first floor elevation of the townhomes is at about the elevation of the top of the berm. And those are walkout units so the trail and the landscaping and the re-shaping of the golf course on it’s western side would be pretty much at back yard grade. Or down lower. Might be a little higher in some areas, and what we’re trying to do is we’re just trying to keep with the existing grade the best that we can. Re-shape it and then in some areas again there’s not a very large berm on the golf course. It’s almost at grade, and so in some areas you won’t see the ornamental fence from the golf course. Not much different than what you see today. But primarily most of the perspective from the housing and from the golf course, you would not see the fence at all from the golf course. I hope that answered your question. Councilman Peterson: Yeah it did. What about the trail on the Eden Prairie side and the number of trees that might have to be removed? John Vogelbacher: Generally to re-shape the property we would take out primarily most of the trees that are inbetween Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Right now there’s 4 significant trees and Eden Prairie has a different code relative to how they categorize tree loss and what they ask developers to do. So right now there are 4 trees within Eden Prairie that we would be required to inventory, and of those 4, 3 of them are the ones that I had shown on this plan that we’d be saving. And the fourth one is farther to the north and would be right in this drainage area that we have to create, and that’s also another issue is to get the water out of that site you really have to re-grade that property in the back so that you have overflow storm water protection for the residents that are in Chanhassen. A lot of the trees that are in through there, they’re box elder. Quaking aspen. Elm. You know there are some trees there, I’m not disputing that there are trees in there and they do provide foliage and a back drop for the residents as they look across from Eden Prairie or from Bearpath back to the west. In terms of the type of trees that they are, many of them are, are not very good trees. It’s, and in fact we do have a complete inventory of all the trees that are through there. So the significant trees that we have, those 3 of the 4 we’re saving and I’d also mention that none of the trees on the golf course come down. Anything that’s on the east side of the fence, you know isn’t graded. It’s the golf course is what it is and there’s probably 50 or 60 trees from tee to green on the golf course itself that are east of the fence. Councilman Peterson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have some questions regarding Building A and the public parking spot. How did you come to that calculation? I count what, 12, 13? Is that enough? I know there’s underground parking for the residents but for visitors, was there some sort of equation you used to decide that was how many you needed? Or you needed. John Vogelbacher: Well it exceeds the code requirements for parking. Our plan does. And what we’ve done is we’ve, our particular project is total property is the condominium, so unless you’re in a townhome where you have a driveway, all parking throughout the property is available for any resident from any building. And so there is additional parking on the street as City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 16 you come in, that is in front of Building B. And there’s additional parking on the street as you go back up towards the townhomes, quite a bit. And so I mean is there enough guest parking for Building A? I think in some instances, no. There wouldn’t be but there’s certainly enough in the immediate area that people have a place to park and they’d have to walk maybe 100 or a couple hundred feet, but there’s plenty of guest parking on that property and it certainly exceeds the code requirement. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is there parking along the streets Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes. That was one of the issues that we did spend quite a bit of time on because it meets the parking requirements as a whole, but we know because there’s a pool amenity that some people may choose to drive down and park next to that. Also that if there was activities where people had guests that you wanted to have enough, so we looked at a couple different iterations of parking where it was kind of more located at one end of the project, but we felt it made more sense to equally distribute that so because they are private streets, there is parking in front. It’s pretty much equally distributed. Certainly as you get down towards Building C, we also made sure that there was adequate visitor parking on there too so there is on street parking also. John Vogelbacher: And you might not be able to tell by the illustration but in front of all the townhome buildings, there is parallel parking and kind of curb bump outs. So the street was kept narrow and that I think is for the purpose of kind of creating some ambience and reducing traffic speed within the project, but there are bump outs pretty much for every building to provide additional on street parking. And Building C, B and A, they all have guest parking and there is a large bank of parking right behind Building B there right as you come into the project. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Lundquist: John, sight lines for A, or A’s going to be, Building A, those first four units would be at grade at the top of the berm as well, like the town? John Vogelbacher: Generally yes. Yes, that elevation, the first floor elevation there is 910. And then the grade there at the golf course is at about the same elevation. Councilman Lundquist: And C as well, along that same? The building in the back will be roughly where the level of the golf course is at that point too? John Vogelbacher: You know I’m not sure that I know that the plan grade is 917 for Building C, but Kate you might have to help me on that. I’m not sure what the grade is at the golf course at the far north end there. I think it falls off a little bit. The tee is a little higher but there’s a pond back behind the tee and the grade kind of slopes back down to the north. Kate Aanenson: You’re at 907 looks like for the. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think that where you enter into the garage. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 17 Kate Aanenson: Finished floor 917. John Vogelbacher: Yeah, it looks to me like the golf course just directly east of the condominium C is at 910. So the building, first floor would be about 7 feet above that. Councilman Lundquist: As we look, and Kate we have a variance for, we’re looking at a variance for height on Building B as well? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: And that one has a flat roof? Kate Aanenson: Um yes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And that variance over the 35 feet, so that’s four story? John Vogelbacher: Yes. Yes, Building B is 48 feet in height. If we can get in closer to that right there but Building B is 48 feet at this point right here, at the main roof of the Building B. And again what we’ve done there is on the western boundary we’ve stepped that building down, because as you get closer to the North Bay residents, that we’ve addressed that. Those are actually garden floors there on that end of the building where we’ve got shrubbery and plantings on the roof itself, and so as you get to review an elevation of Building B as it relates to the North Bay residents, this particular illustration gives you an idea of what happens because of that step down in the building. So as you’re in the front yard or driving down the street, as you look back towards that building, the landscaping and the step down of the building provides that the actual height of the building is very difficult to view from that western side of the project. Councilman Peterson: What about the eastern side? What are going to see from Bearpath as you look at that building, anything? John Vogelbacher: I don’t believe you’ll see Building B from Bearpath. I don’t believe so. Mayor Furlong: I guess that was my question. It looks like on page 11 of the handout it shows A and B there, if I’m correct. Is it true because of the topography that B, even though it’s 4 stories is lower than the 3 story building? John Vogelbacher: Well I just think if we drew an elevation of that, the home sites over in Bearpath are at around 900. The first floor elevations of the homes that are across the fairway, there’s about 7 residence that look out back toward the east, or towards the west. That first floor is right at about 890. And so right now Building A actually, just by grade there is at that 910. And so if you kind of draw a line through there, you’d just be looking over the top of Building A or the townhomes. I don’t believe you’ll see, you might see a little bit of B but I don’t think very much. We haven’t done a profile of that but just by the grades there, it seems to be very difficult. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 18 Councilman Lundquist: The condos that are along, or the townhouses that are along the fifteenth fairway, what do we have opportunity there to push those back out of that setback as well? Will we give up green space between the two units or two types of homes if we squeeze them along the babbling brook? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yes. Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question is, what’s, how far in? What’s the effect? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah we’re what, 10 or 12 feet or so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, just on 11 and 10. Councilman Lundquist: Two end ones. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, correct. Councilman Lundquist: Now are those at 41 foot setback or 50? Kate Aanenson: To get to the, they would be 50. They would need to be 50 because it’s a low density according to the PUD, so I think it’s, you could shorten up the driveway possibly on 10. It’d be building 11 would be really the one that’d probably need that 10 foot variance. Councilman Lundquist: And the, look at alternatives on A. Well I guess along all of that too. I mean obviously if you want to live along the golf course, you want to see the golf course but those people who live across the other side don’t really want to see you looking at the golf course right. So do we have any opportunity to look at that grading so that those, the first four units wouldn’t have a full view of the golf course. You drop that down a few feet to drop the level so the buildings and reduce that sight line from across the fairway. John Vogelbacher: Well no, and you could. I mean you very well could. You could…so you might not see any of the project. We could. But then we don’t have a project. I mean that’s a very integral part of the design of the project and it’s value that’s there. You’ve got units there that are $800,000 to $900,000 for a half of a twin home. Part of that is you know they want to see the golf course. And so that’s part of the whole component of what makes the project what it is, is the ability to attract Charles Cudd to build those units is directly related to having a view of the golf course. I would like to address that. You know the fence itself, which is let’s say for purposes of identifying what’s the golf course and what’s on the other side of the fence. That dimension from the property line is 40 to 50 feet. And you add another 30 feet at a very minimum. In some cases 40 to 50 feet with the townhomes, really from a viewing perspective, that building is actually back from what is currently considered a golf course as much as 80 to 90 feet. And I would say from the center line of the golf hole, there probably isn’t any property in Bearpath that is that far back from the center line of the golf hole. This is a very big, wide fairway. It’s the biggest fairway and the biggest corridor we have on the golf course, and so I think from a perspective of let’s say crowding the golf course or creating a tunnel, that won’t happen and we didn’t do that purposely. I mean we certainly designed it, and in fact two City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 19 condominium buildings really only make up about 30% of the frontage on the fairway. The rest of it is single story, walkout ramblers which will be as nice as anything you’ll see in Bearpath. If not nicer. In terms of the attached product that’s designed for this subdivision. So the Charles Cudd units are very, very good looking. They’re first class. They’re designed architecturally on all four sides. Very good looking buildings. I could have Rick give you a better description of it, which he could, but we’re very pleased with that product and we think from the viewing perspective from across the fairway, it’d be very attractive and good looking. Councilman Lundquist: Right now, I mean right now there’s nothing. So it will be a change looking at that 15, across the fifteenth obviously. John Vogelbacher: Yeah, there is 5 apartment buildings. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. But you can’t see them from the fairway. John Vogelbacher: Not very much. No you can’t. Councilman Lundquist: And so now the view from the lake. If I, across, let’s say across the lake. Looking at these, what’s my, what’s that going to look like from across the lake versus what’s there now. Those frontages of buildings A and B primarily I’m assuming is what you’re going to see. John Vogelbacher: Well I think you’ll see, I think you’ll see the buildings you know. They’ll be certainly muted by the trees that are on the lake. I mean there’s a lot of big hardwoods. Oaks and maples along the lake. And those would stay. We don’t have any plans to take those down. We’d like to certainly clean up the lakeshore. Make it attractive. And so I think certainly you’re going to see those buildings but for example Building B is probably as far back as 300 feet back from the lake. Considerable distance back from the lake. You know A is a little bit closer but still the amount of foliage that’s on the lake I think will provide an ample amount of screening so that you know it’s not as if we’ll be able to see the whole building. In fact it will be very much muted. Councilman Lundquist: When you see the apartment, Kate can you see the apartment building from the lake now? I guess I’ve never. Kate Aanenson: They’re set back a little bit further. John Vogelbacher: I don’t think you can. I don’t think you can see the apartments from the lake. I don’t believe so. Councilman Lundquist: That’s good. Mayor Furlong: Good for now? Councilman Lundquist: Yep. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 20 Mayor Furlong: Building C. John. We don’t have anything specific on that one. That’s also a 3 story building, is that correct? John Vogelbacher: That’d be 4 story. Mayor Furlong: That’s 4 story? John Vogelbacher: With a flat roof, yes. I think Kate had mentioned, it was going to have a pitched roof. Kate Aanenson: Oh I’m sorry, yep. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry? John Vogelbacher: It will be a building very similar to Building B. Very similar in style… Mayor Furlong: Okay, I thought I saw in the Planning Commission it was similar to A. John Vogelbacher: …with parapets and a flat roof. Mayor Furlong: Has that always been that case even when we talked about the concept? I thought in the Planning Commission minutes that it said it was more similar to A, so that’s why I’m asking the question. John Vogelbacher: Yeah, no. It’d be more similar to B. And in fact I think in the past what we’ve always thought would be a reasonable, would be as we come back through with a site plan review would be to leave Building C open so that the council could review our plans. Look at what we’re doing and again what we’re representing is it would be very similar in terms of architectural and building materials to Building B. And in fact actually Building B and A are very similar. One just has a flat roof and the other one has a pitched roof on it. But in terms of the way the buildings will look, the materials will be very, very similar. Mayor Furlong: So that would, if we go forward with this, Building C would have to come back for a site plan? Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you wanted to do it that way. But what we’re saying with approval of this document, even when it comes back for site plan, it’s still be included in the design standard of this development. So it would still have to be materially on the outside, but you still may want to look, talk about…later that you want to do a different type of roof. So things that you can look at. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Just one quick again. You currently own the property now, right? John Vogelbacher: Yes. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 21 Councilman Lundquist: And timing or planned timing for what you’re thinking about getting into the ground yet this year or wait until the spring or? John Vogelbacher: Well I’ll give you an update on what we’re doing with the tenants that are there. We didn’t quite get into covering that but I’d like to express that it was important to us to manage that in the very best way possible so when we purchased the building there was just a little over 100 residents in the building and what they are currently on is a month to month lease. All of them. But the lease provides for a 60 day notice, which we’ve done so they all have the right to stay in the building for 60 days. To date we have probably about 45 residents in the building and those 55 that have left probably have on average received somewhere between $1,200 to $1,500 cash when they vacate their apartment. We provided a truck to help them move. We give them their security deposit back immediately. We give them, we had a nice little cookout for them. Hot dogs and ice cream and had a neighborhood meeting, and provided them with resources and lists of places that they can go look at. We’ve had interpreters on the property and people that we can contact to help, 80%, 90% of the residents are Hispanic. Many of them do not speak English, so that’s gone very well, and we’re pleased with them. We’ve got a ways to go yet but what our timing would be would be to obtain a vacant building within the next 2 to 3 weeks. And then what we’d like to do is apply for our demolition permit and start to tear the buildings down and start our project. We’d like to start our project with the buildings there. We have a townhome building we’d like to start. They would all be outside the realm of the apartment building itself. I believe that the property owner, if you were desiring to add onto the apartment building, which you could on that site because there’s probably only 35% of that site’s actually developed. I mean certainly an apartment would be able to add onto his building without actually having to vacate the building, so we realize there’s some safety issues with that and we would provide and work with the staff a safety plan to do that, but that’s what we’d like to do in terms of timing is to receive our preliminary plat approval and go through a developer’s agreement. Submit a final plat and start our project is what we’d like to do. We would like to have our streets and our utilities and our amenities in by the end of the year. Councilman Lundquist: And then A, I’m assuming A goes in first? John Vogelbacher: We’re not sure. We have some situations there where we’ve got some sales that we have to achieve in the building and so that may occur in the fall. Maybe next spring. The townhome buildings we would start you know right away. And so the condominium is really more market driven than the townhomes. Mayor Furlong: I guess follow up question. John you mentioned storm water and the changes you made. I guess for engineering staff. Who reviewed that and do we concur with the changes that they made in terms of redirecting the storm water to the pond on site and the emergency overflow or is that something that still needs to be reviewed? Paul Oehme: I think we’re pretty close to that final design so we’ve looked at it from engineering standpoint and you know we were comfortable with where the water’s going. We still need to get some additional modeling I think from the developer but all indications are that it should be adequate. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 22 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I think that addresses some of the issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting? Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this time? Very good, thank you. I guess what I would like, and stay close John. We’ll probably have some other things to say, and Kate too. Some people have requested the opportunity to address the council in public and I certainly want to honor those requests. The official public hearing occurred at the Planning Commission. I know many of you were there, but to the extent that there’s a desire to speak to the council, I certainly want to do that. What I would ask from an efficiency standpoint is if there are issues of common concern, have an individual address those issues rather than having multiple people come up and re-state the same issue for expediency sake. But at this point I would open up the podium for some public comment, at least for a limited time here and invite interested parties to come forward. Please state your name and address. Depending on the nature of your discussion, we may have the applicant or staff address some of your concerns. Scott Frederiksen: Hello. My name is Scott Frederiksen. I’m a resident of Bearpath. I’m also part of the firm Welsh Companies. We’re a large commercial real estate firm. I’ve been elected to speak on behalf of a number of the residents. Not maybe all of them but. I think it’s fair to say that as a resident of Bearpath that we would be hard pressed to pick this development apart and say it’s not a nice development. Clearly we’re probably aligned with your goals, and that is to get rid of that apartment building and redevelop the site into something more palatable and more presentable in the city. We’ve got issues. Some of the issues came up at Planning Commission and some of them revolve around how it was handled. We were kept in the dark on this thing. Many of us heard about it for the first time when we got our notice from the Planning Commission and although we found out later that the, they were in workshops with City Council and staff and stuff for over a year. Nobody ever came and talked to us about it, and obviously that’s disappointing. There’s significant broken promises that exist with result of those trails. Craig you asked about how many of the trails, or the trees are being kept. There’s between 50 and 100 trees. They’re keeping 3 so you know they’re, John used the term at planning committee, we’re going to clear cut it basically so they’re clearly going to come in there and level all the trees. When we built our homes along Bearpath, we were told by Sienna when that site ever gets developed, those trees will stay. That will be a natural buffer. We can add to those trees. We can do all kinds of things to protect your homes in Bearpath from being basically looked down upon from the other side. So now they secretly kind of come and under cloak and dagger propose this development that we hear about, but I’m not going to talk about the trees so much tonight because that really is outside of the realm of Chanhassen since a lot of it is sitting in Eden Prairie. I want to talk about the variances a little bit, and ironically I kind of feel like the residents of the apartment buildings are being treated a little better than the residents of Bearpath by Sienna. I don’t, you talked about the green space a little bit and your desire to have green space but clearly rezoning this as a PUD in order to get better impervious surface coverage, so it would seem to me that if you were concerned about green space, you wouldn’t go to a PUD. You would leave the existing zoning which wouldn’t allow as much impervious surface coverage of this so, they needed the PUD in order to really cover it with more road, parking lot, City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 23 things like that. Streets, but they have the benefits of the existing zoning. They don’t want to live with the setbacks of height, or setback from the property line. They don’t want to live with the height setbacks. They want the benefits of the PUD, but they really don’t want to live with the restrictions that it places on the property. I haven’t heard anyone really talk about why the variances need to be granted. I came up with a short list while I was sitting there of 6 reasons why you wouldn’t grant the variances. Number one, there’s absolutely no public benefit to any of the variances they’re requesting. Number two, there’s really no undue hardship, and if you go to Minnesota State Statute, which many of you got an e-mail from us, there’s a little phrase in there that says, economic considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship. So clearly economics are driving the request of the variances. They want to put the building as close as they possibly can to the golf course. They want to build it as tall as they possibly can to maximize the density, but there’s really no economic reasoning for the variance. Number three. It really doesn’t meet any of the criteria that are outlined in your Chanhassen City Code. If you go to your code, Section 20-58.3 it says that variances can only be granted if the purpose of the variance is not based on a desire to increase the value or income potential of a parcel of land. And so just looking back at your own code you say in your code that you can’t do it if the desire’s to increase the value, and clearly that’s what they’re trying to do here. They’re trying to maximize the profit. The fourth reason is that there’s significant case law all over Minnesota that opposes granting these variances, and Ken Ross sent the City Council and staff a bunch of e- mails with a long list of case law that clearly states that you can’t grant them. Number five, if you pass them, there was a recent ruling by the Minnesota Attorney General that said that that may in fact become defacto code in your city, and I’m not sure you want to do that, so all of a sudden you pass it tonight and rah rah. We get our development and Sienna gets to proceed, but then you’ve got serious repercussions going forward. Firms like mine or Ryan or Opus who are going to come in here and want that same treatment going forward, because we’re going to want the same thing. We’re going to want any time we have an opportunity to get more profit, to get the same variances that you’re going to grant Sienna. And then number six, and I think this is significant. They’re going to go forward with or without these variances. They did something almost unheard of. They closed on the property before they got the zoning or the approvals, and that’s something that in my world, in the development community, almost never happens. We never close on land until we get all our approvals. Well they know darn well that with or without these variances they’re going to go forward and build something over there because there’s just a massive amount of profit that they stand to garner here and so, if you just take simple math and you say 230 units, conservatively a half a million dollars a unit. And roughly 20% of that value’s allocated toward land, that’s $23 million dollars. They might have 10 or 11 into the apartment building and demolition and site work so, you know it’s going to be 10 to 12 million dollars that they’re going to make on this development so, whether or not they get 13 more units on the top of Building A, or whether or not that thing is 5 feet further back clearly isn’t going to determine whether or not they go forward. They might make 9 instead of 13 million dollars but they’re going to make a significant amount of money. So what would make sense to me is to just take off the top 13 units of Building A. Put it back where it’s supposed to be per the PUD and make it a 2 story building and maintain the vaulted roofs and everything else and I think it would significantly change the whole appearance. You’ve got a building that starts at the highest point on the property and then goes up 50 feet from there, so you’re going to be down on this golf course and you’re going to look at this couple hundred foot wide building, 50 feet above the highest point in the area and it’s going to be ridiculous looking. It’s going to change the whole City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 24 character of the neighborhood, not only on our side, but from Lake Riley. From the other side of Lake Point. I mean it’s going to look weird, and everybody’s going to go after the fact. By gosh, I can’t believe we really passed that thing. Look at that. You can see that from half the city so, I think you’ve got to look hard at that and really think twice about it before you pass it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Ron Case: Mayor, council members. Chanhassen residents and particularly Eden Prairie residents. My name is Ron Case and I serve on the Eden Prairie City Council and I’ve been on for 12 years. I don’t usually stand on this side. It’s somewhat intimidating so I suppose some of you should try that sometime. I particularly want to greet tonight Councilmember Craig Peterson. He and I serve on the Southwest Metro Transit Commission and I just want to say to all the residents of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, he does a really great and fair job as Chair of that commission so he represents all of us very well. I think probably a decade ago or so there was an issue that came before the Eden Prairie City Council regarding some land that was to the west of Highway 169 as it comes into 494 and a lot of people don’t realize 169 makes a jog there, and actually creates a little pocket of Bloomington land on the west side of 169, and we had an issue up there where we were putting in a fairly large building on Anderson Lake and the Bloomington residents were really upset, and I did go out and meet with them and pretty much go door to door, and although they couldn’t vote for me and they weren’t officially my constituents, I did, I hope at least in their mind, I treated them like their opinions mattered, and it should be clear tonight to all of you that this issue certainly matters to Eden Prairie residents. And although I know that you can do whatever is legal, my request tonight of you would be that you would treat this project approval as if both Sienna projects were within your city limits. And I hope you feel that it’s also ethically important, as I think I’ve heard you say and from your questions you’ve very well with this, ethically important to at least try to help the residents of Eden Prairie understand why you feel this it the best project and in their best interest as well as Chanhassen residents. And the only issue I’d like you to take really closer look at is to really demand transitional screening. The kind that you really would require if both projects were in Chanhassen and if you transition townhomes, even though they are $800,000 townhomes, onto a golf course or next to a golf course with multi million dollar homes so, I would really ask that you be very careful on that transitioning so, good luck. