Loading...
1g Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 3, 2001 Chairwoman Sidney called the Planning COmmission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission members and the Mayor introduced themselves to the public. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Deb Kind, Craig Claybaugh, Jay Karlovich, Rich Slagle and Mayor Linda Jansen MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Matt Saam, Project Engineer, Julie Hoium, Planner I; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Director; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer. Public Present: Terese Meyer Terri Lee Paulsen Bob Paulsen Dick Hanson Darlene P. Scott Gauer Jeff P. James Robin Debbie Lloyd Janet Paulsen ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Sidney: At this point I guess I'd like to open up the commission members to make nominations for Chair and following that we'll talk about Vice-Chair. We do have a note from Alison Blackowiak, which I'll read and this would serve as a nomination. Or acceptance for a nomination. She writes, I'm sorry I'm unable to attend the April 3ra meeting. I will be out of town. I realize that the Planning Commission will be electing it's Chair and Vice-Chair. I would like to say if I were nominated for either position, I would be honored to serve in this capacity. I look forward to welcoming our new members at the April 17th meeting. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I would like to nominate Alison as Chair for our commission. Kind: I'll second that nomination. Sidney: Okay, any other discussion or nominations? Slagle: Madam Chair? Sidney: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Slagle: I'd like to also nominate Uli as Chair person. Sidney: Thank you. Second for that? Do we need that? I guess we don't. Okay, any other nominations? Okay, let's vote on that. We have two candidates so all those in favor of Alison Blackowiak as Chair, please signify by saying aye. Slagle: Madam Chair, before. I thought I caught in the By-laws that it's supposed to be by ballot. I might be mistaken. Sidney: Yes, that I understand however at this point, well I had discussed this with Mayor Jansen and we could go secret ballot if you wish. However, the commission can suspend rules if you feel that would be okay. Mayor Jansen: So whatever all of you are comfortable with. If you want to suspect the rules and go with an open ballot. Otherwise you can stay with the By-laws and cast the secret ballots, if you'd like. Slagle: It doesn't matter. I just wanted to bring up. Sidney: No, good point because that is written and if we want to change it, that's something that we would want to discuss as part of the By-laws. So we'll return to the vote on Alison. Alison Blackowiak as Chair of the Planning Commission. .. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to nominate Alison Blackowiak as Chair for the Planning Commission. Ali voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5to 1.. · - Sidney: Okay, we could vote on Uli as well. Okay, for Vice Chair Fd like to open it up for nominations. Kind: Madam Chair, I'd like to nominate LuAnn Sidney to be our Vice Chair. Sacchet: I second that. Sidney: Okay, I accept the nomination. Any other nominations? Slagle: I'm going to nominate Uli. Sidney: We can only vote once here too. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to nominate LuAnn Sidney as Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5to 1. Sidney: So I guess LuAnn Sidney is nominated and has been voted as Vice Chair for the Planning Commission so any further discussion? ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Sidney: I'd like to have a motion that we review that. Open it up for review. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission open the By-laws up for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Sidney: In this case, comments from the commissioners. I know there are a few things here that I saw that needed to be changed. Specifically the time of the meeting. It's been listed as Wednesday. It's actually Tuesday. And are there any other comments to be made? Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. It's not really a change for the by-laws but I was wondering, since you're referring to Robert's Rules of Order, if that could be made available for us to look at it at times. Aanenson: We have a copy here at City Hall. Sacchet: Okay. We can check that out. Okay, that's my comment. Kind: Madam Chair, I have a question on the last page of the by-laws, item (b) is bold faced and I was just wondering if staff could elaborate as to why that's in bold. Aanenson: That was a change made a while ago. I didn't catch it when it got re-copied. It was changed probably 4-5 years ago. Kind: And is that true that matters which appear on the agenda as open discussion items will not be recorded in the minutes? Aanenson: That's correct. That's how I did review this again today, with the City Attorney. That's how we had posed it a'number of years ago and legally we don't have to. It's noticed as a discussion item.. It does appear specifically so it doeS meet that qualification. It is pOsted what item specifically under Open discussion. Anybody wishing to attend the meeting is..welcome to attend the meeting. It does meet the open