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Bruce Carlson: Hi. My name’s Bruce Carlson and I’m a resident of Bearpath as well. I really, other than support for what’s already been said, wanted to raise the issue of whether or not you put for the requirement for any sort of bonding for completion of the project. I think that it would be in the interest of Chanhassen of having a viable project that generates tax revenue as the residents you anticipate supporting your merchants and adding to the…of the community, that everything get done that you anticipate being done. And whereas the builders here, Wooddale and Charles Cudd have extended reputations, Lakeside LLC is, as far as I know, brand new. Unproven, and in many cases, as I’m sure you’ve seen before, you have entities created just to do a project. And largely that’s done to insulate past successes from either the investors or the other organizations so that if there’s any failure, that those assets are not used or required to complete a project. I think in light of the fact that the condominium and townhouse market, City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 25 the real estate markets are softening. How far that’s going to go is unknown. There’s a lot of concern about higher financing and whether or not we will see the demand that will be required to fill this project so I would urge the council, in their best interest as well as our’s, I think the worst thing that could be happening is if they go ahead, clear cut everything. Start the project and are unable to finish it so I would advocate that you give great consideration to having a bond so that everybody can be assured that the projects get done in a manner that you’re anticipating in any approval. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else. Ms. Lloyd you had said earlier you wanted to, oh. Sorry. Wally Anderson: Yeah, my name is Wally Anderson. I live at 9014 Lake Riley Road, and I welcome Sienna Corporation doing something, but my big concern with the 234 units, John mentioned there’s 100 people living in apartments there now and we have an absolute Nastrack raceway coming down Lake Riley Road. And more than once people have come close to getting killed walking on that road. So I would urge that we didn’t have that many units. I’d like to see them do something with it but I’m a bit worried about the bigness of the project. Okay. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Just stay close. We’ll keep it moving. Tom Bastasz: Good evening. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Tom Bastasz: My name is Tom Bastasz. I’m a resident of Chanhassen at 179 Lakeview Road. As you know that’s in the North Bay Addition which is 76 individual homes immediately to the west of the planned Lakeside development. I currently serve as President of the North Bay Homeowners Association. When we first learned of this very large development we had some concerns, and I’m pleased to report that the concerns that we’ve had have been answered in our belief quite well. We believe that the setback that Sienna Corporation has provided on the eastern side of our property, along with the landscaping in their plan, would be very compatible with the homes on the eastern side of our property. We appreciate the setbacks that they have made on the condominium Building B so that there’s not a massive appearance for our North Bay residents in that area. And finally there was a potentially serious problem, in our opinion, with stormwater runoff which Sienna Corporation has agreed to answer to the best of our satisfaction. So in sum, we believe that this development would be good neighbors and we recommend that the City Council approve the development as proposed. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I really kind of reorganized my thoughts as I was sitting there tonight so, Miss Detail here. On the west elevation of the condominium building, it looks as though the elevation is 58 feet 6 inches. Mayor Furlong: What page number is that? Kate Aanenson: It’s the average grade. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 26 Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry? Kate Aanenson: We take it from average grade so. That’s just one plan perspective so. Debbie Lloyd: So one perspective it’s 58 feet 6 inches. Kate Aanenson: At one peak, correct. Debbie Lloyd: Well, and one side of the entire building. I just think that’s important to know. Councilman Peterson: That’s building, which building are you looking at? Debbie Lloyd: The west elevation of condominium B. Kate Aanenson: It’s from average grade and that’s a separated building. Debbie Lloyd: I think the average grades, the parapet discussion in the staff report isn’t according to the way the code reads about the gable and I think that you thing you’re approving 48 feet, and then you realize it’s 58 feet on one side, that’s a big difference. Okay. Another question I have is, what do, how do we know what the impervious surface coverage is if the OHW isn’t on at the preliminary plat. The OHW is supposed to be on the preliminary plat. The OHW defines where the area is that you can measure for the land, and I think that is, I brought this up before about the preliminary plat not being complete. I don’t think you should approve a preliminary plat without all the details on it. There are many changes on the plan tonight that are not officially recorded. I think you get into a dangerous area there when you proceed like that. The justification for rezoning to PUD. For our comprehensive plan it states it should provide a full range of housing opportunities. To rezone, a balanced housing supply…available for people of all income levels. Boy, I don’t see the benefit of this PUD relating to those…of our comprehensive plan. And in the staff report page 19, it does say that the project provides diversity in housing types to accommodate individual taste and expectations. Taste and expectations. That’s not what our comprehensive plan reads. Someone else mentioned traffic. No mention of a traffic study with the increased units. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, just to clarify. Didn’t we have that information in our staff report? Debbie Lloyd: You did? Kate Aanenson: Yes, it’s in the staff report. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I must have missed that one. I guess my first question tonight is, I was going to beg the question. Why so many variances? Why do we want to do this? What’s in it for Chanhassen? In the findings of fact, point 7. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts. I’m not going to read point A. You know what it reads. Undue hardship. Then I read, 7(d). The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to the city City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 27 expectations and requirements for the redevelopment of the site. I would say city, who? City staff? City Council? Who? I as a citizen would really like to know. It’s a beautiful development. I’m not from Eden Prairie. I’m not, I have concerns about Bearpath neighborhood but that’s not my main concern. It’s all these variances we continue grant. You’ve heard me dub before one of our developments here Varianca. It’s going to become the City of Varianca. Not just a development of Varianca. I guess I’m getting more emotional tonight than I planned to but I just really hope that you deliberate hard about this and think about what is the intent behind this. What about shoreland regulations and the 30 foot height? 35 foot height. What about the OHW? What about the high impact? We’re going to higher density with this development. What is the City really gaining? I guess tax revenue. I guess higher class citizens because we don’t see that diversity in housing. I just want to know really, what is the intent? What are we really trying to do? And who’s driving it? Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? I guess what I’d like to do, and thank you. Appreciate everyone’s involvement. I’d also like to thank a number of individuals from both cities that sent e-mails and made phone calls to the council members. We appreciate you taking the time to do that. It helps us focus in on some issues for your interest so I do appreciate not only the comments here this evening, but also everyone that sent e-mails to the council and contacted us by other means. With that I guess I would like to follow up and I didn’t keep, perhaps didn’t keep a comprehensive list here. I tried to with some of the comments but I would like to get some feedback from the applicant and staff on some of the issues raised, and so I certainly welcome other councilors to ask questions as well. I guess there were a number of issues about ordinance and what constitutes a variance. I guess perhaps Mr. Knutson, if I could go to you first. Hardship, that seems to come up quite a bit in terms of what’s required. Also issues on, there were some issues raised on case law and such like that. I guess the first question if you can give us some guidance with regard to hardship, other issues in granting a variance, and then also if there are any concerns under any of the case issues. Roger Knutson: Thank you Mayor. I’ll just briefly read part of the statute, just telling to the point. Undue hardship is used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question can not be put to any reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. ...word strange enough is, not put to any reasonable use. That means you don’t look to determine whether without the variance they have no reasonable use, or they have a reasonable use. It doesn’t matter under the standard whether even without a variance would have a reasonable use. The question is, is the proposed use, is what they’re asking to approve a reasonable use. That’s been established in Minnesota case law for 20 years. I think that’s clear. There’s a lot of misunderstanding. A lot of people interpret that to mean, understand it to mean that if you have a reasonable use without the variance, you’re not entitled to a variance. Not so. Again the question is, is the proposed use reasonable. And that is for the council to determine. And I’ve got a bunch of case law if you want to read it… Mayor Furlong: Okay, thanks fine. There were other issues raised and I guess the question is, and at this point with regard to the proposal that’s being brought here and concerns at this point with regard to defacto changes and other ordinances. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 28 Roger Knutson: Under the courts and attorney general in 1991 and just bottom line is it’s not relevant to what you’re talking about here tonight. The question that the attorney general was asked to answer, may the City fail…to enforce their comments with zoning ordinance by ignoring them. And the AG says, no. You shouldn’t ignore your ordinances. Follow the law. Mayor Furlong: Alright. There were issues about assuring performance and the question… Kate Aanenson: And I have a couple I’d like to add to that one too. Yep. That was one of the reasons why we recommended the PUD because the PUD locks in the architectural standards, so if Charles Cudd walked away, someone else would come in and have to build that same product because that’s what we approved. That product. That’s what we’re approving. That look. That style on the exterior, so that’s what we’re approving, and that was again one of the benefits that we wanted and we’ve learned through the history of time, a letter of credit was required by the public improvements and that would also include landscaping and the like. If I can just segway to the density issue. This project is coming in under the allotted density. It’s 25 acres gross. It’s allowed 12 units an acre. The point I was making at the very beginning, the residents may feel like we’ve been working with Sienna for a year. We haven’t. It’s been less than 6 months. We’ve been working with a lot of different developers hot and cold over the last few years. Actually probably going back 4 years ago, 5 years ago, the underlying property owner, Mr. Liefschultz actually was looking at redeveloping the site and leaving the existing buildings in place and try to retrofit and looking at doing a tax credit project, and that was one of the proposals. Again we’ve always tried to look at how do we balance between the two projects that we have in place, and looking at a different price point. This project comes under the allotted density. It’s not maximizing it. While there’s only 100 residents there now, and there’s over 100, or closer to 200 units and trust me, there’s more than that in the units. There’s more than 100, while there’s 167 units there, there’s a lot more people than that living there, so that traffic is probably going to be equal to or less than probably what’s going in place, so you have to kind of keep that in balance. Again the reason that we recommended the PUD to keep in place is underneath the density requirement, and we wanted to come in with a different look. We wanted to, again we said that the side yard setbacks right now are 10 foot. While this property, the buildings right now are set back quite a ways back, and the parking is close to that current property line. So we’re trying to work within that framework of coming up with a project that kind of meets both sides needs. Both the project in North Bay and Sienna so we really were the ones, if we want to be the ones to holler at, we were the ones that steered the developer towards the PUD. They were…as far as trying to get the, through the approval process but we felt that was a way to assure that we get the quality that we’ve been committed to. That the one gentleman spoke to. And that we get that assurance. We’re getting the project that we expect. So we felt the trade off’s for that, again looking at getting greater setbacks than we would have. Again as I indicated, we would have had a different type of product had we stick with the underlying zoning. We saw a lot of apartments. A lot of back to back to townhouses. Again we’re trying to get something besides that product in this area. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, what’s the hard cover. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 29 Kate Aanenson: Under the current zoning? Councilman Lundquist: The R-12. Kate Aanenson: 35%. And this is coming in at 42, so they’re slightly over. Mayor Furlong: But with the PUD, what’s allowed under PUD? Kate Aanenson: 50. Mayor Furlong: 50. So, my issue was raised about calculating that without. Kate Aanenson: We’ll double check on that. The OHW. I didn’t look through the entire plans. I didn’t catch that at the Planning Commission. That that was an issue, but we’ll certainly check on that. They meet all the setbacks. I’m not sure it’s going to be an issue as far as the impervious but we’ll, and again as I said, we could take off some of that interior parking but we believe again that that’s the thing that makes it an interesting project, and we spent a lot of time looking at those specific issues. The hard cover. What were the trade off’s and you know what we want to represent, the staff, is bringing forward to you the best project that we can do, and we felt like compromising to say, well we’re just going to say meet the standards and then compromise on that. We didn’t think that was the best way to go so we, the staff recommended the deal for the variance. Had it not been the shoreline district, as we indicated before, we have PUD’s and apartment buildings throughout the city that are in excess of 40 feet. The senior housing project, when we did that rezoning right next to the single family neighborhood overlooking the creek, similarly with it’s... As well the apartments on Lake Susan. They sit up high. Those people love those views. They’re very well received. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let me see, we’re talking about units. Traffic. Although we did have a traffic study, I guess just comment briefly on that. What’s the expectation there? Paul Oehme: Minimal traffic increases from the trips. I think the projection was a little over 200 trips per day. Audience: Mayor? When was the traffic study done? ...in June. Believe me, I’m out there every day… Paul Oehme: The report’s dated June 8th. Mayor Furlong: June 8th? Okay. Kate Aanenson: To be clear too on that, on the safety issues, we’ve got sidewalks on all of our projects. There is no sidewalk on the Eden Prairie side, which we have discussed with them. City of Eden Prairie. Mayor Furlong: Alright. There’s a question about…and I guess maybe this is a question for the applicant in terms of trees again. I think that was raised by Councilman Peterson. Where the City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 30 current fence is. That basically defines the western portion of the golf course, is that correct? But not necessarily the property line. Property line’s an additional 40 to the west of there, am I remembering correctly? John Vogelbacher: The fence would be anywhere from 40 to 50 feet east of our property line. Councilman Peterson: Okay, great. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that fence, or a fence is staying in that same location. John Vogelbacher: Generally, yes. Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the trees on the east side of that fence, on the rough of 15, are those being removed at all? John Vogelbacher: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. The removal is in the additional 40 feet to the west of the fence and then in the, inside the property line as well? John Vogelbacher: Correct. Mayor Furlong: For purposes of putting in the trail and matching grades, okay. Alright, thank you. Any other, there may have been some other things. Again if I missed something it wasn’t, it wasn’t malicious trust me, but what else did I miss councilors or follow up questions that we had for staff or for the applicant based upon the public comment and other issues discussed? Were there any? Okay. It may come up in our discussion. Why don’t we open up discussion then. At the council standpoint and just try to get a sense where we are. Maybe overall thoughts and then talk about some of the specific items. Who’d like to start? Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: I certainly can. Clearly this is not an easy one. First of all, the project and the product itself, I think is…if not one of the best we’ll probably have in the city. Kate, I don’t think we have any that are requesting 80% brick and stone. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Peterson: Anywhere in the city. You know it’s, I’ve been the flag waver for architectural standards for years and this project, I don’t think you heard me critique other than saying it’s wonderful, you know so the project itself, from an architectural standpoint, from a fit perspective on the site, not taking anything else into consideration, I think it’s a phenomenal project. Now the issues as it relates to the two surrounding neighborhoods is really what the crux of what we need to deal with tonight is. The fact that we went to a PUD I think is a prudent decision. You know it is zoned R-12, as we already discussed, and if going to a PUD it’s about negotiating to get the best product we can for our community and our neighbors. I think that, the variances are two fold. One is the setback, which again if you go back to R-12, it could be 10 feet, which is dramatically different than what they’re requesting. And again when you’re in a City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 31 PUD you’re about negotiating to get the best product. You may have to give and take and my concern is, the landowner rights in this case. We have to obviously be cognizant of those, and what, and Scott to your point of landowner. Will they do this if we push them harder? It all goes back to, it’s a guess. Are they going to walk if we push harder? It’s a gamble and I think what I want to hear tonight from the rest of my council members is, do we believe that we can push them harder to get a better product for the surrounding community? Or have we pushed them enough where they would walk and come back and put in a 10 foot setback and a R-12 product. And I would presume if you ask 50 people in this room, you’d probably get 30 different answers related to how far we’re going to push and what we can ask them to reasonably do. Whether it be the height variance or the setback variance. So that’s my ultimate concern is, is are we going to push too hard or can we push harder? And that’s what I want to probably discuss tonight. The height variance, you know if this was backed up to another housing development, i.e. townhouses or without a golf course inbetween, you know I’d certainly say we need to buffer it to, as Councilman Case said, we need to buffer transitions. We do that everywhere else, and we’re not doing it here because of the golf course. How do I deal with that? I don’t know how to deal with that effectively other than it’s conducive. Because it goes back to landowner rights again. If it is the normal situation, we’d buffer it and make the transition smoother, but again there’s a golf course there and houses are hundreds of feet away so there’s a more natural buffer there than most of our transition zones so. In summary, in general I’m in favor of the PUD. The project is edging on phenomenal. The question is can we make it better? Mr. Frederiksen’s idea of lowering a whole floor, I hadn’t thought about that before. You know I think that’s something we maybe discuss tonight too. The setback I’m comfortable with. I think it’s reasonable. Again partially because of where it is. And you know on record I’d like to certainly have the City of Eden Prairie look at the trail scenario and see if we can be creative and save more trees than there are, so I’d like to put that back on their shoulders and I think they’ve already accepted that responsibility. So anyway, I’d like to hear more conversation. Generally I’m in favor of what we talked about and can we get more is the question. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, here we go. I am a City Councilwoman from Chanhassen and I’m going to tell you right now that, you know I’m going to do what I think is best for Chanhassen. I sat here and I saw many townhouse projects that I did not like because I did not think they were right for Chanhassen, and so I look at this and I finally see something that we don’t have. I see architectural standards we don’t have. I see amenities we don’t have. With PUD’s there are give and takes. With variances there are give and takes. I think for what I’m having to give, I get an exceptional development. I get a development, underground parking with 2 stalls. I get a park. A small totlot. I get a pool. I get a clubhouse. I get a well planned beach, and I take a beachlot that was not conforming and I turn it into a conforming beach front and that is something that we wrestle with all the time on the council. So for me these are things that, these are positive things for my city I think. We’re getting a good development. We’re getting a development that also entails life cycling which I really feel strongly about. We once had a survey saying that most of, or some of our empty nesters leave and they go somewhere else, and I think this is an opportunity to keep our residents in Chanhassen because they have an opportunity to buy something they couldn’t buy here now. They won’t be going to Eden Prairie. They won’t be going to Edina. They’ll be staying here where…stay. I think also it gives an City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 32 opportunity for young professionals to have a place to live in Chanhassen other than your typical townhouse developments, which I think is also a very positive thing. So there are different lifestyle cycles and there are opportunities for different people with different economic standings to be able to purchase a home and make this their home and make this community even better than it already is. I guess that’s just where I am. This is my city and I’m proud of this development and I think it will be an asset to our town. When I do look at a development, I look by it and I think, is this something I can drive by in 10 years and point to my children and say I was a part of this and I’m proud of it and this is one of those properties…I could say that. This is a place I’d like to live in our town and yes, absolutely once again, this is a great place. I would like to live here so I am in full support of this project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Craig I do, talking I had to laugh a little bit because it wasn’t more than about a month or two ago where we were talking about 610 boxes of you know much less architectural quality and everything else here, and trying to make that one better so maybe we’re just greedy or maybe we feel like we have to do something but I’m with you there. Overall, I can’t argue that this is a monumental improvement from what’s out there now so. Overall again if you look at it in a box, we’re probably not going to find one as good or better in the city, so I’m very excited about the possibilities here. But I am concerned really with a couple of things. Mainly the height. I commend the developer, Sienna for looking at that setback. Pushing that back. I would like to see if there’s something that we can do, you know again in the interest of just pushing a little more on that last unit along the golf course to see if we can’t push that out and eliminate that setback variance all together. Makes it a little cleaner and easier. The height is I think the one, the beachlot variance I have no problem. I mean that makes sense. You don’t want to have a line going through a condo complex that you know you can play on the beach and you can’t. That doesn’t make any sense at all so, that one I have no issue with. The really the height around, my main concern really is on a, I think you know to some point B. And not only from the Bearpath side, but from the lake side as well. Either when you, it’s kind of funny. I was watching the Cheaper by the Dozen Two movie when they got the big thing across the lake and that’s kind of what I envisioned as we were watching it this weekend, so you know obviously it won’t be that dramatic and standing out but I want to make sure that all around Lake Riley, I guess with the exception of that apartment building that’s there now, that we’ve got some large lots. We’ve got some very nicely done developments and I’m sensitive to putting a 50 foot or 48 or you know, I’ll call it 50 foot for rounding there. A 50 foot building on top of that hill. In it, you know it is going to be rather dramatic. I think if I’m living across the fairway on 15 and I’m Mr. and Mrs. Frederiksen are sitting out at the pool, I’m not sure that I want people on the third floor of Building A you know looking down across there so, you know it’s always a challenge when we get into an existing neighborhood, which we’ve done a lot of in the last couple years. Trying to plop these developments in the middle of a neighborhood because everybody always likes it the way it was. That’s what you’re used to, and especially if you moved in when it was already there, so got to, you know I want to be sensitive to not only the Bearpath residents but also you know what’s it going to look like from our residents in Chanhassen as they drive. We heard from the North Bay, and appreciate your viewpoints there to do that and to give that developer credit for making those concessions. That’s something we don’t often hear so we do appreciate hearing that as well. But I’d like to see if there isn’t City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 33 something that we can do, and I’m willing to settle, or you know compromise if we can look at Building A a little harder, or the variance on B and C as they’re back in the site more. You know obviously I’d prefer to have the only variance be for the beachlot piece on that but as Craig and Bethany both said, it’s about a compromise here and I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that overall this is a very, very high quality development and I’m confident that we can find a way, with the combination of you know maybe pushing a unit back a little or taking some of the height out of one or two of those buildings and some addition of some screening along that, the golf course side and making sure that we watch the shoreline on the lake to guard some of that as well. That we can get something in there that has a minimal impact because it is Building A and Building B and well on C for that matter are, they’re big buildings. You know we put apartment buildings up in this city but they’re essentially downtown, and you know hotels and things like that. We don’t, you know we haven’t gone out and dropped a 50 foot tall building out away from kind of the core of downtown so, but that complex is there now. Obviously it’s been there for a while but this is going to be a whole different, whole different look and a whole different feel out there so I want to be sensitive to that. And again stress overall that I think we’re all fighting the same battle here. That I would absolutely agree that overall it’s a much improved for the site and a fantastic development. The architecture is great and excited to see what our compromise is if we can get something in there a little bit better. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. There’s been comments, all three of my fellow council members have commented about the quality of the overall development. The architecture. And I concur with that. This is a very nice development and even with some of the comments and e- mails that we received where people had concerns about some of the variances. Many of them also commented about the fact that this was a very nice development, and I think in terms of complimenting the developments, both to the east and the west, this does that. Are there some issues and preferences by some of the neighbors? …this property affords and both to the south, to the lake, and to the east, to the golf course. So I think that yet they’ve tried to do it. In a way that also, also to the most part works. The issues, and we’ve talked a lot about variances and how we’ve been accused of giving out a lot of variances. I think part of the value of the process, the public process that I’ve come to appreciate is that it takes some time and some people can say government moves too slow. I think there are times when government should move slow, and I think in terms of making development approvals and moving onto development projects, slow is a little bit better than fast. Because it gives people time to get involved and to muddle it around and think about it and kick things around and get some feedback to the developer and they can move some things and that’s happened here. There have been some from when this council first saw the concept, there’s been movement. A lot of things have stayed the same, but there’s been some movement and I think for the most part that movement has been good. We saw some of it just recently as I understand this afternoon. One of the variances that was being requested that the Planning Commission approved was the setback variance, and now I know we need to confirm here but it sounds like at least with Building A, that by moving that back from 30 to 42, or approximately 44, there will be no variance required for Building A. The issue of, are down with the tri-home, 10 feet or so. If we get down to one or two units with 10 feet, we’ve done a pretty good job, because of the process, moving things and kind of pushing things around. The beachlot I concur with Councilman Lundquist and my sense is with my other council members too. That’s a make sense. That’s a common sense type of request, and that’s something that we want to do is apply common sense when we approve developments. That will be an City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 34 improvement for the beachlot, both in terms of taking a non-conforming situation, making it conforming. And I think add to the lakeshore without significant loss of trees around the lakeshore. That’s a positive to anybody using the lake. Chanhassen, Eden Prairie or any other resident. So I think they’ve done some good things. You know when we look at a lot of development issues and we’ve had opportunities in this city and I know other cities do as well. The fact of the matter is there are lines on a map and there are borders and sometimes there are developments in one city that affect the residents in others. We’ve had a situation recently with a development in Chanhassen up along our Highway 7, along Shorewood, where some of the Shorewood residents had some concerns and those concerns were relayed back to the developer and I think that one is still in the process. We’ve not seen that because there were some concerns about storm water that needed to be addressed, and so that is something that we do. Whether or not the neighboring property owners are Chanhassen residents or not, and I think that’s the right thing to do. Above all it’s, as each of our cities seeks to grow and develop and have the best products in terms of housing created, that’s when we all thrive and I think that’s a good thing. What it really gets down to from a variance standpoint, that I’m seeing right now. But for possibly a setback variance along the east property line, are the height issues and that’s what it’s coming down to. It was suggested tonight on Building A that by keeping the pitched roof we can take off the top floor and not come into a variance standpoint. There’s another option there and that is making it flat roofed and keeping it 3 floors. I don’t think, but that would also meet the requirements, I don’t think that would give us the architectural goal that this development currently has, and I think we always get into that issue and that challenge. Councilman Peterson addressed it with regard to property rights of neighboring property owners wanting to direct the development, and sometimes we’ve got to be careful what we ask for. We might be able to avoid the height variance on A, but it might not be as good a looking building as what they’re asking for here. And I look at it, you know is that height variance on A, because of the pitched roofs, is the proposed use a reasonable use? Yeah, I think it is. I mean to me that is. Is it going to be a different view for property owners to the east? Sure. Anything, any building, whether it’s a flat roof or 2 or 3 stories is going to be different. I think to the extent that there is shielding from trees on the golf course side already, having been out there. Some of those trees are starting to take, get some height and as those continue to grow I think that will address some of the shielding issues and maybe there’s some more that can be done and I would, you know I think it would be prudent for staff to talk to them about that. Maybe there’s some, something that could be done even along the twin homes there. Along that property to help do that but, overall I think you know we could not go with the height variance on A, but it may not be as good a looking building, and so I think we lose something there and I think there’s probably benefit to everybody for that. Some of the other comments Councilman Peterson made in terms of why a PUD. I think this is a make sense PUD. We could have had a number of apartment buildings. Square boxes. Beige. All the way along, 10 feet along the property line and I don’t think anybody would like that but given the zoning that’s currently in place, as I understand it, that would be a possible development scenario. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: That wouldn’t require and obtain for the City some of the added features that we have here, so overall I guess, you know a little concerned about not seeing much on C. In terms of design, but my understanding was that was closer to an A versus a B, but I haven’t City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 35 heard much concern about that either so, maybe we need to look at that and understand that. I think overall what I’m hearing and what I would concur with is, this is a very good development. A couple of tweaks perhaps and you know, can we do something on the setback for the property line, to Councilman Lundquist’s request? Let’s look at that. I think we should look at that. See what can be done. See what the effect is to bring that into compliance and then we can evaluate whether or not that’s something that we should ask for. I think to the extent that we can obtain fewer variances. We should do that, but in this case the real issue from a variance standpoint is the height and overall I think that’s a fair and reasonable request based upon the overall development and it’s something I think, as I said, is reasonable. I guess there are, and I certainly don’t want to close discussion. Be happy to you know keep that open. My sense is, given some immediate changes with the building setback that came in today, there were some questions on changing some of the conditions with regard to Building C. I know the trail, we also talked about some details on the plat. It may be prudent for us to, and my general sense here is, let’s get the issues and maybe staff can work with the developer on. There’s some clean-up issues that have been requested by the council with our comments. Let’s get that done and make sure we’ve got something clean here. Also with regard to, my sense is we’re moving towards agreement and I certainly you know, don’t want to push too quickly but if that’s the case, my suggestion for this evening, let’s get everything on the table and then table and allow staff time to work through some of the details to make sure we have it clean both from the conditions, findings of fact, and the whole complete set, because there have been appropriate, some issues of perhaps submission or some clarification that need to be made and I think we want to make sure that this is clean. With that said, you’ve heard my comments and others. Councilman Peterson, any other thoughts or? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, or even my other council members. Speak to me, and my issue I’ve been struggling with is, is transition. You know I’m still debating with myself you know, do we need transition? If so, how much? From high density to low density residential. Again the golf course is the trump card there but should, is that enough to prevent buffering that we would normally request in projects? Mayor Furlong: Well buffering is usually what, setbacks? It could be different product styles. Councilman Peterson: That and berming and landscaping often times. So I’m still struggling with that. Councilman Lundquist: I think Craig if you get on that 15th hole and look up at the hill’s pretty steep and then imagine a 50 foot building on top of that, it will be daunting. No doubt about it. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s different obviously because all there is is trees there now. So different doesn’t mean it’s good or bad but I don’t think you can go from wide open fairway with some, you know scattered trees along there to a, that much wall space and then they’ve broken it up nicely with you know a jog back and forth, some things like that but you know it’s 100 or 150, 200 foot long, 40 some feet high. You can’t miss it. And you know when you walk up the, or across the street from the 14th green, you see that, I mean you’ll see it. Most definitely so, and that can be worked out I think with some different things. You know maybe some steps on a building on A, like we looked at, like we did on B. Going towards North Bay or some things like that that can potentially break that up and not make it look like a big building. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 36 Councilman Peterson: Brian, I understand what you’re. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But then would that be blocking the views from Building A onto the golf course, because that is why Building A is there. To have that view. Councilman Lundquist: Sure it is. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so then you’re back to, why? You know why are we building, that’s why it’s there… Councilman Lundquist: Or back to the you know Carver Beach argument. You’re not planting a tree in front of the house because you want to see the whole lake or do you have to have it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well that was a different. Councilman Lundquist: Look around a tree. Councilman Peterson: Very similar. It’s identity. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well, was it originally supposed to be that way or did nature, proposing 100 feet of open space or was that kind of over the years cultivated so, that’s a different issue as opposed to this. Councilman Lundquist: But do you want a wide, open view of the golf course or do you want a, you know have something break it up. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I think we’re arguing who gets the views. Mayor Furlong: Well, let me ask the question, and maybe this is a question for the applicant, or something for staff and the applicant to work on, and that is the landscaping plan along that eastern property line. Has that been discussed? Kate Aanenson: Yes, but I’ll go back to, actually Councilman Peterson hit it right how our buffering ordinance works. Is that you create the buffer by, if it’s a narrow buffer, very small buffer between transition uses, and this is how the code’s set up, then you have to landscape more. If the setback is great, then it’s minimal landscaping. In this circumstance, when you’re standing on the 15th hole, we can’t protect people even walking on the trail from seeing that building. What we’re trying to buffer is the home, which is a couple hundred feet away, and that was the goal. To say someone out walking on the fairway, or even walking on the trail is going to see a tall building. So the way our ordinance is set up, it’s been the houses, that transitional, yeah. Mayor Furlong: So you’d be looking then at the houses on the east side of the 15th fairway? Kate Aanenson: Correct. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 37 Mayor Furlong: Of the 15th hole. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that’s what we looked at and the rational basis that we gave for supporting that variance is that there wasn’t, yeah there’s going to be people on the fairway, and then we’re still on the trail, but the houses had the greatest setback. …setback and that’s what we looked at. Mayor Furlong: Well and again, distance is about 40 feet from a setback from the property line then additional 40 to the golf course than the 15th hole. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And then the additional trees that are on the back side of the golf course so. Mayor Furlong: …something to the point that we can review? Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. We’ll look at that. Mayor Furlong: And see if there’s things that can be done. You know, and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request. I think that’s something to look at. You’re going to see the building. You’re not not going to see the building. Absolutely. Absolutely. Are there some things that we can look at? To do there that, I think that’s a reasonable request. Councilman Peterson: To further answer your question Mr. Mayor, I agree with the tabling perspective to give us some time to do some more detail work. I guess to that end, the only other request that I would like to do, Brian I think you brought it up a little bit is to look at Building A from the height perspective and can we potentially do some tiering on that, on the east side of it, or the northeast row of condos. Can we do 2 story there and do 3 stories towards the water? I don’t know, but it’s just thinking outside the box. Further mitigate my concerns about the abruptness of the height so. Unfortunately I will not be here in 2 weeks so. Mayor Furlong: Well how much time do we have on it? Kate Aanenson: Well we can ask for an additional 60 days so. Mayor Furlong: Automatically? Kate Aanenson: Correct. John Hankanson: Mayor, may I make a comment? Mayor Furlong: Regarding? John Hankanson: I’m John Hankanson from Sienna. Mayor Furlong: What’s it about? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 38 John Hankanson: We are the owners of Bearpath. Mayor Furlong: Right. John Hankanson: I would like to talk to you about if you did delay this project, we think, and I’ll get some laughter here, but we were the best thing that ever happened with this project from Bearpath standpoint. Anybody else could come in and build 312 units, all apartment with a 10 foot setback. If we were greedy developers, that’s what we’ll do… Mayor Furlong: Sir. And that’s something that we’ve been talking about already and we’re aware of that point so. John Hankanson: So, we worked with your staff very diligently to come up with a product that we think works. Mayor Furlong: And I think you heard from the council tonight that we appreciate the effort. John Hankanson: Now you’re going to cost us another $80,000 because you’re going to delay it for a month or whatever and come back. That is unacceptable to us. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you sir. When was the application submittal? What’s our available time? Kate Aanenson: Yeah it’s, the deadline date for the 60 days was July 18th but we have the right to ask for an additional 60 days… Mayor Furlong: And that’s normal and that’s what I guess from what you’ve heard tonight, do you think it’s going to take the entire 60 days to accomplish that? Kate Aanenson: No. We can turn this around, like I said. Mayor Furlong: Within a reasonable time period. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. And we could have it on in 2 weeks. I mean I’m not sure who’s all going to be here but I think what we really need to do is go through and make sure the changes that they’ve made, or look at those different iterations and put everything in a format, right. Mayor Furlong: The different changes today. Kate Aanenson: Right. Put those in a format that you can approve conditions with those changes made… Mayor Furlong: And I certainly understand the comments, delays cost money and we appreciate that. At the same time it is a, it’s a significant project. It’s important to the city and to a lot of City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 39 residents. Both to the east and the west, and I think it would still be my suggestion to make sure we get it right. Councilman Peterson: And I would think we should be able to turn it around in 2 weeks. Mayor Furlong: I mean we can. I mean there are issues here that need to be addressed and if we can do that, that’d be great. Let’s turn it around as quickly as possible would be our recommendation. Other thoughts and comments at this point or issues to, I mean I don’t want to start repeating and, repeating and being redundant. Councilman Lundquist: Given even the, ask the questions about the height of the other buildings with the other things that have been brought up and the changes of the conditions, I don’t want to have one where we’re you know, you know what she said. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, no. No, absolutely. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 06-26 for Lakeside development. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. THOMAS SCHWARTZ, 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK. Public Present: Name Address Eric V. Doremus 7371 Bent Bow Trail Paula & Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail Michael Nelson 7357 Bent Bow Trail Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I just wanted to point out to the council, I did hand out conservation easement. I just wanted to explain that. There is a conservation easement that’s associated to this application and that’s some standard language for a conservation easement. So I’ll go through that in a minute after we go through the staff report. The variance request before you tonight is, the Schwartz case on 7376 Bent Bow Trail, located here in the Longacres subdivision. This is the lot itself. While the lot is very large, it’s actually encumbered by a couple different types of easements and I guess that’s one of the reasons why I pulled out the City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 40 easements for you tonight. What brought this to our attention, in going through the staff report in the storm last summer, October. Excuse me, last fall. September-October, 2005 it was noticed that there was some plantings and structures in the drainage overflow areas, so I’m going to refer to the site plan. Again this was an exhibit in your packet, and there is a wetland on the site. It’s a little confusing with all the colors but I’ll try to walk through this slowly. The subject site, it’s a building permit application that shows the home on the site, and then there is an area that’s called the buffer, wetland setback area. The pink area shows the drainage and utility easement, and then there is a wetland with a vegetative buffer requirement. So this is supposed to be the planting area and this is supposed to be the no build area. In this instance what you see is about 75 feet for the wetland setback and to reduce that setback increased the landscape requirement next to the wetland to reduce some of the material that was going into the pond, and then allow the houses that…closest to the pond. And part of our investigation of the site, when the storm events occurred, it was noticed that there was some structures in the site itself so staff did approach Mr. Schwartz and ask them about how they got there, and that sort of thing, so this is the house itself. The back of the house. And this is the gazebo. The gazebo and then the patio, and then this is the planting area on the side. I’ll show you where that is in just a second here, and then the gazebo with the patio blocks. So looking at the site itself, this is the last pages here, and it’s really small so it’s kind of hard to go through it, but if you were to follow areas where they were supposed to build in, this is where the gazebo sits. It’s not all in the no build area. Actually falls into that kind of that buffer setback, as did some of the stones. Now it’s not solid, but there’s stepping stones through there. And then the planting area, that is being removed and resolved as we speak, so that should be a non-issue. What the Planning Commission did…and again the issues are one, there’s a 12 foot encroachment into the wetland buffer, then a 5 foot into the 40 foot setback, so it’d be for these structures here. The Planning Commission did recommend denial of the variance request, and did ask for staff to work with the applicant. Again they’re working to resolve this. This is the drainage overflow from the pond, so we certainly, based on the storm events in that area, want to make sure that’s really been met since we had an issue. We did work with the applicant and try to come up with some scenarios that we thought might be acceptable, and obviously it’s pretty onerous when you look at the…so we did recommend that that be…that might be a little onerous, so he’s still pursuing that and we weren’t able to reach compromise because… So I just want to go through the recommendations that we have in front of you tonight if there’s no questions on the variance itself. One…to approve the variance for the encroachment of the gazebo, and to make sure that that gets a building permit. And gets inspected and approved. And then also, there’d be no additional expansion of the structure. That wetland buffer signs, the markings are there and they show up on the survey, but the posts aren’t there…taken care of… And then possibly, and I think this is the area that…removing of the fire pit area. And then also that all the garden areas be re- established and those would be the areas that were targeted specifically in here that were supposed to be more vegetative, and that would be just on the other side of the gazebo. Between the gazebo. If you’re looking at this picture between the gazebo and the wetland, that will increase to kind of mitigate that and the vegetation, and then again, number 7…get resolved. So with that, be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Kate, I guess going back to the colored survey. Just for clarification. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 41 Kate Aanenson: The multi colored one? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the multi colored one. And you did a good job staying within the lines. The pink area is storm water drainage and the problem was to the, I guess to the middle on the left of the survey. The less point there below the pond. No, move your hand. Right in there, yeah. That’s where the problem occurred last fall, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: With that, the pond over flowing? There was no place for it to go? Todd Gerhardt: It over exceeded the pond banks and went directly south where the arrows are. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But that was obstructed by the, that was obstructed, that emergency overflow. Todd Gerhardt: By the garden, yeah. Mayor Furlong: By the garden? Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. What does it, to the upper right of the survey, to that area up in there. What does that provide in terms of surface water drainage and flow? Kate Aanenson: That’s actually the taller grassy area. That’s supposed to be the area that actually the vegetative, so what that’s going to reduce is supposedly pick up some of those sediments. The tall grassy area. Where you have, this is your buildable area. This is the area that you can just, you can use the grass…lot area but it’s not that impervious, and that’s where that conservation easement comes in, because we’ve had… Mayor Furlong: And that area up there has a conservation easement across it? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Up in that area? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it clearly says conservation easement on here. And then just to be clear, this is a drainage easement which is different than a conservation easement, and they’re two different documents so maybe the conservation easement, and we’ve been using, actually I think you’ve probably…subdivision when we started doing conservation easements. These are really an iteration of when we looked at the different approaches for tree preservation. And this was one of the subdivisions, one of the first ones that we did a significant amount of tree preservations along the Woods of Longacres and the Meadows at Longacres to save trees so the conservation easement actually became an umbrella for both of those. Which is different than a drainage and utility easement. So if you look at the document, description of how they tend to be City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 42 used is different. And we always check on those because if we want to use it for public purpose or something, we would check to see what the use would be prescribed for the guiding. So I did give you that and that’s pretty much, we made some minor modifications…that doesn’t work for me but we’ve had problems with people putting in a lot of hard surface in there that, sport courts, sometimes a lot of the play structures that we try to keep out of that area. Again that’s to help us with, the green area provides an area for additional drainage and then also to help reduce the velocities… Mayor Furlong: Absorption. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: It allows the ground to absorb it rather than accelerate the runoff. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And is that then the purpose in the blue area for the setback from that buffer is again for the non-impervious component is key there? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Mayor Furlong: Because that does not have that conservation easement in the blue area. That is strictly a setback. Kate Aanenson: Yep, it’s a wetland setback. It doesn’t have the restrictions of. Mayor Furlong: Of the pink area. Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. So the issue is, you know when we look at this lot, it looks like almost an acre lot, but it unfortunately is encumbered by a lot of easements. And this is, there is a different application in the subdivision of the PUD. The mix of the lot size, so that may, some of the lots that got bigger ended up bigger because they were burdened with some of the, yeah. There’s different ways to approach it. You could have made that public outlot, which we’ve done on some, and just called it a drainage swale and let it in an outlot. In this circumstance the buyer gets the duty of maintaining that, but not getting the benefit of… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Kate on this lot specifically, where does the storm water drains on that…trail? There’s not much, as I remember, there’s not much space. It’s pretty steep from, if you’re at the north. Kate Aanenson: Then it goes up here. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 43 Kate Aanenson: It’s going this way. Mayor Furlong: It falls off to the pond? Councilman Lundquist: Right. It might flow, but it falls off pretty steep into that pond, right? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: And is there storm water drains along Bent Bow there? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Todd Gerhardt: For my guess that’s gravity flow down the road and the catch basins are. Kate Aanenson: Somewhere at the bottom of the slope, yeah. And looked at the overall material. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that, you look at that pink and blue area between the pond and the house, and you really, that’s mainly shedding runoff essentially from it’s own area. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: It’s not like you’ve got half of the neighborhood flowing. Kate Aanenson: No. No. Councilman Lundquist: Over the curb and through there. Kate Aanenson: No. Right, and again it’s the, it’s that we don’t want people in general to, and that’s really what it’s about. And it’s not encouraged, or what people think that they can just build in those areas…higher events, yeah. Councilman Lundquist: If you look at that lot area as a whole, and with the house, the deck, the gazebo and the fire pit area, did you figure out what the total hard cover is? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that’s not the problem. I agree. It’s a big lot. Right, so in this instance I would concur. It’s probably not the impervious. So really. Councilman Lundquist: Just for curiosity. Kate Aanenson: No. I mean I don’t know, you know that’s a good question and I’m not sure that we have it in there, the total impervious. Because it probably would be pretty minimal because it’s got such a large lot. Councilman Lundquist: Less than 20% probably? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 44 Kate Aanenson: Probably, yeah. Because it’s .93. Yeah, so really I guess what we came down to is trying to find a way to mitigate this, measure outside of that into this area more. Councilman Lundquist: And the area from the gazebo and the fire pit to the pond is also pretty, we don’t have any danger of the pond flowing up that high and not blocking any drainage out of the pond? Right, that’s got to be 10 feet above the. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and there’s a significant grade change from the gazebo down towards the lake. Councilman Lundquist: So it’s really that part of the drainage and you know flooding the neighbors houses and all that, that the garden is…and the rest is the building in a conservation easement and not having a permit for the gazebo and those things. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Peterson: Are the, is any of the paver walkways in the area or not? Kate Aanenson: Yes they are. They’re also in that, if you look on this survey. You can see this is supposed to be the area where the limited hard cover, but it shows this as a stone path but when you look at the photo you can see it’s not solid. Mayor Furlong: I think there are some, and maybe we can ask the applicant but I think up by the driveway it’s. Kate Aanenson: More solid. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Yeah, there are some other pictures as they said but I don’t know if you have those or not. It varies I guess is the point. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Has there been any communication between you and the applicant since the Planning Commission meeting? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and that’s what I’m saying. I think you know the Planning Commission, and so we thought maybe taking that out, and obviously that seems pretty onerous. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Taking the fire pit out? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Seemed pretty onerous and I understand that so. Their request was to appeal it. Mayor Furlong: Question on the, I’m looking somewhere in the report here but I thought I saw some effect that when Longacres was approved, that was a PUD, correct? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 45 Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And some of the setbacks from wetlands were averaged across. Kate Aanenson: And that’s typically how we do all wetland buffering. You can average it. It’s built right into our ordinance, and that’s based on the fact that when we’re doing a subdivision, and using this as an example, sometimes the wetlands pinches on a lot and you just have an odd piece trying to get it to lay out with the streets, so somebody on the other side might get the burden of a larger portion of the buffer… Mayor Furlong: So you try to average it out there? Again trying to get that overall. Kate Aanenson: Right, and sometimes it’s difficult and why we keep the markings in is so people can see that physical barrier. The post. The posts are in so if you just look at the property of your neighbors and make an assumption… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the same process used for impervious surface? Using averages across the development. Was that done here? Kate Aanenson: Not in this. This is a per lot basis. We do do that commonly on commercial and industrial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That would be… Mayor Furlong: I know we’ve done that so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, on commercial industrial. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Let me take that back. We also do it on multi family, but not on the single family detached. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I’m sure there’s a but for somewhere. I think we just did that on the Preserve perhaps. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, where we used. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Which was single family detached. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 46 Kate Aanenson: And that was…yep. A new zoning application, correct. But under this PUD, single family detached, you could not average it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Even though it was a PUD? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Single, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we averaged the setbacks were averaged across the wetland buffering. Kate Aanenson: We averaged the buffering. Mayor Furlong: And then wherever the buffer was, there was 40 feet beyond that. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yes. Mayor Furlong: And obviously Lundgren… Kate Aanenson: …yeah, and really it worked out on how you tried to get the streets and if you’ve got a steep slope and how, there was a lot of push pull. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: So I would concur. This is probably one of the bigger lots out there. We have lots as small as 11,000 up there. This is probably one of the bigger lots. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff right now? Maybe some follow up questions. The applicant I know is here. Good evening. Tom Schwartz: Good evening Mr. Mayor or council members. My name is Tom Schwartz and I live at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. I’m actually kind of humbled to be up here after listening to what you had to endure for the last 2 hours previous. Mayor Furlong: With your permission. Tom Schwartz: I’m just going to kind of go through a history of events that kind of led me to standing here in front of you today. I’ll try to make this brief. To begin with we signed a purchased agreement with Lundgren back in January of 2000. We subsequently closed on that house on August 29th of the same year. At the time that we purchased the property we were informed of the 10 foot wetland setback. We knew of that. We knew that we had to stay away from that, and we knew that that was the no cut, no mow, no touch zone. What we didn’t know at the time were all the other restrictions that you see on this map. Because truthfully had we known at the time, and I think it’s pretty common, I don’t think anybody would have really put a house there. I think it would have been an outlot. Should have been an outlot, but with that being said, we went through, afterwards I looked at all the covenants before we did our landscaping. Before we did everything else and nowhere within those covenants does it state City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 47 that we couldn’t put gardens, gazebos, fire pits or any other surfaces. So with the lack of a map, without the lack of any covenant indication that we had these restrictions, we moved forward. In the spring of 2001 we worked with designers and landscapers. We created a pretty intensive and pretty expensive layout. You saw some of it on the garden, which we’ll get into. That was within the overland swale. It’s been removed. It had existed there pretty successfully for 5 years. In March of 2003 we submitted to the planning commission for the Longacres Homeowners Association to put in the gazebo and the fire pit. Subsequently upon approval from then, I called the city and asked if a permit was required or necessary to put these structures on my property. At the time, and unfortunately it was by a phone. It was not hand written or over a formal mode, I was told nothing else was required by city code. That I could go ahead and put the gazebo on my property. So consequently in April of the same year I put it in. I had the landscaping designed around it, of which you saw some of the pictures. And again trying to make this brief so I apologize. Another view. Another view. You get an opportunity to see the extensiveness of the landscaping that was designed around this gazebo and fire pit. The idea was to minimalize the intrusion if you will to any neighbors. In other words, if they looked at this from the front of the property, you virtually because of the pine trees that you see here, it creates a natural buffer on the Bent Bow side. On the Moccasin Trail side, along Moccasin Trail we’ve also put in pines. By the time that those mature, and with the advent of this landscaping, we felt very confident that no one’s really going to see it. Nor would it be effected. You know it wouldn’t harm them in other words. In the fall of 2005, and you heard some of this already, the storms created a series of events that led us to know that these things are in the wetland conservation easement. There’s overflow swales. We think, not knowing ahead of time but finding all this out in the fall, that you know I guess we’d like to just be able to leave it there. It’s first of all it’s not creating a hardship to any neighbors. It’s not affecting the values of the neighbors. It’s not affecting the flow of water to or from the pond. There is, and I think Kate mentioned on the back side of this gazebo, there is an area, and I’m not sure that you see it clearly but there’s clearly a 10-15 foot area between the water’s edge and what I knew to be the water’s edge at the time that these were built. There is 15 feet of vegetation back there. Okay. And we maintain that, not only behind the gazebo and the fire pit, but behind the garden that was recently reconstructed. So we maintained what I thought was a pretty safe level of distance from the pond, and that would allow any runoff from any of the hard surfaces that we do have to readily be absorbed. I think what I’m going to do is jump ahead very briefly. I wanted to show some pictures of the before and after. This is the before pictures of the garden area that existed within the overflow swale. What that looks like today, and as of last Thursday, and what I proposed with this picture. Somewhat similar in nature and view. What has been done is all the garden has been eliminated and there is literally a 3 to 4 foot trench between the pond itself and the beginning of what was natural grass area. By engineers, they indicate to me that that swale and the way that it exists right now will guarantee for the next 30 to 40 years that should this pond ever flood again, that that swale will take care of whatever needs there may be. I guess with that, and I kind of jumped around. I apologize but this has kind of got away from me. I think in, lastly. With all the covenants and with all the restrictions and so forth, what has been indicated to me is that clearly the area in blue is what I get to play with so to speak. Everything else in that 9/10ths of an acre is what I’m being told no touch. I can’t alter it. I can’t remedy any problems within it. I shouldn’t have put anything in there to begin with. And again I think that it just you know, what’s there…restricts any use or utilization of this property in hind sight. And some bad decisions were made and I’m hoping I don’t have to pay the price for those today. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 48 Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Schwartz. Questions. Councilman Lundquist: Did the reconstruction of the drainage swale, staff saw those plans or designs or those things? Did you guys see that before that? Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure. Tom, has Don looked at those drainage? I don’t believe so. Tom Schwartz: I don’t know that he has. He was notified that that work was being done last week. I was told by the Lundgren representative which had a hand in that reconstruction, that he had been in contact with engineering staff here and he was confident that what they had created as an end result will, would suffice for many years to come. Councilman Lundquist: So you Mr. Schwartz, you used Lundgren’s engineer or the engineering firm that, or someone that was recommended by them? Tom Schwartz: Recommended by them. Yeah. Yeah, we paid to have a complete re-survey done as well as then, as I said and you can kind of see what we’ve done with what was a garden. Councilman Lundquist: You did that work at your cost? Tom Schwartz: Yeah. Well we’re in negotiations with Lundgren as to how that all comes about. And due in part because of the fact that we weren’t properly notified of the restrictions that exist on this piece of property. Councilman Lundquist: I guess what, we didn’t, the city did not contribute any money into that basically? Kate Aanenson: No. Tom Schwartz: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Thoughts? Comments or questions at this point for either staff or Mr. Schwartz. Councilman Peterson: Kate, I assume that you haven’t, nobody on your staff or Paul’s staff has gone out and inspected this yet? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. So that would be a condition that we would just want to verify that that, it seems like it would work but just to verify the design and that it works. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thoughts. Discussion. On this or other follow up. Councilman Peterson: My immediate reaction is that I’d like to have staff, before I decide to do anything tonight, is to verify what they’ve done and see if it meets what we’re looking for. Then let staff and the applicant work together to try to figure out something creative. If they truly City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 49 have accomplished the goal of getting one of the issues resolved, let’s see if we can have them work to get the other ones as well too. Mayor Furlong: Okay, my thought, I think that’s reasonable. I think there is, while we’re not overall on the property dealing with an impervious surface coverage issue, it’s the location of the pit and the gazebo that is the, the location is an issue and I’d like to see if the Schwartz’ and staff could look at that and see what options might be there as well. But I do give the Schwartz’ credit. One of the big issues that we have in this city is storm water management and making sure that the system works when we need it, and the night that we needed it, it wasn’t working so I’m glad that that was taken care of, or is in the process of being taken care of and obviously I agree with Councilman Peterson that that’s something that staff needs to be, see what’s happening. Make sure they concur with what’s done there and work together with them on that. So other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree Mr. Mayor, but I do feel, I mean Mr. Schwartz, obviously it was painful to remove his gardens and it was not something he intended to intentionally do something to damage his neighbors or the neighborhood or the water flow or anything. I believe it was just an attempt to create an atmosphere that was desirable for their family and their back yard so, I’m hoping that when this issue is resolved, it’s not as painful as it was having to remove the gardens. They were gorgeous gardens and now you have something that’s as nice so I’m hoping we all can come to some sort of resolve where they don’t have to have $15,000 to have stuff removed and that yet still we can protect our surface water management flows. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist, thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with Councilwoman Tjornhom that you know having talked to Mr. Schwartz, I didn’t get the feeling that there was a malicious intent to subvert the process where if somebody saw a survey and said you know, you can’t build anything in here so I want to build something there. If I just pretend that I didn’t know that and build it, you know maybe they won’t catch me. Didn’t get that. Clearly the issue arose there with the overflow and the fact that the applicant worked to mitigate that piece, obviously as I looked at it, that was the one that concerned me the most. That overflow. That affects the neighbors and the rest of the neighborhood and you know has the potential to create some damage to property there in a big way so, being that that was corrected, and the fact that, is the gazebo and the fire pit in an area it’s not supposed to be? Yeah. And nobody’s going to argue with that, but given the rest of the topography around the neighborhood road, the steepness of that, by that, I’m willing to give some credit to the applicant to, you know for the absorption of the cost of the rest of the changes that were made with the removal of the garden and doing that piece, I would concur that I’d like to see I guess that verified. Either engineering drawings or inspection or both or however that works out to make sure that that is in fact going to work if we need it to work. Todd doesn’t want to go out there and dig another trench so. But that I, I think I’m comfortable with where it’s at. I know I’m comfortable with where it’s at right now, and you know to obviously go back, do the conservation easements as staff suggested. Get the permit both for the gazebo. Get it inspected. Make sure it’s safe and everything’s good there. But then I’m comfortable with the level of changes that have been made and the things that have been done, that I’m willing to grant the after the fact for the gazebo and the fire pit. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 50 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts? I guess my overall, you know I, again I commend the work that’s been done. I agree with you Councilman Lundquist on that. The issue of, if this wasn’t an after the fact, I’d be surprised if the council would be granting the variance to locate these there, and I don’t have a sense that there was, as you said, any malicious attempt. At the same time I think you know the location of the impervious surface coverage is something I guess I’d like to have staff spend a little more time and work with the residents and see if something can be done there before we go forward but. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was going to suggest something on that line, is to look at the overall impervious for the entire. That seemed to be some of your discussion. For kind of a rational basis for the findings. To look at how much impervious, or how much coverage on there right now so, see where we’re at. It is a peculiar lot in the fact that it’s encumbered by the large drainage swale. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Absolutely. Kate Aanenson: And that makes it a little bit different, which again would be another kind of thing, looking at the findings. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I think as part of the findings, I think traditionally you know in terms of continue to look and see what more might be done is just the location of where it is. Other thoughts or. Councilman Lundquist: I wouldn’t dig my heels in to take you know a couple weeks or whatever to look at that. I think that’s fair and reasonable. We’ve gone through this much so yeah it’s. Mayor Furlong: And Mr. Gerhardt, you can guarantee we’re not going to have another 100 year storm? Todd Gerhardt: Sure. Don’t want to go through that again. Any comments regarding the inspection of the gazebo? Getting a permit. Getting that inspected included. Mayor Furlong: Yes, I think that’s part of it and making sure that everything’s done right. Other thoughts. Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: I’ll agree. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We table. There’s a motion to table? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Let staff and the applicant work together. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 51 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 06-22, Variance request at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. GARY CARLSON, 3891 WEST 62ND STREET: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR-STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQ. FT. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Dale Keehl 3841 West 62nd Street Gary Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Luke Melchert 112 2nd Street W, Chaska Maureen and Molly Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street Megan Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Kate Aanenson: I did hand out to you a copy of the most one that we received this afternoon from the applicant. Subject site. Mr. Carlson’s variance request is located on 3991 West 62nd Street. Megan Moore: 3891. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Yeah, I believe that’s what I said. Megan Moore: You said 39. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Go ahead please. Kate Aanenson: 3891 West 62nd Street. Located on the northern end of the city, north of Highway 7. This is the subject site. You can back out a little bit Nann. This photo is a little bit outdated. I’ll go through the current site plan here in a second. Request is for the variance of the garage. This garage located right here. A 20 foot front yard setback for 1,000 square foot garage. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on June 20th, 2006 to review the variance and the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny this. In the staff report there’s a background. This did appear before the Planning Commission, in the background, and that date in, let’s see. Oh, on April 4th and they had 10 days to appeal that variance and that did not occur so it, they had to start the process back over, and that’s the same application that you’re seeing before you. This property, in the background, this property is zoned residential, although it’s been, has non-conforming agricultural rights. It also has a non-conforming as far as additional a City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 52 rental unit in the building itself, although it’s guided single family residential. Again it’s non- conforming. There are horses on the property. So the request for this garage located on the northern end of the property, for the setback. There are existing garages on the property, on the house and the additional out buildings. One of the requests that the Planning Commission had, because it’s over the number of accessories for the zoning district, is to remove some of those accessory structures. They were given until August 1st to get that done. To date those are not removed yet. This is a. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, which ones on the picture there? The red ones? Kate Aanenson: The red ones here were asked to be removed, and they concurred too. There’s the blue areas that they would like to see additional storage and the structures removed. If I can go back to maybe this plan. This doesn’t show the new horse barn. That was an issue that the city had that we have horses, that they be in a shed. The buildings that were out there had storage in them, so they weren’t being used for that. So if you look at what’s around the area. Single family, single family. This is the most recently approved, coming off of Pipewood Curve subdivision that was approved in this area for lower density, single family, so this is the subject site. So there is a significant amount of outdoor storage, so that was the request, is to get it more into compliance with the amount of square footage that’s required. The reason it got denied is that they felt that for the variance that it, they want to see it pushed back. The applicant in his most recent picture that you saw, or what was handed out to you, and I’ll go through those in a second, felt that it compromised the access to the driveway. The third garage and getting accessible vans in there. So I’ll start, this is, these are the green buildings I’ve shown in here. There’s two smaller green storage sheds here. This is the most recent garage that’s close to West 62nd. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that the one you want? Kate Aanenson: No, that’s the one that’s too close to the street, and then this is the additional blue one that Planning Commission also asked to see removed to get it into compliance. With the additional storage. So the pictures that you saw…is the concern that they had of Planning Commission asked if they could move their garage further to the, towards the house, and they felt that that was because they have accessible access, that that may be difficult to get in by pushing the garage closer to the house, it’d make it difficult for the accessible. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Kate if it was, they want that garage pushed closer? Kate Aanenson: Planning Commission did because it’s too close to the street. But the applicant is saying that that doesn’t work for handicap accessible. Councilman Peterson: How much closer do we need to be? I can’t remember. Kate Aanenson: Well, it’s pretty close to the property line. It needs to be, it’s only 8 feet from the property line. So they need to be 22 feet back. I’m not sure if the van needs to come all the way back in there but. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 53 Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, is it, what is it currently set back from the property line? Kate Aanenson: 8 feet. It was built without a permit. All those structures were. Except for the… Mayor Furlong: So it would, to comply we need to come back 22 feet? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. So we go back to the, in the background of the staff report. In January, 2004 it came to the attention of the city that the attached accessory garages were built without a permit. The permits that we just pointed out. The green, and so they came to get the permit…and they’re over the amount of square footage you can have and the one was too close so, here’s where we are today. Trying to get this resolved. We’ve been working, working, working. Did go to Planning Commission once. They denied it. Didn’t meet the deadline for the appeal so kicked back through the process. So with that the Planning Commission did recommend, on a vote in the staff report. Planning Commission did recommend denial. We did put other motions in there for you. Find some compromise. Some other alternatives. So if you wanted to deviate from that, but it’s their recommendation of denial. It got appealed from the Planning Commission up to you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? I’m a little confused on the timing of everything. Once more with regard to kind of the, it first came through Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Let’s go back to background on page 2. The Schmitz Acre Tracts. The applicant has been on the property a long time. This zoning has been residential single family for a long time, although it has legal non-conforming agricultural uses on it. So in January of 2004 when we found out, the building inspectors found out, and also at the same time we were trying to license the rental property on the, it came to the attention that there was other structures out there without building permits. And that became apparent to the zoning and we proceeded to send them letters to get them to come through, so that took a little while to work through those issues. Ultimately, in January, 2000, April 2006, it did go to the Planning Commission. It didn’t meet the timeline to appeal it. If they’re aggrieved at the decision of the Planning Commission, they have so many days to appeal that to the City Council. They did not make that deadline. They chose to come back through the process. The Planning Commission still recommended denial and that’s where we are today. Councilman Lundquist: So Kate, this letter that you put in front of us today talks about taking down 7. Put the colored picture back up again. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: What are those 7? Kate Aanenson: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Councilman Lundquist: And is that what the Planning Commission asked for? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 54 Kate Aanenson: Yes, but they still didn’t want to support the variance on. Councilman Lundquist: On the garage. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the applicant agreed to take down all 7 buildings? Kate Aanenson: Yes. To date none of that activity has occurred. And the deadline was August 1st. Mayor Furlong: August 1st of ’06? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. With that I’d be happy to answer any other questions. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? Councilman Peterson: Alright, now I’m confused. What’s the blue color? Kate Aanenson: That’s the existing house and kind of, and main garage. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is there a rental property on this? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Where is that? Kate Aanenson: Within the house. It’s, on numerous appendages that, so also legal non- conforming on that, which we gave…variance process for that too so it’s kind of a, so there’s some, a lot of the garages for some of the renters too and some storage. Councilman Peterson: So the blue building has got the extra. Kate Aanenson: Let’s go back and look at the house itself. Here’s the original house. If you can zoom in on that. Garages. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the rental property is in that also? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And then this is the area that there’s some that they need to make sure they have enough clear space to get in, in order to get their accessible van in. And this is the new garage that was built without a permit. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And you want the garage to come closer to the home? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 55 Kate Aanenson: That was the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and that’s why they provided those pictures that say we can’t make that access work for us. If we moved it closer. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And do you agree with that or? You don’t agree with that? Because I mean I don’t know. Councilman Peterson: Well the distance between the house and the garage isn’t going to affect the turn around radius. Because your van is going to turn around in this area. Kate Aanenson: Or you put the, yeah. This is where it’s coming, the accessible driveway. That’d be loaded on the other side of the garage possibility. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, unloading where? Kate Aanenson: This is where you’re unloading between the garage and here. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Kate Aanenson: …over here. Councilwoman Tjornhom: This looks like it’s hard, like it’s gravel or it’s, what is this right here? Kate Aanenson: It’s all, if you look at the air photo, there’s a lot of hard surface through that whole area. Councilman Lundquist: It’s Class V gravel. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Peterson: I mean what the van will most likely do is go this van and back up and go in. The distance there isn’t the relevant. It’s if you have enough turning radius in backing your van. But Kate going back to another question. Going back to the colored thing again. The blue building is X’d out. Why is that… Kate Aanenson: These are additional sheds that are on the back there, that they’re willing to take out. Sheds in the back. This, a little bit…not come out. Councilman Peterson: But my point being, why is there are blue buildings and red buildings with X’s through them. Mayor Furlong: The legend? The blue buildings were grandfathered? Councilman Peterson: That was my point. Grandfathered but we’re still. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 56 Mayor Furlong: But they’re taking them. They’re taking some of the grandfathered buildings out. Kate Aanenson: In order to get the new buildings, correct. I’m sorry. I misunderstood. Mayor Furlong: And the green are the built without permits. Kate Aanenson: Right, right. And this is the new pole barn and that may be a better place to keep the horses…city code requirement that they provide adequate shelter. And this isn’t the depth of the whole property. It goes down. Councilman Lundquist: When was that garage built Kate? The one that’s closer to the road. Kate Aanenson: This one? That’s what I say, in 2004 is when it was discovered. I’m not sure of the date when it was actually constructed. Todd Gerhardt: 1996. Councilman Lundquist: If you take out those 7 buildings, does that put them under the total whatever that, I forget what the number was in the report that. The square foot of. Kate Aanenson: No, I think the goal is to get, to show good faith that they’re moving towards the requirement. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but do they get them there? Kate Aanenson: You need to remove, if you look at the second condition or the third, fourth condition. If you grant the variance for the 22 foot, 20 foot front yard setback, and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory, and so they’re 4,917 square feet roughly over. Councilman Lundquist: So Kate is that with those 7 buildings out? Kate Aanenson: No. That would be leaving everything in. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying what would the number be with the 7 out? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Do we know that number? Kate Aanenson: No, I do not. Not off the top of my head. I’m sure they know it. I’ll recheck on that. I’ve had a lot of facts on the top of my head tonight. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 57 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions right now for staff? If not, Carlson’s or representative like to address the council. Luke Melchert: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Luke Melchert: My name is Luke Melchert. A family, an old member of our firm, they asked me to speak on their behalf. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to request this variance, and I think this is a classic example of where you’ve got the square peg of the law, which is the single family zoning regulations, trying to pound down a round agricultural use. And the reason why variances are provided for in the ordinances. I think Ms. Aanenson, I’m not sure that the building, the garage that was built in 1996, has been there over a decade, or over 10 years, is 22 feet from the right-of-way. Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry. Luke Melchert: So we’d be requesting an 8 foot variance from the setback. A variance of only 8 feet from 30 feet down to 22 feet there. And on this, that’s on the west end over here. On the east end it’s about 24 feet from the right-of-way. So it’s 6 feet there, so the variance, it should be noted that between the right-of-way and the building, there’s a 3 foot earthen berm and a stand of trees, if you look at the pictures. And does that make it? If you can see the road comes from the north and makes almost a 90 degree turn and it’s not that gentle of a turn, and right back in here is the building and the trees and the berm. And I’m speaking for that first because that seems to be the major sticking point. Someone on the city staff or that had said the building back there created a hazard and we would like to think that the building doesn’t create the hazard. The curve in the road creates the hazard, and prior to the building being built there, there were accidents there. Since the building has been built, there was a white building, there hasn’t been an accident at that corner. And so, and also when they came for the request in 19, to planning to request the addition of Molly’s caretaker to allow that, a survey was requested and it wasn’t until the surveyor, the surveyor hadn’t put 22.4 feet on there, nobody would, we wouldn’t be here arguing this because nobody knew that it was only 8 feet from the right-of-way until the survey showed it. And so it would seem to us that there is no harm by having the building remain there. There’s no harm because anybody not making that turn is going to hit berm first and then the trees, and if there is a hazard there now, all of a sudden that we find out 10 years later that there’s a hazard that the public has to be protected, and it would seem to us a guardrail is the proper protection as opposed to removing this building. And again, I think it should be noted that that building has sat there for 10 years and nothing, there has been no problem. The requested variance is, so it seems to us that there is no harm from the garage sitting there, at least from the setback requirement. And if you look, and this is a rather crude drawing. This is where the 22 feet is, and it’s only 22 feet from the right-of-way. It is 59 feet from the driven surface, and over here a little bit to the east, Chanhassen has a hockey rink where their fence or the, whatever they call them in hockey, is within the setback requirement too and not guarded by a stand of trees or a berm. So it seems to me if there’s any hazard to the public, it’s a result of the curve and not a result of the berm that encroaches in the setback. As far as the requirements to reduce the number of square footage of accessory buildings, this property, if it was developed in accordance City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 58 with your ordinances, could be developed into 14 more single family homes, each having 1,000 square foot of accessory buildings. So that means there could be 15, if they developed within your ordinance, could have 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings. Here they’re only asking for 5. Earlier this year the City of Chanhassen and the property owner entered into a written agreement where they could bring in a 1,200 square foot pole building for the horses by taking about 1,199, or 1,200 square feet out. Even with that agreement it’s over the requirements not of 1,000 accessory feet. So it’s all we’re asking for us 1,900 square feet more. If this was agricultural property, it could have hard surface of over 32,000 square feet. We’re down in the 6,000 square foot range on 161,000 square feet of property. So it seems to me that even if we, if these buildings weren’t built before, if we came in and requested a variance now, it does not seem an unreasonable request, given the circumstances. This property’s been in the family for over, since the 1800’s. It’s always been agricultural. The neighbors have requested, signed petitions or a statement and it’s on there tonight. They would prefer to have some semblance of this existing lifestyle in their neighborhood than have it developed and sell it to a greedy attorney and let them build single family homes there and 15,000 square feet of accessory building. It seems to us that it’s not unreasonable. This is what the neighborhood would like. This is what, it’s in a very remote area of the city. It’s on the west end of the city and like I said personally I would suspect that 99% of the people in Chanhassen don’t know where this property is. Don’t care where this property is. The people who do care, the neighbors would like to see it remain as it is. And it seems to us that there really is no harm by granting either of the variance, and it certainly does not seem any harm from the setback request variance. Because the harm again I think is the curve in the road and if there should be something done to protect the public, it would be a guardrail as opposed to removal of the building. That’s existed for 10 years. A couple of people would like to, or let me ask you one more thing regarding the barn or the garage. Inbetween the garage and the house there is a mature tree there, and to move the building 8 feet closer, it just makes it very difficult. Yes it can be done. There’s no question, it can be done, but most of the time with emergency vehicles coming in there, or even with the van for Molly who is handicapped and with the handicap van, it is just much more difficult to negotiate. And again we would agree that it should be moved if there was any harm to the public, but there doesn’t appear that there should be any harm to the public by allowing that building to remain there, especially after 10 years. So Molly would like to make a statement, and I think Mr. Carlson would too, and perhaps some of the neighbors, if you want more statements than this. But one last thing. I suppose that the Planning Commission was concerned, I made the statement that it seems to me there are enough differences in this and the set of facts is such that granting this variance would not be setting a precedence for granting variances in other situations. I think Mr. Knutson wouldn’t even have to be that creative in order to set of facts to not make this a precedent for a future variance request. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Will you stand for a couple questions and then we’ll be happy to listen to at least a couple more. Any questions at this point from any council members? And maybe this is a question for you and for staff with regard to the pole barn, or the new barn. I don’t want to refer to it. Was a permit drawn for that? Kate Aanenson: Yes, with a letter of credit for $5,000 that by August 1st the buildings marked in red would come down. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 59 Luke Melchert: There’s two of the buildings already down. The third one is in the process of being taken down. Kate Aanenson: We checked today. We couldn’t tell that they were in the process. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, so at some point there’s going to have to be some verification of that. Luke Melchert: Mr. Carlson did not get building permits for a couple of these, two of these barns, two of them sheds here were put up at the request of, you got a horse lady here. And she said that he should build some additional. Mayor Furlong: Was that an official… Luke Melchert: …but somebody from the city came out and said, you’ve got to provide better shelter for your horses so he built this, assuming, thinking he’s agricultural use and this is not human habitation there so he just put the structures up. Kate Aanenson: Well unfortunately it became filled with storage and the horses weren’t in there. The storage was and that was kind of some of the issue that we had. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Luke Melchert: Thank you. Molly Carlson: Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62nd Street. I come tonight to say that I very much need this variance for the garage that protects my equipment. My equipment is very expensive and takes a lot of space. It would be inaccessible to me if it was someplace else. This garage for my equipment has been…for 10 years. It would be a great hardship for me to be without it… Please don’t take this away. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Carlson. I don’t want a repeat of everything at the Planning Commission. Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street and I don’t know if there’s a picture but when I, his driveway goes right down along my back yard, so whenever I, it would be, yeah it would be this lot right here. So when I walk out my, into my back yard, I’m looking right into their yard and right at the garages and stuff, and I don’t see any reason. The garages aren’t, you can’t see them from the road. They don’t bother me at all. I like that type of area. I live out there to be where it’s quiet and not a lot of houses around and Mr. Carlson is a very good neighbor. I just don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t grant this variance for the garages. And I know he’s going to be getting those sheds down but he has to have a place to put the stuff there before he can get some of them tore down. He just doesn’t want to put it out in the yard, but I think you should grant it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you Mr. Keehl. Okay? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 60 Luke Melchert: There’s no question this is going to be, it’s single family zoned. It’s going to be developed at some point in the future but because of, for the benefits of the citizens of Chanhassen and the neighbors, please let this semblance of days gone past survive for a little while longer. Everybody in the neighborhood likes it and there doesn’t have to be any harm to the health and welfare of the general public. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick question. I’m looking at the picture in the staff report, page 5. At the bottom which is, I think it’s the back of the garage. Are there, none of the garage doors open to the street, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: No, that’s correct. Mayor Furlong: They open to the driveway area which is somewhat to the east. And do they use, is that a boat or something stored behind the garage in this picture? Kate Aanenson: That’s a carport. Mayor Furlong: I’m looking at between the light pole and the two yellow turn signs. Down. Bottom picture on the page. There you go. Kate Aanenson: This one? Mayor Furlong: Yep. If you move your pencil to the left. Right in the middle. Is that a boat or something stored back there? Kate Aanenson: That was one of the issues. There’s a lot of outdoor storage. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Luke Melchert: We have no problem getting rid of outdoor storage. I mean you won’t let us build some of these buildings to put it in. Mayor Furlong: A function of too much stuff. Okay. Any other questions, thoughts or comments? And as I say I’m going to have a question. Well, let’s start with that and then I may have follow up questions. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Start with a question or? Mayor Furlong: Let me start with a question because maybe this may get us somewhere or not. Mr. Knutson. Gary Carlson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 61 Gary Carlson: Gary Carlson. I want to make a comment. Again this wasn’t Kate’s issue. This was Josh Metzer’s issue and I appreciate Kate did a very good job of presenting it. I’ve been negotiating a lot with Josh trying to take down 5 buildings. Then okay what would you do next Mr. Carlson? Take down 2 more so, the thing to keep in mind is I’m taking down all 7 of the structures that were grandfathered and replacing that with the small machine storage shed and the animal loafing shed, which the animals are, the animals and I are using every day. Which are interior to the property. They’re small buildings. 22 by 20. They’re not huge. They’ve got a lot of space around us and if you look at those pictures you can see where we’re not here to crowd. We’re a 5 acre hobby farm with building only the necessary structures to keep functioning as a hobby farm. And I’m agreeing to take down 7 old structures. Really just…over the neighbors and for our new development coming in south of us. I’ve worked out an agreement with that developer to replace and put a really nice horse fence all along the south end of my property so I’m not trying to be a drug dealer in a nice area. I continue to keep it improved. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Gary Carlson: Yeah, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, in terms of the zoning. Currently it is residential low density, is that the correct zoning? Roger Knutson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess the question, and this is a variance request. Could there be a condition with regard to timing if a subdivision occurred then the variance, does the variance stay with the property permanently or if there’s subdivision, would then the variance have to be reviewed in terms of the. Could that be a condition I guess is my question. Roger Knutson: You could provide as a condition. Mayor Furlong: At some future. Roger Knutson: You could provide as a condition, if you chose to, that if any part of this property were subdivided or sold off or any property line adjustments or the property shrunk in size, that the variances would terminate. It just flows to the entire property and if it’s further divided, the variances are gone. You’d have to work on the wording but you can get that. If that’s what you want to do. Councilman Lundquist: That’s the creativity thing Mr. Melchert was talking about. Roger Knutson: We’ve faced this issue before…but not with Mr. Melchert. Mayor Furlong: Okay. He raised the issue about precedent setting as well, as he went forward with something here. Do you see those, is there as much a concern here as sometimes we do see? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 62 Roger Knutson: Legally I don’t see it as a concern. I’m just stumbling here trying to find that case. I didn’t bring this case for this application but for a different one. It would basically, the Minnesota Court of Appeals said that notions of precedence and…have no legal application in the zoning process. The only thing that applies in the zoning process is, is there a rational basis? Are you acting reasonably on this application? You have equal protection of other things, but they rarely come in, so generally speaking you have a political precedent if you will, but there’s not a legal precedent. Mayor Furlong: Those were my couple questions. I don’t know if they helped you. I’m not even sure they helped me but. Councilman Peterson: They didn’t help me. Mayor Furlong: Thoughts and comments. Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I think reasonable trade off, if we can get the, I understand what the Planning Commission and respect that either they’re looking at the ordinance in a vacuum with blinders so to speak. It’s sort of what we asked them to do anyway. For them to interpret the ordinances and to act accordingly. We get to make the fun decisions so, but I think I’m comfortable given the removal of the 7 buildings, much like the previous one we just had. Get those permits. Get those inspections. Verify that all of this stuff is happening. Make it a reasonable amount of time and you know we’ll leave that up to Kate and Todd to determine what’s reasonable. Somewhere between next week and 6 months from now. Something like that. That they would get all that stuff done. I’m comfortable and again stressing that we get that wording around the variances expiring on whatever happens here, subdivision slash you know some modification of property rights. And again that no more structures get built on the property, so essentially what’s, Kate what you provided for alternate motion if you want to call it that or, alternate recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I too. I think the applicant has given it a good shot at saying that he will remove 7 buildings from the property and I just think that making him move a building 8 feet to comply, it seems tedious in some ways to me. But for me it doesn’t make any common sense. It’s been there for 10 years. It obviously, I look at the pictures and looking to see about space and vehicles, and there is a tree there so are we going to ask you to move the garage and then cut the tree down so you have room for your vehicles? There comes a time and a place where you just have to sit down and say, is it logical? Does it make sense or are we just being tedious with the ordinance all along, and so I would like to see those buildings gone by August 1st. …garage to say where it is and let them get back to their lives. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Well I’m in the mood to table tonight. Mayor Furlong: We haven’t done that yet tonight have we? City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 63 Councilman Peterson: You know I think that if the structures that have been discussed to be removed are removed and although I don’t necessarily agree with the applicant’s rational for not moving the building, I think it’s more reasonable… So to that end I would offer that we should move to table until the buildings are gone and then come back and once we’re assured of that and then we’ll grant the variance for the garage setbacks. Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s reasonable. I think since we are as close as we are to that deadline, I think the applicant is making an effort in terms of identifying those 7 buildings and we appreciate that, and seeing that those get done. I think we’re 20 days away from that deadline, and certainly hope that they will be able to adhere to that. But I would like to see some language, as we discussed Councilman Lundquist also indicated, based on my question from, with regards to the duration of the variance, especially if there’s a subdivision there may, I wouldn’t want this to come back and create something that has to be approved if there’s a change so, in terms of, it’s been described to us as a need based upon the current use. So if that use changes, then I would think that it would at least need to be revisited by a future council, so I guess I’d like to see that as a part of the findings and also perhaps a condition that we’ll look at. Councilman Lundquist: So conditions around a motion to table, or does that become a strong recommendation? Mayor Furlong: No it’s, I guess it’s something for staff to investigate to look at, and the other thing I heard was the issue of there’s already an agreement between the City and the property owner to have 5 buildings there removed I think by August 1st. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: And so I think we’re 20 days away from that, which would give staff some time to draft some language. Kate Aanenson: We’re going to take our extra 60 days. Councilman Peterson: There you go. Mayor Furlong: We’ve done that before tonight I think. Kate Aanenson: I think so. Councilman Peterson: Add to the 5 buildings, and add the 2 other ones, so you’ve get. Kate Aanenson: 7 buildings. Councilman Lundquist: As a strong recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Yep. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 64 Kate Aanenson: Can we just be clear so that the applicant understands that condition. They’re tabling it and, until such time as the buildings are removed… Luke Melchert: We understand that. I suppose before you… Kate Aanenson: Right, they added the 2 additional buildings. Luke Melchert: Right. Mayor Furlong: We don’t want, obviously we don’t want to get to that. An agreement was reached and we assume that the agreement’s. Luke Melchert: …if the buildings are down by August 1st, the applicant can probably assume they. Kate Aanenson: Put it back on the agenda, correct. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Luke Melchert: And we’ll get… Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: I try not to predict votes but. Gary Carlson: 5 I can easily. 2 are already down and then for the third one we’ve got hay put in it. But the barn is empty and I started taking that down today with a machine, but the 2 additional buildings, Josh and I had. First of all I don’t know if I’m going to be able to keep the machine storage shed and the animal loafing shed, and if I have to make more room in the machine shed for taking down 2 more to 7. I can’t do the 7 by August 1st. I can do the 5 by August 1st. Kate Aanenson: They gave you an extra 60 days so we’d be happy to work with you. Mayor Furlong: I think staff can work with you. Gary Carlson: Okay, yeah I know…I think it’s a very good idea. Councilwoman Tjornhom: …$5,000. Because it was for 5 buildings and now we’re going to 7 so. Gary Carlson: …I’d be perfectly willing to show what I can do. Appreciate working. Kate Aanenson: What the intent is to show good faith effort to move towards the goal. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 65 Mayor Furlong: On everyone’s side. Kate Aanenson: On everyone’s side. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. That would be fine. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Motion to table. Mayor Furlong: Motion to table. Second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: We did accomplish a lot tonight, even though I shouldn’t be discussing a motion to table. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table Planning Case 06- 23 for a variance and intensification of a non-conforming use for the property at 3891 West 62nd Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? Councilwoman Tjornhom: As the Mayor said, I think we had an excellent 4th of July. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom: It was a beautiful day both days. Very successful I thought. Record numbers of people and wonderful weather and it was a good. Mayor Furlong: It was a great time. Thank you Councilwoman Tjornhom. I appreciate you saying that. Our city staff did a wonderful job, both the park department, public works. The sheriff’s department. Todd Gerhardt: Fire department. Mayor Furlong: Administration. Fire department. I mean just about all the departments. It was a city wide effort. I think there were also a number of organizations, the Chamber. The Rotary Club. Lions. Others that were intimately involved at various levels and we need to recognize all their efforts too. This is not the type of project I know Mr. Hoffman said this before, the city and the government can’t put these on. It takes a lot of people and most of all, it takes the 6,000 or so, or whatever the number was. Don’t quote me on that please Mr. Jansen because in terms of the people that showed up on the 3rd for the street dance. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 66 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think I put wrist bands on most of them. Mayor Furlong: And for the even more than that that showed up for the parade and for the fireworks. It’s great that we can put on a great show for everybody but more importantly it’s great that everybody shows up for it so. Job well done by everybody. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I think the key thing was, no major incidents occurred. We had one employee that got a little bump on the head driving in a post and nothing 8 stitches couldn’t take care of but, other than that no incidents occurred. We learned a little bit about oh probably man one of the fire trucks outside of the fire department building and locate that either at Lake Ann or Lake Susan so if we have an incident, we can get out a little faster than trying to open up the lane in the parade route for that to occur so. Constantly learning. Adjusting. Rotary did a great job in putting on the parade and it was just perfect weather. I’m taking credit for the weather. Mayor Furlong: I thought I signed the proclamation. Todd Gerhardt: Oh? Did you sign that? Mayor Furlong: We’ll do it together. Todd Gerhardt: I’m just in charge of 100 year rains. Mayor Furlong: You’re in charge of 100 year rains, that’s correct. And there were none. Anything else? Todd Gerhardt: Search continues, or very close to hiring an Assistant. Just trying to work out the fine details in a letter and so. Probably get an e-mail from me this week after I hear back from him. Or her. To whom it may be so. Other than that, that’s all I have. Oh, the one fire that we had at Lake Susan Apartments. Again, sprinkling decks saved us from having a huge hazard over there and putting people out. I think I sent out an e-mail to council showing the damage that occurred, and the sprinkler system really kept that fire to a bare minimum. Fire department was there for probably less than a half hour. Councilman Lundquist: So we should let them grill on that apartment building? Todd Gerhardt: I can show you a picture of a grill fire too. Councilman Lundquist: They didn’t have sprinklers on the deck though did they? Todd Gerhardt: They did not have sprinklers on the deck, and it was a fairly new building. So other than that, that’s all we had. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or smart alec remarks. Councilman Peterson: I remain quiet. City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006 67 Mayor Furlong: Anything else for Mr. Gerhardt? We’ve been here a while. Thank you everyone. Is there anything else to come before the council this evening? Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 27, 2006 Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Anne Murphy, Paula Atkins, and Steve Scharfenberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly and Jeff Daniel STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor; Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent; and Susan Bill, Senior Center Manager APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Todd Hoffman announced the events associated with the City’s annual 4th of July celebration scheduled for Monday, July 3rd and Tuesday, July 4th. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Bruce Johansson, 6711 Mohawk Drive requested that a pedestrian trail be built on the Tamarack Road easement down to Lotus Trail as access to the swimming beach at Carver Beach Park. Todd Hoffman informed the commission and Mr. Johansson that the City will be holding an informal neighborhood meeting down at Carver Beach Park on Thursday, July 6th to discuss a number of issues. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated May 23, 2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. DISCUSSION REGARDING BASEBALL FACILITIES. Todd Hoffman presented the staff update on this item which was brought up as a visitor presentation at the May 23, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Atkins stated that her father actually played for the Chanhassen Red Birds at one point and suggested that the group of men that meet regularly at the American Legion try to garner as much public support as possible. Commissioner Scharfenberg asked about the possibility of using the fields at Lake Susan, and what the school district’s thoughts are for building athletic facilities at the new high school. Chairman Stolar asked for clarification on how to proceed with discussions with District 112 regarding athletic facilities associated with the referendum and new high school. Park and Rec Commission Summary – June 27, 2006 2 Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council initiate a joint effort with School District 112 and other interested parties to explore future construction of a baseball stadium within the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, LAKESIDE. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Scharfenberg asked for clarification of the trail location. Chairman Stolar clarified the location of Lake Riley Park in relation to this development. Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded that the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for the Lakeside PUD. 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 “Lyman Boulevard Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 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 Lyman Boulevard 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 its construction. 3. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant’s plans, is completed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND PARK AND TRAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Scharfenberg asked for clarification on the proposal to push certain projects ahead of others. Scharfenberg moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council modify the 2006 Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program by adding the Lake Ann Park and Curry Farms Park trail improvements at a not to exceed amount of $49,999 and deleting the Rice Marsh Lake Park trail and South Lotus Lake Park trail, and a portion of the funding designated for an off-leash dog area to cover the costs of these new projects. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2006 FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION. Nate Rosa updated the commission on the city’s upcoming Fourth of July celebration and Park and Rec Commission Summary – June 27, 2006 3 handed out t-shirts to the commissioners. Commissioner Murphy asked about the status of the Park and Recreation Commission having a booth at the business expo. RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Todd Hoffman updated the commission on Tom Knowles injury and the status of the work being done to cover his job at the Rec Center. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Susan Bill presented the report on the Senior Center activities for the month of May with highlights from Senior Awareness Month. Commissioner Scharfenberg suggested inviting the School District to come in and talk to the seniors about the upcoming school referendum. PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Dale Gregory reviewed the spring projects that have been completed and provided an update on the current projects. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Chairman Stolar asked for an update on the status of the picnic reservations. Spizale moved, Scharfenberg 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 JUNE 27, 2006 Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Anne Murphy, Paula Atkins, and Steve Scharfenberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly and Jeff Daniel STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor; Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent; and Susan Bill, Senior Center Manager APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Hoffman: I’m pleased to announce that Monday and Tuesday will be the 23rd Annual 4th of July celebration in town and it will start on Monday with the evening’s events. The Rotary Beer Garden, street dance and the Casablanca Orchestra, and that starts at 5:00 p.m. that afternoon and, Monday afternoon behind City Hall. And then on Sunday we start the events off at Lake Ann Park with the fishing contest, the kids fishing contest, and then move uptown for the parade, sponsored again by the Rotary at 2:30 and then we move from there to the fireworks that evening. Taste of Chanhassen is before the parade down here at City Center Park so, and invite the public to come on out and participate in the event. Stolar: Any other public announcements? Alright. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Bruce Johansson: Hello. My name is Bruce Johansson and I’m a resident of Chanhassen. I live at 6711 Mohawk Drive in Carver Beach, and I also own the house right next door to 6701 Mohawk Drive in Carver Beach, and the reason I’m here tonight is, I’d like to make a proposal and see whatever the procedure would be but what I am proposing is that bordering my property and a couple other of my neighbors, we have a road that was never built and it’s called Tamarack Road. And by my property 6701 uses really that public easement of part of my driveway to get into my property. But along side that along all my property and then down to Lotus Trail, I’m on Mohawk and it goes down to Lotus Trail, and I have a map here but I’m sure you do too. I would like to, I don’t know what the wordage would be but try to get it designated pedestrian trail going along there and the reason is that really since that part of Carver Beach neighborhood has existed, we always used that access down to the swimming beach at Lotus Trail. And I’ve Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 2 owned the property for I guess this will be my 13th, 14th year. Second year for 6711 Mohawk, and a lot of the neighborhood kids use it. Some adults but they’ve been kind of, they don’t use it as much because it isn’t designated and now we have a lot of new people in the neighborhood and a lot of little families with young kids, and if you’re familiar with coming down by that, it’s a very steep road and then it turns into Mohawk and then another steep road and you have to go around about, about a half a mile to get to the swimming beach. If you were to be able to go through on this pedestrian walkway along my property, down to the lake, you’d save that amount of walking which could be correlated to convenience and safety and so on and so forth. I’ve picked a couple kids up off the road over the years that have like wiped out coming down on their skateboards and stuff and anyway we’ve had a, worked very good as a community pathway for many, many years and now it’s been kind of choked down to about 2 feet down to the last 80 feet, my last, my neighbor on Lotus Trail. I just think it’d be a benefit to the neighborhood. To the community and I’m willing to give up some driveway and would like to put that forth. Hoffman: Do you have a copy of the map that they could look at? Bruce Johansson: Yep. And I’ve gone around the neighborhood and I’ve gotten really unanimous support. A lot of signatures and that’s just from the folks that were at home. I also have some pictures of what it looks like now, parts of it. And the bottom portion of that Lotus Trail, the homeowner is Mr. Loren Veltkamp and he’s kind of keeps, it keeps getting littler every year, that pathway and it’s getting kind of dangerous because there’s chicken wire and there’s some electrical cords he’s got there now and you know I don’t want, someone’s going to get hurt and it doesn’t really need to be. Stolar: Todd, any comments or points? Bruce Johansson: These are my surveys. Hoffman: Mr. Johansson and commissioners, I think the timing is pretty good. The neighborhood has raised a couple of other questions as well at a council meeting in the first part of June and so we’ll be holding an informal neighborhood meeting down there on Thursday, July 7th. I think it’s going to be at 5:30 to talk about the park in general, and so that would be a great time to talk as a neighborhood about the proposed pedestrian access. A mailers going to go out yet this week for that meeting and it doesn’t have a formal agenda, but we’re just talking about the neighborhood park issues in general, from tree planting and we can talk about this item. We’re going to meet right down on Lotus Trail, right down near the beach so if you’re available I’d encourage you to come down and we can talk about it at that point, and then I can make a report back to the commission at their July meeting. Bruce Johansson: One thing I’d like to add please is that the path that I’m proposing, or the type of path is similar to the one that you built a few years ago along Napa Trail and then along Lotus, and also you have that one on Bighorn going down to Carver. And I talked to the neighbors that are along that trail, in fact one of the fellas, he signed. He was happy to sign. He said it just wasn’t a problem. He didn’t experience any you know, vandalism or you know any worries that people might have so I thought that was nice. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 3 Hoffman: Would you propose that we stairway or just straight down asphalt? Bruce Johansson: Well really it’s fairly gradual all, pretty much all along but when you get down to about the last 80 feet, it starts to get into about a 30 degree dive and you know if it’s, yeah a few steps. You know a few steps. Not a lot of steps but a few. I don’t know what kids with strollers, I don’t know how that works but there’s a lot of moms with strollers. Kids in them. Stolar: So will you join us then at that meeting? Bruce Johansson: I’m supposed to be out of town on the 7th, but I might stick around to be there. Stolar: Actually Todd, is it the 6th? Thursday would be the 6th. Hoffman: 6th, correct. Stolar: 6th, okay. What we can do is, regardless we’ll get back to you. Todd do you, we have information, address information so we’ll have the discussion. Talk to your neighbors who might attend and ask them to talk about this. We’ll bring it up also because I plan on being at the meeting with Todd. Bruce Johansson: Are you going to send out like one of those postcards? Hoffman: Note cards, yep. Bruce Johansson: Alright. Stolar: And I think, yeah first of all I appreciate you coming forward to propose something to help the community. That I think is great and we really appreciate you taking the time. Bruce Johansson: People would really like it you know, and I think it’s a, my feeling is when you have people out, it’s the best thing you can have for a neighborhood. You get to talking and watching, you know everybody’s looking out for each other when you know each other and. Stolar: So you should, I would assume Todd he’ll hear from us as far as after the meeting we’re going to send out some summary and then at that point you’ll know what the next steps may be. Bruce Johansson: Alright, great. Hoffman: It would be planned as a future CIP item. It’s not a part of our comprehensive plan so it would be, instead of road right-of-way, so there would be some issues to resolve regarding usage of the road right-of-way as a trail. Some exploration to take place. Bruce Johansson: Okay, great. Stolar: Thank you very much. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 4 Bruce Johansson: Can I get those back or do you need them? Stolar: So thank you. Hoffman: Thanks for stopping by. Again we apologize we were late. Stolar: We’ll look forward I guess, this commission will see a write up of the meeting at our August meeting. July meeting. Okay. Great. Any other? I think that’s all we have for visitors. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated May 23, 2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. DISCUSSION REGARDING BASEBALL FACILITIES. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar, members of the commission. If you recall at your last meeting we had a group of individuals here interested in seeing a ball stadium or baseball stadium constructed in Chanhassen and it’s a topic of conversation that’s been around for quite some time. Take a few moments to take a look at the past and research and talk and write about the first baseball field that was developed here in town. Quite a colorful group of individuals. Reubon Bongard was the first coach. They wanted a field in town. I’m not quite sure what conversations they had with the parish before they went out and tore down their woods but I assume they talked to somebody about that, so interesting story and that’s what, really these fields that exist currently in Glencoe, Arlington, Jordan, Chaska, Shakopee, that’s how each one has an individual story about how it came about. Shakopee has many of the seats from the old Met Stadium when they tore down that and they brought those out to Shakopee so lots of hard work, sweat and labor goes into these facilities when they’re constructed. I think what you saw, and you probably recognized, it was a team that is frustrated with their current facility and they were anxious and hopeful that this could happen for next spring’s tournament, or next spring’s season and that’s just not the case. We’re not going to be able to construct a facility or modify an existing facility within town so they can come play next spring. But nevertheless I think the initiation of the conversation is timely because we have a school bond referendum that will be voted on in this community and in all of District 112 coming this November, which will most likely include a new high school in Chanhassen. We have had initial conversations with the district staff and they will need a baseball stadium. A football stadium. Most likely an ice arena and a variety of other athletic venues that go along with a high school when they move into town. So there will be a baseball stadium somewhere in the community that can host high school baseball, if that all comes to pass, and that in my mind is the time that we should discuss a joint facility with town baseball. Legion baseball. High school baseball. Interestingly enough one of the biggest, you know or one topic that comes up is if you have a facility on district property you cannot consume or serve alcohol and that would be an issue for town baseball so, as you move forward with the thought process, you may want to build this on city property and then have the high school participate at that. If you want to have a town baseball team type tournaments in the future because that is obviously an issue. Mr. Lund did visit me after receiving the report. He Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 5 was not happy. He wanted a baseball field next year, next spring but he understood and so you could toss all the Villager article following up on the presentation by the gentlemen that were here last meeting and so. I’ve not received any correspondence from the general community since that time. I have visited some baseball parks. I watched a team in Victoria here last Thursday night for a little while and people were talking about baseball and we talked about this potential facility and they were excited about it and they would be glad to see a field built here in Chanhassen so. Interested to hear what commissioners have heard since last week, and then take your direction as to a recommendation for the council for the future. Stolar: Okay, thank you. Any thoughts? Paula, start with you. Atkins: Well I went home immediately and reported it to my father actually played for the Chanhassen Red Birds at some point. Both of my parents went to ball games in Chan all the time as young people and they think it’s a swell idea. They would love it. I told dad, because he sees these gentlemen a lot at the Legion for breakfast and things like that, that they really need to talk it up and they, I thought they should try and get a table at the Chamber of Commerce there on the 4th of July, just to stand there and talk to people and talk about the history of baseball in Chanhassen. Something like that I think would be garner a lot of interest and you know they need to make themselves visible I think. I think it will fly. Stolar: Steve. Scharfenberg: No comments other than I was curious as to what their reaction was in terms of moving out of Victoria. Were they still interested in coming here? And if so, just playing at Lake Ann next year. Not Lake Ann. At Lake Susan next year or. Hoffman: Probably not possible without lights. Without lights and dugouts. So even, as disappointed as they are with Victoria, they’re still miles ahead of what we have to offer here right now. Spizale: …I think it’s a good idea. I think it’d be a lot of fun for the community. Murphy: Same here. I’ve just heard a lot of positive feedback from neighbors that they would be interested in having a baseball team so. Stolar: So as it relates to the recommendation that we work within the school district, is that consistent with people’s thoughts or is it, should we be pursuing outside of that? Scharfenberg: Well I think a lot’s going to depend on what the school, what happens with the high school and what their property is going to be able to hold and what the school district’s thought process is on ballfields. You know in terms of football fields. It’s the thought that they’re not going to build a new field and they’re just going to play at Chaska. They’ve got one field and have to share that field for the time being. Is there a thought that that’s the same with baseball? That we’re going to have some shared use facilities here. I think a lot of that’s going to depend on what the district’s goals are and what our goals are for our ballfields and what we put a priority on and are willing to maybe develop with the school district. Would it be nice to Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 6 have an additional ballfields, and certainly and if it’s softball or baseball and the demand that we have already, I think we do need more ballfields. As Todd mentioned, you’re probably going to have a problem with liquor sales and then you’re looking at okay, so now what do we do? Are we back to the Lake Susan and doing something with that or property somewhere else? Who knows. So I think a lot of it’s going to be driven by the conversations with the school district and what our priorities are in terms of what types of ballfields we need. Hoffman: In response to that same line of thought or discussion, the initial conversations of the district, they’re looking to have independent facilities for all sports with the exception of swimming, and I think their plan right now is to develop a pool at the 9th grade center that would service both high schools if they were built. But beyond that, they would like to look for independent facilities for hockey, baseball, softball, football and then it may not all happen on the piece of ground that they currently own in Chanhassen. There may be facilities developed at other locations within the community. Stolar: Would we have even a venue outside of Lake Susan that we could even consider? Hoffman: Lake Ann. Stolar: What about, wasn’t there that piece of property that we used for storage for like the bark and all that stuff? Hoffman: Yeah, that’s going to be a future public works facility. Garage facility and it probably wouldn’t be, but there’s other lands in Chanhassen still that would be. Stolar: That you could buy but not that we own? Hoffman: Nothing we own. Stolar: Right. Hoffman: Our discussion is, we need to expand our, if we go and modify a facility we go backwards. We cut some things out to build a baseball stadium and we’re going backwards where right now we could expand additional facilities and so, I think it would be a goal that we initially could go ahead and work with the district on some of those expansion plans. Stolar: So if I look at this more holistically, what the options exist will be dependent upon whether that referendum passes for the school, because that changes, if it doesn’t pass right, that changes the discussion altogether? Hoffman: Absolutely. No school. No need for fields. Stolar: Right. So, and that’s this fall or November? I believe. Hoffman: Correct, this November, yeah. And obviously if it fails it will be coming back, so it’s not like the conversations will end. The referendum will have to come back. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 7 Stolar: Part of my questioning is, if we’re looking at venues outside of there, we would have to make our own discussions of referendum, and maybe even with the school referendum passing, we might have our own referendum discussions given the costs involved of either land acquisition. If we have to go to a different area, correct? Hoffman: Yeah. Part of the discussion is going to be how are you going to pay for it? Whether that’s a referendum or not. But this conversation, this conversation community wide is going to speed up very rapidly here so, it’s not like you’re premature in making recommendation to the council to get on board with the school district and stir up some conversations about athletic facilities because they’re going to start to gear up their publicity here very rapidly after the 4th of July and people in this community are going to be well aware of what’s going on with the referendum and with the future high school and proposed new pool. People are going to be asking questions about where are they going to play football, hockey, baseball? Stolar: And we had a couple meetings ago with the whole discussion of the pool. Was another aspect of this. So when I see here about recommending we initiate joint efforts for just the baseball stadium, I understand that addresses this, but in some way conveying to them that there are a series of facilities, opportunities for co, working with the district to get some additional recreational capabilities and capacity. Hoffman: Yeah, you’d have to modify the recommendation. It is a broader conversation. Stolar: I was just thinking that at some point, once they’re, and we’ve talked about this before with the pool discussion. Once the referendum, let’s say it passes. We ought to then start looking as a commission. What are the things we want to recommend the City pursue jointly? Whether it’s you know baseball and pool or baseball, ice rink and pool. And then figure out what does that mean? How do we approach it and then how do we pay for it? Hoffman: Yeah even, those discussions need to happen pre-referendum because the referendum’s going to identify what they’re going to build. People are going to vote for it. Stolar: Well I thought they had outlined already the dollar amounts. Hoffman: They have an estimate but not final. The school’s going to build a pool. So the school’s going to build a pool. It’s going to be part of this, well school’s planning on proposing a question to build a pool. If it’s approved, they’re going to build… Stolar: The question is, what info we can give as far as like in the pool, we received recommendations of the types of things they’d like to see in a pool. Is one input and we did refer them to the district, so is this something we should get together with them soon to talk with them about some of our ideas or should we, we had talked at one point about having a working session where we just talk through some of the ideas and prioritize them. Is that something that we should still do? Rather soon then? Hoffman: That’d be great, yeah. If you want to do that. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 8 Stolar: Alright, we’ll leave that as an open item but not necessarily related to this. So related to the baseball recommendation that that is a specific area where we do want to enter into joint discussions with the district, do we have any changes to the recommendation or amendment? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission recommend that the City Council initiate a joint effort with School District 112 and other interested parties to explore future construction of a baseball stadium within the City of Chanhassen. Motion to approve? Scharfenberg: So moved. Stolar: Moved by Commissioner Scharfenberg. Spizale: Second. Stolar: Seconded by Commissioner Spizale. Any other points? Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council initiate a joint effort with School District 112 and other interested parties to explore future construction of a baseball stadium within the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Stolar: And then we’ll set up some other meeting, or working session for us to talk about some other opportunities and prioritize. Hoffman: Working session with the commission? Stolar: Right. Just the commission, yeah. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, LAKESIDE. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar, members of the commission. The Lakeside development is currently the Lake Riley apartments. The apartments are planned to be demolished over the next summer months and then the redevelopment of apartment units and townhouses be built on the property. The applicant, Sienna Corporation is the same company that has developed and manages Bearpath. It’s 26.34 acres. They’re looking at building 234 residential developments. 2, 3, and 4 unit condominiums. They’ve acquired the property and they plan on initiating construction again later this fall. Comprehensive park plan and trail plan, after we reviewed the proposal, comprehensive park plan talks about developing a park to go within one half mile of every residence in the city. This property lies at the eastern border of Chanhassen, right up against Eden Prairie. Developing a park at this location is not recommended because you have, essentially if you put a park at this property you’d have a service area which is half of Eden Prairie and half in Chanhassen. If you refer to the map, the overview map in here that shows the Lake Riley North neighborhood park service area, the area photo, the proposed neighborhood park site is actually quite a bit to the east on property currently owned by John Klingelhutz and so you would take these neighborhood and centrally locate a 5 or 7 acre park site to Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 9 accommodate all the new residents in that particular location. And then in addition to the other future public amenities that are planned, this development will also be incorporating a beachlot with a variety of amenities on the property, including a boat access, gazebo, a grill, picnic area, fire pit. They’ll have a dock with 6 slips that will mostly likely just have association type recreational boats and then they would be reserved on a per time basis. There would not be any private facilities or private boats at that location. Trails in the area. The Lakeside committed to complete a very important section of the trail. It’s located directly north of Lyman Boulevard, and then it will connect on the north side of Lyman. It will connect to Eden Prairie along the 15th green or fairway of the Bearpath golf course and it will travel north underneath Highway 212 at a future underpass, or an underpass which is currently being constructed. So this will allow residents who want to be a few underpass opportunities in the eastern sections of Chanhassen to get underneath Highway 212. The trails north of there are yet to be constructed but if you’ve ever been in the Marsh Glen trail, that currently dead ends. That’s where this trail would connect at some time in the future. So it’s a very important connection. The Sienna Corporation per their development contract with the City of Chanhassen is required to construct that trail along the 15th green and fairway and that also requires to construct a trail from the corporate boundaries of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen east into Eden Prairie to connect up to their trail system. So by the end of next summer, people in this area will be able to travel both on Lyman Boulevard, east and west, in and out of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to Lake Riley Park or other destinations via the LRT trail. And then they’ll also be able to travel north under Highway 212, which will be quite a relief because if you have to cross at the bridge, you can go all the way back to Highway 101 at that location. You probably all saw Commissioner Daniel’s comments. He has a desire to see us put some public park in this location…talk to him in person. I didn’t really understand all of his thoughts completely but I did respond in an e-mail that I copied all of you on… Our recommendation, staff’s recommendation, they have three items. It’s recommended that you recommend that City Council require 3 conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for the Lakeside PUD. Number one, the payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat in lieu of parkland dedication. Two, the applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction, and testing services required of the Lyman Boulevard trail. They will construct that trail. The trail shall be 10 feet in width and then we will reimburse the applicant for that construction of that section of our comprehensive trail plan, and that is consistent with how we have developed the remainder of our comp trail plan within the city. And then number three. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future 212 trail underpass, as depicted construon the applicant’s plans be completed. So you want to make that a condition so we make sure that that does occur at some point in the future. Stolar: Okay. Hoffman: They are having neighborhood meetings down here. I know they’re working on relocation. That’s one of the concerns of our community is that this is impacting a great number of people, and the elementary school here in Chanhassen is being affected by it because of their relocations with folks, so they are meeting as a neighborhood. Meeting with the developer and working on relocation assistance for these people, along with Carver County and the City of Chanhassen. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 10 Stolar: Ann, any questions? Murphy: I guess with Chanhassen Elementary, I didn’t understand that. Hoffman: They’ll be affected because of the loss of many of the kids that currently reside here will not be able to, may not be able to find other places in town to live and so if they, I’m not sure how many students they had but let’s say 30. Some of those kids might not be coming back to school here in Chanhassen next year. Stolar: Jack. Spizale: This trail is on, one thing I didn’t quite understand is this trail goes on their property around the lake? Hoffman: That’s their private trail. Let’s see, if you go to Plan Sheet 5 of 9. They have it labeled as a 8 foot bituminous. It will actually be a 10 foot bituminous trail. 8 foot is their old standard. 10 foot in their new standard. You see it there Jack on the north side. Sheet 5 of 9. It’s on the north side of Lyman Boulevard. They’ve got a trail construction called out. And then they’ll have a private trail on the small section on their side of, when I say their side, on the lake side, there’ll be a trail, a walking path as it’s called out for their beachlot association. Spizale: Okay. Hoffman: They also have many private trails, pathways within their development itself. Stolar: Steve. Scharfenberg: So I’m trying to envision that, there’ll be, on that area on the north side of that road, is that still called Lyman Boulevard back there? Okay. And there’ll be a path on that north side going all the way into Eden Prairie, all the way up to Lake Riley? Hoffman: Correct. The trail stops, Bearpath built an urban section of road and then it stops. There’s a trail on that road. I’m not sure if it’s on the north or south of that location at Eden Prairie. But they will build this trail on the north side, all the way down into Eden Prairie. Currently the trail in Chanhassen terminates at Lake Riley Road East. It’s on the south side. It stops at the road and then it has a pedestrian crosswalk over to the Rottlund development. And so that’s where they’ll pick it up from that location and continue on east. Stolar: Paula. Atkins: No questions. Stolar: Just one quick question. How far is the Lake Riley Park from this development area in Eden Prairie? Scharfenberg: I’d say at the most three quarters of a mile. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 11 Stolar: So it’s not very far. Scharfenberg: No. Stolar: So they still have, with the trails and all these, they still have access to quite within the half mile discussion but a half mile, but three quarter mile access to a park facility until we get this acquisition and this other development. Hoffman: And Lake Riley’s a nice park. It might even be a little bit a closer to the north side of the park there at that location. Half mile, three quarters of a mile. Stolar: I mean the question of what are they going to do to get to this. Well they do have the opportunity in Eden Prairie for a park, so it’s not like they’re left out in the cold. Hoffman: It’s nearby. Stolar: Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve staff recommendation? I’m not going to re-read it… Murphy: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation. Stolar: Moved by Commissioner Murphy. Can I have a second? Scharfenberg: Second. Stolar: Seconded by Commissioner Scharfenberg. Murphy moved, Scharfenberg seconded that the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for the Lakeside PUD. 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 “Lyman Boulevard Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 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 Lyman Boulevard 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 its construction. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 12 3. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant’s plans, is completed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND PARK AND TRAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). Hoffman: Thanks Chair Stolar, members of the commission. We reviewed this this evening as a part of our tour. This is a recommendation to modify the 2006 park and trail CIP to accomplish construction of two trails. One at Lake Ann and one at Curry Farms Park. Staff is proposing to extend an existing internal trail at Lake Ann, inbetween Fields 1 and 6. South to West 78th Street. It’s a trail that we’ve been thinking about for a number of years. We started with the construction from the concession stand heading to the south. It’s been a very popular trail and we’ve received many comments from the park users that have parked their vehicles in those lots between the frontage road and the ballfields, that it would be nice to have a pedestrian access point to those athletic fields at that location. It’s 370 feet, or excuse me, 780 feet of new trail and then 370 feet of existing trail overlay. Or overlaying the existing trail. And there is a diagram in your packet. Curry Farms trail, we are proposing to reconstruct 250 feet of an existing internal park trail. We looked at that this evening as well. Overlay 470, the remaining 470 feet and then the brand new trail, 330 feet to connect to a new neighborhood, the Knob Hill Lane cul-de-sac at the top of the hill. We received quotes from two qualified contractors. Plehal and Midwest Asphalt. And the sub-total on the Lake Ann trail on the low bid is $23,000 from Plehal and then the Curry Farms sub-total, $23,000 for a grand total of $46,295 for the two projects, compared to $115,000 from Midwest Asphalt quote. Now the funding, these projects are currently not identified in the CIP and we are proposing that we delete two planned improvements from the 2006 CIP to free up the dollars to accomplish these projects. Those two, or excuse me, two trail projects and then the off leash dog area commitment. So review those deletions. We have $50,000 currently proposed for off leash dog areas. Our commitment to Carver County parks is $30,000 so that frees up 20, and then the other 30’s coming from two park projects, trail projects. One at Rice Marsh Lake. $15,000 for that trail and then one at South Lotus Lake. Again we reviewed those this evening with the commission on our site tours for an additional $15,000. Total of those deletions would total $50,000 and would accomplish the projects at the other locations. This is not an unusual budget format. We do this from time to time when certain projects rise to the front and other projects tend to lose favor over time, throughout the year. Sometimes we don’t complete projects and then they just don’t happen and other times we modify the budget as we go through the year. So it’s recommended by staff that the commission recommend the City Council modified the 2006 park and trail capital improvement program CIP by adding the Lake Ann Park and Curry Farms Park trail improvements in a not to exceed amount of $49,999 and deleting the Rice Marsh Lake Park trail, South Lotus Lake Park trail, and a portion of the funding designated for off leash dog area to over the cost of these new projects. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. We also have Dale who is working this process with me here and he can answer questions as well. Spizale: What portions, how would this be divided up? How much from the Lotus Lake Park trail and how much from the off leash dog area? Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 13 Hoffman: $20,000 off leash dog. 15 from each of the park trails. So the park trails would totally be deleted at South Lotus and Rice Marsh. Spizale: Okay. Scharfenberg: And the primary purpose Todd for doing this and escalating this project ahead of the others is what again? Hoffman: Well the Curry Farms project is spawned out of the fact that we were down there doing all that work and then we had the large rain event that caused the drainage problems so we started that work at that location. Lake Ann has been identified, working through the Miracles for Mitch race, with the re-route and trying to get vehicles in and out of the park, and we’ve always wanted to do that trail and so 2 months ago I probably walked the site with Sergeant Olson, or yeah. Sergeant Jim Olson, Tony Schiller and I walked the property and we talked about how we can improve that site and I said well let’s see if we can work on this trail project, so we got an estimate to see what the cost would be and then we started to look for a funding process. The trail at South Lotus has been identified for a number of years but there’s a private road that is on the east side of the property. Excuse me, west side of the property and they are still not willing to connect to that public trail. So if you look at that overhead you can see the private streets where the townhouses are, and so we do not have a, we do not have a touch down point for that trail. So it would be nice to complete the trail. It makes a great neighborhood connector but the neighboring association is not interested in having that public connection to their private street. So that effectively blocks that trail and then down at Rice Marsh, this trail design came out of the neighborhood process last year to rebuild the playground. We identified in the CIP, Dale and his crew took a look at it and started to bring some questions or some concerns about drainage and blocking up the drainage pattern. Dale, I don’t know if you want to talk any more about that but. Gregory: Well we look at it and everything pretty much drains to the south there. We get high water and everything else, we’re going to be blocking the water in the park, instead of actually letting it out. We’ve looked at different ways of doing the trail. Keeping it down at that ground level. We’re going to have nothing but water out of it all the time and if we raise it up, we’re going to be blocking the water into that park. So we sat down, we talked with Todd. We walked through the whole thing and that and we really looked at, there isn’t a good situation for a trail down there. Scharfenberg: We’re not going to do that. I mean yeah, it makes sense because it’s very…back there. Hoffman: …the design of the trail, if we did go ahead with it, one would be to put the gravel sub-grade below, below grade and then have the trail flush, but it’s kind of constantly be wet and slippery doing that. So and then if we built it up we’re effectively building a dike and blocking that water so we didn’t have a good plan either way. And you just can’t put enough drain tile in there because there’s no positive drainage in the property so. As much as we would like to complete that trail, we’re starting to do these internal trails more and more and they’re, the Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 14 neighborhoods respond very positively to them and as much as I’d like to do this one, I just can’t recommend that we do it. And then the dog park allocation, I think initially the commission had some ideas about doing something else with the other 20 but we have not identified a plan of action for that so we’re suggesting that we go ahead and make a commitment of the $30,000 this year to the County and then take the other 20 and put it towards this project. Atkins: That was my question was about the dog trail money going to this instead. It looks good. Murphy: So then the funding is 49, isn’t that going to pretty much preclude the Midwest bid? Is that the total funding for that? Hoffman: Yeah, the bid would be Plehal. Murphy: Okay. Hoffman: The accepted project bid would be a total from Plehal, which is $46,295. Anything over $50,000, $50,000 or over we have to go to a bid project. This is a…process. We’re happy with Plehal. They’ve done a lot of work in the city over the last 15 to 20 years. Stolar: Okay, anything else? Do I have a motion to approve staff recommendation to make the proposed changes on the capital improvement program? Scharfenberg: Motion to approve modify the 2006 Park and Trail Capital Improvement projects for Lake Ann and Curry Farms Park. Stolar: Thank you. Do I have a second? Atkins: Second. Stolar: Moved and seconded. Scharfenberg moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council modify the 2006 Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program by adding the Lake Ann Park and Curry Farms Park trail improvements at a not to exceed amount of $49,999 and deleting the Rice Marsh Lake Park trail and South Lotus Lake Park trail, and a portion of the funding designated for an off-leash dog area to cover the costs of these new projects. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Hoffman: This will be on the July 10th City Council agenda. Stolar: I actually have one follow up question. So regardless though we would, let’s say for whatever reason City Council chooses not to do this, we still want to probably do the adjustment for the Curry Farms because it just doesn’t make sense to keep that out there if we can’t have a feasible way of doing it. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 15 Hoffman: Yeah, if the council doesn’t want to, well they’ll have to deal with that. We’ll talk about it that evening. If they’re not interested in this CIP, we have to find some, we’ll have to make another recommendation to move that project. Stolar: Okay, yep. Okay, great. Any other new business? No? RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2006 FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION. Rosa: Thanks Chair Stolar, commissioners. As you all know July 3rd, July 4th is approaching rapidly. Most of the activities will take place on July 3rd at City Center Park. July 4th will be here at City Center and over at Lake Ann Park, like it has been the last, I don’t know, 20 some years before I was even here so with that, we added on a few more food vendors this year. We’ve also not deleted anything but we’ve taken the current activities and we’ve added to them. Doubled up like our Water Wars thing. We’ve put in some more inflatable games and over in the tennis courts, through the help of someone out in the community we’re going to add a whiffle ball home run derby. A snag golf shoot out and a football toss. With that all family oriented. All free so we’re keeping more activities for the families into this, but also keeping the cost down for us. The parade will begin Tuesday, July 4th at 2:30 p.m.. The parade route is identical to last year. Promotional materials have gone out 2 weeks ago. This flyer was entered in the paper. Most of you’ve probably already gotten one. I did bring more just in case you guys need a new one. Last week we had a colored flyer go out into the paper and actually two articles were done up in the paper too. One on the last 20 some years of the shirts, and also done on, they did a full page article and everything laid out for what the activities are for the day, and pictures from last year’s events. This week there’s a black and white ad going in the paper, identical to last week’s colored one, and the following week we’ll actually have a thank you ad going into the paper that goes to all of our sponsors, which predominantly pay for most of these events here. July 4th t-shirts went on sale and I do have a copy of one, or actually one for all of you tonight, along with another shirt that we hope to give to you. And then as the event draws closer, we’re just waiting to finalize some details. About 95% of everything we’ve done. Just got to work up on a few prizes to go with all of our treasure hunt, our chalk it up and then our drawings that we have up here so. Other than that, just ready to roll. Stolar: Great. Looking forward to it. Does anyone have any questions for Nate? Murphy: Are we doing a booth at the business fair? Rosa: Park and Rec is not, that isn’t brought up and that’s something actually I talked with my playground director today that I might throw in there just so we can probably promote some of our activities internally so. I’m hoping to see if that’s something that he can handle, because I’ll be detained elsewhere with everything else so. Stolar: In prior years we’ve volunteered to help staff the booth there but, so if something comes up, send us an e-mail. Rosa: Okay. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 16 Stolar: But I think, I got the feeling after last year was that it didn’t, it wasn’t necessary for Park and Rec to have it’s own booth there. Rosa: It wasn’t, that was brought up to me early on and I asked Dave, my playground director and he’s like, you know it might be something we want to do to promote some of our activities. That’s something we’ll discuss and decide kind of last minute thing so. Stolar: Because last year we used it just to show what we were building with the new playgrounds. Hoffman: I think we can do a booth anywhere. You guys can set a booth up to… It’s our tent. We can do it anyhow. Stolar: Sounds like a plan. Okay, thank you very much. Looking forward to it. Should be very exciting. RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Stolar: Next, Rec Center. I think Jerry, are you going to cover this one or should we just submit it and. Hoffman: Just want to say a word about Tom’s condition. We’re hopeful that he has a successful third surgery and that he regains his vision in this eye so it’s been a difficult time for Tom and his family and for us here as a staff. And it just goes to show you that just one little baseball hit to the eye can really change the course of action so. Staff has responded and picked up his time. He’s in about 20 hours per week, and the Recreation Center has not missed a beat due to the injury so. We’re glad he’s back on a part time basis but we’re hoping for a full recovery. Stolar: And then I’m sure I speak for the commission, we also wish a speedy recovery and thanks to everybody, I mentioned to Jerry from reading this, that everybody seems to be pulling together so that Tom can just work on getting better so we wish him the best. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Bill: Thank you. Couple things I wanted to highlight. May is Senior Awareness Month and we have a lot of activities that occurred during that month. Probably the highlight is Breakfast with the Mayor. Mayor Furlong comes and gives up a good portion of his morning and the last two years he’s gotten technologically advanced. He does a power point presentation, and they really enjoy that because he can talk about a lot of maps and the road and it just have visual impact that people can understand, and he is so open and receptive to questions and answers. They really, really do appreciate that. So this year we had 45, probably 48 people that attended that, and like I said, that was the highlight. Also had the Lake Ann picnic. 85 plus people. Once again the Lions Club hosted it. They, I think they have as much fun as the seniors do. They prepare all the food. Grill it. Do the games. Everything do it’s really, really a nice event. I think I mentioned Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 17 last time, one quarter, or every quarter I’m trying to offer a technological class to update seniors on technology. Got one coming up in a few weeks on digital cameras. I’ve got someone from Ritz and National Camera coming to bring different cameras. Talk about mega pixels. How to download different programs. And I think I have 13 people signed up for that. They’re more informational and they really seem to enjoy it. One I have proposed for the fall, going to call it Gadgets, Gadgets and More Gadgets. It’s going to be on Ipods, MP3’s, Blackberries. When I talk about this everyone looks at me but they’ve all heard about that. I’m going to offer it in November where a lot of people, their grandkids want this stuff and they have no idea what it is so, they’re real excited and those have been going really, really well. They really seem to enjoy that. I mentioned last time also one time a month we have a special event, a lunch or a dinner. This summer we’re going to have a chicken barbeque dinner before the Concert in the Park on July 27th to try to tie in for that. People are excited about that. In August I have, it’s my second annual Ladies Tea Luncheon and Fashion Show. Got dresses from late 1800’s and 1900’s coming in and I think last year I had to cut it off with 60 women. No men are invited too but I don’t think many men want to walk about in vintage hats and dresses. So that’s a few things that are going on in the summer. In the fall I’m going to be doing more like luncheon, learning lunches with different educational speakers. And I have to admit I’m kind of embarrassed on this so I got a call and a letter from Governor Al Quie? Hoffman: Quie. Bill: Not being a native Minnesotan, I’ve never heard of him. If it were Tommy Thompson or somebody like that. But anyway, yeah. Apparently we don’t want Tommy’s brother. He’s been busted how many times for illegal gambling, but anyway I’m doing different educational events and I think they’ll be a real nice draw. Apparently he’s got a love of horses and for 8 years he rode horseback along the Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico, so I don’t know how he’s going to watch but anyway, so I’m going to do a different focus like educational lunch and learn. Kind of prepping people to move into exploring with Augsburg College. They have something called the College of the Third Age. Looking to bring some of those classes out here and so this is kind of a precursor to that, just to gear and gauge interest so. All and all things are going well. Attendance is great. The new variety of programs really seems to draw. Seems to attract a ring of different people which is wonderful so, that’s all I have to offer. Stolar: Thank you. Any questions? Spizale: I like your technology. I think that’s, I know my parents and they are just so confused with cameras and all that stuff and I think that’s great. Good idea. Stolar: Yeah, I do too. I think it helps them figuring out, especially if you do the fall one on gadgets. That’s right before the holidays. They get a better feel, probably if you can get someone like Best Buy to come in and do the discussion, right? Yeah. Bill: Well actually I think Rick Rice, and I might do it and I might get Radio Shack…of those gadgets and a lot so, I’m going to try and keep it local and the three of us will do it. Stolar: It will be fun. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 18 Scharfenberg: …consider too having the school district come in light of the referendum that’s up, and just kind of talk about the referendum and especially with the seniors and kind of a hard people to ever try to convince in our community that vote for increasing your taxes and what the opportunities will be available for them maybe with you know a new building here. Bill: Good idea, thank you. Wonderful. Stolar: Any other comments? Alright, thank you. Hoffman: It’s Sue’s birthday today by the way. PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Gregory: Thank you. Well this spring started out pretty busy as every other spring and that, with all of the set up’s. The basic set up’s for getting the park buildings, shelters, drinking fountains, ball fields. Everything set up and that and ready for the spring. Things have let up a little bit for us. The seasonals are all here and so we have, currently we have 14 seasonals on board working. Three senior citizens and that that are running our lawnmowers and the rest are all high school and college kids, so they’ve taken a big load off of us doing what all the ballfield maintenance. All the mowing and weed whipping of ballfields and shelter clean-up. Garbage pick-up and all that stuff so they’ve taken a big load off of our guys now and have, so we can go about some of other stuff. This summer and that we got into a couple of projects of some planting some trees. The Rec Center, I think I mentioned it to you last time when we were here and that. We did plant 48 trees out there, oak trees. Down at, on the north side of the school along the sidewalk. And they’re doing real well. We also planted 41 flowering crab out at Lake Ann, and they were the results of left over trees from the Arbor Day and that so, they were planted out there and they’re doing pretty good too. The downtown crew and that, they’ve put in 15 trees down in the main center islands and stuff this year, replacements. I didn’t realize they put this many flowers in but I was talking to Charlie last week and that, and every year and that they put in on an average of like 60 to 70 flats of flowers downtown, so they do do a lot of sprucing up as far as flowers down there. Give you just a quick background on our playground replacement, where everything is at. North Lotus Lake and Chanhassen Hills are completely finished with sod and everything around them. The Lake Susan, both playgrounds are completed. We’ve got sod around the large one and that one’s in use and ready to go. The smaller one is not sodded around and we’ve got too much construction that’s got to be done around that playground yet so we’re holding off with that and we’re leaving it fenced in yet for now until we get the trails and everything else done around that area. We just don’t want the kids down working when we’re working down there. Or playing when we’re working down there. Let’s see. Carver Beach, Minnewashta Heights, Rice Marsh, Curry Farms. They are all completed. The kids can use them and everything fine. We have not done any sodding around them and I mentioned it to Todd the other day and that. I’m really holding off, I don’t want to put any sod down because right now the sod that we do have down earlier, we’re having a tough time just trying to stay ahead watering all of that. And so I don’t foresee the sod going down for at least a while until the weather cools down and…Todd talked to you guys evidently tonight about the Curry Farms and everything. I don’t know if he mentioned that we had a little bit of a Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 19 hold up down there. Our dozer broke down so that’s out for 6 to 8 weeks. We will be renting another one. We will be getting back into it right after, it won’t be right after the 4th of July. I’ve got half my crew is on vacation for the whole week of the 4th of July so, but right after that we will be renting one and we will be getting back down there and getting going on that again. I also got price quotes for tennis courts. South Lotus Lake, Meadow Green, Lake Susan and also basketball court at Lake Susan. We came in under budget on all of that stuff so they will all be done. I talked to the guy here about a week or two weeks ago and he’s planning on starting the beginning of July sometime, so probably after the 4th of July and that he hopes to get in and still working on that. Also we had the benefit of using the STS again this spring. We’ve become one of their better customers the way it sounds and that in the springtime and that for clean-up up here. We had 3 days of those going. We had 6 each day. So they did do our whole clean-up of the downtown. Blowing, cleaning and raking and everything else. We also use them out at the Pioneer Cemetery. They clean that all up for us before Memorial Day weekend. And then they also, we had one extra day that we knew we were doing the resurfacing of tennis courts at South Lotus so we had them go in there and they cleaned that. A lot of all the vines and everything we have on the inside. They cleaned all that out for us so, we did get a lot of benefit out of them this year. And then another one that we’ve never had before and that but Todd got a call on the Minnetonka Seniors for their Senior Service Day project and that. We ended up with 29 seniors that came out to the rec center and we had them doing the wood chipping around all our trees, the bushes and everything else and that so they actually went through 13 dump truck loads of wood chips and that and they did a lot of work out there and basically got all, pretty much everything out there wood chipped except the trees out closer to Highway 5 and that but they did do a real good job and I was a little leery about having that many high school kids around at a time but they did, it did work out very well. And currently right now we’re basically all we’re concentrating right now this week and that is going to be 4th of July. The guys are in that mode. They’re getting everything set up and everything they can right now to get that set up and that so. Everything else is really going pretty good. Stolar: Just a quick question on the Minnetonka High School Senior Service Day project. Is that something we can send a quick thank you to the superintendent so that it becomes a part of a regular activity? Hoffman: Absolutely. Stolar: That’s great, and when we saw your e-mail it’s like wow. That’s fantastic. Hoffman: Lead program. Scharfenberg: I had a question for Dale. Noticed on some of the small trees around town that there’s some green plastic around them. What is that all about? Gregory: Those are some newer trees that we’ve been finding in the last couple years that have had a little bit of trouble growing. Jill, that’s part of Jill’s program. They’re a plastic bag that they go around them and that and then they fill those up. It holds 20 gallons of water and then that leaks out real slow. It takes about 10 hours for that water to leak out. So that’s what they’ve been doing with it to try to get those going. I was out watering the other day at Lake Ann and a Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 20 fellow I know who runs Clearwater Irrigation, Steve Billsky, stopped and he gave me some samples of some, it’s really different. It’s a little plastic tube you put down on each, you put it down lead free and it’s got a package of gelpack about this big. You take it off and you put it in there and he said that’s, they advertise that that will water that tree for 30 days with no water at all in those 30 days. It will keep that tree just fine, and actually the drier the dirt gets, the better off it does, this product works. So he gave me a couple of them and I’m going to try them out and see how they work and that. He said they’re really inexpensive. He said they’re like a buck or a buck and a half for one of these things and he bought them and that with his irrigation business. He’s talking to people that have got great big planters and stuff and using them for that. They can water their plants and that for a long time. So I thought I would give them a try and that. Seeing how it actually works and if it does keep them moist like that, but he said they’re really supposed to work good. It’s a real slimy material that’s in there and that, and it just, it holds, like I say, it doesn’t hold water. The moisture’s already there so we’ll see how that works. Stolar: Any other questions for Dale? Murphy: That Lake Susan tot structure, the smaller playground. Is that probably not going to open this summer? Gregory: I guess I haven’t got an honest answer on that. Murphy: Oh okay. Gregory: I mean we were going to move into that area and that and then we, Todd decided we wanted to do, as long as it was dry, we’d get down to Curry Farms. We got down there and again we broke down. But I guess as soon as we can get out of Curry Farms is we’re going to be over there working on that. We need to enlarge that parking lot yet. I think we’re going to make that about twice as big just about. We’ve got to move the sand volleyball court and then start laying out where the trails are going in there. Hoffman: Yeah, whatever commissioners feel. It’s in the middle of a dirt area and so, if you take the fence down tomorrow, they’re going to play on it. And if we get rain storms, there’s going to be a real mud condition that we’re going to have to deal with so from our viewpoint, it’s difficult not to have it open but we’ve been down these roads many times before where if we opened it, we could have complaints on the other side as well so. They’d say why did you open that thing without finishing it up? I can’t believe you’ve got no grass there and no trail so, it’s a tough situation for us. But I guess when we first opened the big playground they said, everybody’s waited so long for that big playground, at least we’re giving them that one and then we’re going to try to finish up this other project before we open it up so, I know it’s difficult. I take calls on it each week. I’ll work with Dale. We’ll take a look at it. Maybe there’s an interim or temporary condition that we could try to implement. Stolar: That’s what I was thinking. If there’s some real quick…that we can put in just to allow people. It’s almost like, the problem is to tease, it’s teasing the little kids right because they go there with their parents and they’re like, I want to go there, right? Jack knows. Park and Rec Meeting – June 27, 2006 21 Spizale: Half the fun is to play with the fence. I thought that was part of it. The kids all get in there and can’t get out and then you leave. Stolar: It keeps them protected, that’s right. Yeah, the protection area for the kids. Hoffman: It might be a while before we’re completely done so we’ll investigate and see if we can find an interim measure. Stolar: Okay, thanks. Anything else? Alright. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Stolar: Are there any comments or questions about the correspondence section? Hoffman: Nice to see a lot of good comments about the picnic reservations. Stolar: How are the reservations going? Ruegemer: They really did pick up. It was pretty, I wouldn’t say slow but, a little bit slow in the spring time and now it seems like when we start getting kind of nicer, it did start to pick up. I think I only have 2 more days at Lake Susan and now I’m going to start opening more. Pretty much the weekends are, there’s a few openings here and there but for the most part the weekends are booked at both shelters. Stolar: Okay. Ruegemer: We seemed to be doing a little bit more during the week as well too. …last weekend at Lake Ann. So a few of those types of reservations are starting to come in a little bit more now too. Stolar: Okay, great. Any more questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion for adjournment? Spizale moved, Scharfenberg 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 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Longacres & Lyman Projects.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 14, 2006 SUBJ: Longacres Drive Stormwater Pond Outlet Improvement and Lyman Boulevard Sewer Repair Project Nos. 06-08 and 06-09: Reject Bids and Authorize Readvertisement for bids REQUESTED ACTION Reject bid for the Longacres Drive Stormwater Pond Outlet Improvement and Lyman Boulevard Sewer Repair and authorize readvertisement for bids. BACKGROUND On June 24, 2006, Council authorized advertisement for bids on the above referenced project. DISCUSSION The bid opening was held on Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. Nine contractors purchased plans for the project, but only one contractor submitted a bid. The bid amount was $226,673.90. The amount was significantly over the engineer’s estimate. Staff has researched why only one contractor submitted a bid and why the bid came in so high. The main reason staff received for the lack of bids and high bid was that the directional boring subcontractors for the Longacres stormwater pond outlet pipe are currently busy with other projects and the subcontractors could not meet the scheduling requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending rebidding the project later this summer and extending the completion date to give the directional bore subcontractors more flexibility to complete the project. Approval of this item requires a simple majority vote of those City Council members present. c: Mark Statz, Bonestroo MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Gregg Geske, Fire Chief DATE: July 24, 2006 SUBJ: Purchase Grass Rig from 2005 CIP REQUESTED ACTION Authorize Purchase of Grass Rig DISCUSSION Annually, the city considers replacement of vehicles and equipment that have reached their life expectancy and are no longer reliable. It has been the city’s practice to replace these vehicles in a timely manner. The 1977 Ford pickup #217 used for fighting grass fires was scheduled for replacement in the 2005 CIP. Quotes have now been received to purchase a new replacement. The existing firefighting skid unit was replaced on this vehicle 3 or 4 years ago and will be transferred to the new replacement pickup. JUSTIFICATION Replacement of the existing 29-year-old pickup used for fighting grass fires is essential at this time. The age of this vehicle makes this unit unreliable. There was $45,000 budgeted in the CIP for a new pickup and a flat bed with cabinets to mount the existing firefighting skid unit. The following quotes have been received: Bidder Equipment Chassis Apparatus Body Total Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet (Hennepin County Bid) 2006 Chevrolet 3500 Pickup Chassis, 4 x 4 $23,215.58 $23,215.58 Ohnsorg Truck Body Aluminum Apparatus Body 9,995.00 $9,995.00 Subtotal Bid #1 $33,210.51 Spencer Fire Apparatus F550 Chassis & Aluminum Apparatus Body $47,531.00 Included in Chassis bid $47,531.00 Subtotal Bid #2 $47,531.00 Mr. Todd Gerhardt July 24, 2006 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Grass Rig Report.doc The low bid for the chassis was received from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet in the amount of $23,215.58; and from Ohnsorg Truck Body for the apparatus body in the amount of $9,995.00; for a total of $33,210.58. Additional equipment will also be required, including shelves, lights, siren, and graphics, which is expected to cost less than $5,800. Therefore, we anticipate the total cost to be less than $39,000. The budgeted amount in the 2005 budget for replacement of the grass rig is $45,000. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve purchase of the replacement grass rig from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet in the amount of $23,215.58 and the apparatus body from Ohnsorg Truck Body in the amount of $9,995, for a total of $33,210.58. Approval of this purchase requires a simple majority vote of those City Council members present. ATTACHMENTS 1. Capital Improvement Program 2. Ohnsorg Truck Bodies’s Quote 3. Spencer Manufacturing Quote 4. Memo from Harold Brose, Equipment Superintendent dated February 13, 2006 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: July 14, 2006 SUBJ: Monthly City Council update Fire Department Overview: Staffing is at 45 active firefighters as of July 14, 2006, allocation is 45 PTEs. As of July 2nd we are at 256 calls for the year, down 40 from 296 at this same time in 2005. Since the last update we responded to one mutual aid call at Eden Prairie. We participated in the July 4th celebration in the parades and stand by for the fireworks. We are in the process of interviewing some new firefighter candidates. Our fire chiefs attended the Hennepin County Chiefs and the West Metro Joint Operation meeting. Fire Training: The Chanhassen Fire Department conducted water rescue training utilizing the rescue boat and medical rescue skills training during the month of June. The special teams (Dive and Hazmat) also conducted training during this month. Six members of the department received their “black helmets” on July 1, signifying their transition from rookies to accredited firefighters. Fire Marshal: On Saturday, July 8 and 2:24 pm the Fire Department responded to Lake Susan Apartments for a water flow alarm. Upon our arrival the residents were evacuating and it was discovered that there was a small fire on the 2nd floor outside balcony that was extinguished by one fire sprinkler head. Todd Gerhardt July 14, 2006 Page 2 Cause of the fire was determined to be carelessly discarded smoking material. The one activated sprinkler head averted a major fire. Residents were allowed back in within the hour. Damage was limited to $500.00 or less. Fire Inspections: Town and Country is starting to gear up with fire sprinkler inspections, as well as Emerson. Town and Country is getting be-weekly fire inspections due to the lack of working fire hydrants and the travel distance from the fire station. If a fire were to occur we could use Chaska fire hydrants. The Chaska Fire Department has also been notified that in the event of a fire, we would be calling them early. Fire Prevention: The Fire Department is gearing up for National Night Out on August 1, 2006. We are expecting to have three fire trucks visiting a number of neighborhoods that evening. We usually get a great response from our firefighters and I believe we are one of the top agencies the residents like to see and visit with. In the next few days and weeks Ed and I will be visiting all the city parks along with the Park and Rec staff and bringing a fire truck to show the kids. If it is warm enough we will spray the kids with the fire hose. With the summer temperatures we’ve been experiencing, this is obviously a big hit with the kids. We have also taken a fire truck and visited five daycare centers this summer and taught fire prevention to over 100 pre-schoolers. Todd Gerhardt July 14, 2006 Page 3