meeting law. Kind: In the past the open discussion items have been included on the minutes. Going forward should we make a point of not including them? Aanenson: Well I guess the stuff that we're talking about as open discussion really should be ongoing items. Just as LuAnn mentioned earlier. The open discussion was something we added different. That was never on the agenda. We provided that as an opportunity, as a mechanism that is someone met with staff and they felt like, I'd like to get a different interpretation. I'd like to get a second opinion, they can certainly always go to the council for a work session but this also provided an opportunity to get a read from the Planning Commission so it was juSt a forum to say, I'm not maybe not succeeding with the staff. I'd like to get another opinion so that was a new category that was placed on the agenda and that was specifically for that purpose. So if there's other discussion items, I think those should go under ongoing items. Or old business or something like that. Kind: Thank you. And then I have, let's see. One other typo. I don't know if it's a typo or not but one other change. On the first, let's see. The second page of the by-laws, talking about time. The address of the City Council Chambers is 690 City Center Drive. And then I would ask that we maybe discuss a little bit about the secret ballot, whether we want to keep it that way or not. Since we've never done it that way before. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Aanenson: You can always suspend your rules. If you put it the other way and you decide to do secret, you can go back and do it secret ballot so whatever, you have a right to suspend that. Kind: I guess my perspective would be that we do it the way we usually, have it listed in our by-laws the way we usually do it and then if somebody requested a secret ballot, we could always suspend the rules and go to secret ballot. Sidney: Right. Well, I guess Kate have we ever had a secret ballot, in your recollection? Aanenson: I don't think so since I've been here, no. Sidney: Okay. Do you have any word smithing that you could offer for that? Kind: Oh yeah, wow. That would be wise for me to have been prepared for that, wouldn't it. Strike the words, this shall be done by secret ballot and insert a sentence that says, this shall be done by nomination and vote of the entire commission. And I guess I need to strike the next, the rest of that paragraph really. Because it all talks about the secret ballot. Sidney: Do you feel that we should state that each the Chair and Vice Chair is elected or nominated and voted on separately? Kind: I think that makes sense. Sidney: Okay. And only voted on once too. Kind: Yeah, right. Sidney: So any other comments about the by-laws? Sacchet: Should we make a motion to adopt them? Sidney: Yes. Sacchet: I move that we adopt them as discuss. Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve the By-laws as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Aanenson: Madam Chair, can I just make an announcement? There is a library task force meeting at the senior center. I just want to make sure that anybody that's here for the library meeting, it is next door in the senior center. Sidney: Okay, I'I1 repeat just to make sure everybody heard. Anybody here for the library meeting? It's next door in the senior center. Okay~ OATH OF OFFICE. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Sidney: What we discussed and how we'll be doing this is, each of us will stand up and receive the oath and we'll read the oath of office together, inserting your own name of course as written on the piece of paper. Aanenson: And then to clarify, these need to be certified so at your convenience, if you want to come back during office hours and have a notary public and then they would be signed and put on file so we'll just do the swearing in part tonight. I think it works fine if you stand there and we read them collectively and obviously you can insert your name. The planning commissioners read the Oath of Office for Planning Commission members. PLANNING COMMISSIONER LIAISON TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Sidney: Next item is to discuss Planning Commissioner liaison to City Council meetings. We need to discuss whether or not the commission should elect one person to attend or schedule all commissioners on a rotating basis for a year. Commissioners, do you have any comments please? Yes. Kind: Madam Chair, I don't like the idea of picking one that goes to every one. I like the rotating basis. Feel pretty strongly about that. I like the rotating basis. We've also discussed with the City Council I believe at our joint meeting, it may have been at our meeting after the joint meeting, I'm not sure. But we discussed the idea that we could perhaps pick any 3 meetings to go to throughout the year and I was just interested in my fellow commissioners thoughts on that. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I guess the question that I have, if there is a purpose that there should be a planning commissioner at every council meeting, then we should rotate or always have-somebody there but it's my experience that that may not necessarily be the case. I think that'd be a queStion to maybe address, maybe Linda you could say something to that.. -~ Mayor Jansen: Sure. I don't think in the history of my attending planning commission meetings or council meetings I've ever seen the commissioner actually get called on at the council meeting. It's always been my impression that it's more of a reporting back function and maybe we haven't handled it that way in the past. So if in fact that person were coming back and sharing a planning commissioners point of view on how the City Council handled certain issues, that that might be a healthy and constructive way for all of you to hear feedback on how your discussion was maybe handled at the council level. I can always provide some of that but I think you have a more unbiased perspective if you have one of your own commissioners actually reporting back on what they observed and perceived and I can certainly add to that at any point. Sacchet: Thank you Madam Mayor. I think that is a good point because like we got some feedback from staff at times in terms of what happened to the recommendations we fed into the council so I guess that could be taken as a reason that we would maintain or rotating...cover all the council meetings. In the absence of that I would say, yeah let's pick some and go to the ones that are most interesting to us but with this in the picture I would think that we do have a reason to actually keep coverage of the whole. And then maybe we could actually make it an item under the discussion part of the meeting where the person attending could give a little bit of an update that would take something off of Kate's shoulders in that sense. We might get more of a report that way too. Sidney: I'll be asking for a report during open discussion, and we'll see how that goes. And I guess my comments about the liaison to the City Council, I guess I feel the way we have it set up is functioning Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 well. It's just we need some feedback to the Planning Commission and if you can't make the meeting, then I think it's incumbent on the commissioner to call someone else to fill in for you. And I know I've called on Commissioner Kind to do that for me in the past and I think we could work it that way. Sacchet: If I can add one more question Madam Chair. Now that we have these meetings on TV, is that possibly an option that you watch it on TV? Or is the idea that you actually come here? I know that that's splitting hairs but. Sidney: Well I guess I'd wonder, is the sound quality always good. Sometimes I guess I felt as though sometimes I couldn't really hear. Sacchet: So that'd be a reason to come here, okay. Alright. Sidney: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: And maybe experiment with it. Certainly since it's not an interactive exchange at the meetings, if you can hear well enough on the television set, I'd stay home ifI could so I think that's a good idea. Slagle: The initial question about the liaison from the council, come back to that or what's the status on that? Sidney: How do you mean? Slagle: Is the Mayor supposed to be the constant liaison or is there a rotating liaison from the council? Mayor Jansen: This is actually a commissioner that's.attending the ~ouncil meetings and then my role is pretty stable as far as we may be rotating every 6 months. But it's a little different function than the other. Slagle: Alright, I understand it better. Sidney: Thank you. Any other discussion? Actually I think we need a motion in this case to go forward. Aanenson: Madam Chair, if I could just make a clarification. Again open discussion is a very specific item. I think if you want to have a report, we can make that as. Sidney: A separate item. Aanenson: Or it needs to go under ongoing items. Sidney: Oh I'm sorry. Aanenson: Just to make sure. As a general rule we don't have a lot under open discussion. And maybe we wouldn't have to put it on unless there was something there but it should either be a specific, we can have a Planning Commissioner's report if you'd like that or put it under ongoing items but I wouldn't recommend under open discussion. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Sidney: Okay. I guess that dilutes the purpose of open discussion the more I think about it. I'd like a motion concerning this item. Kind: Yes, Madam Chair I'll make the motion that we stay with a rotating schedule and have a commissioner's report at the next Planning Commission meeting on the City Council meeting that they attended. Sidney: And do we have a second? Slagle: Second. Kind moved, Slagle seconded that Planning Commission members will attend City Council meetings on a rotating basis and present reports at the following Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN ESTATES 2ND ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING DUPLEX ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 8004 AND 8006 ERlE AVENUE, ROBERT PAULSEN. Chair Sidney opened up this item for a public hearing. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Commissioners, questions of staff please. - . Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Mayor, I need to clarify Something. Are you recommending or sUggesting'that if we go with the PUD route that then it would be okay to do the subdivision? I just want to be real clear - about that. Aanenson: Let me explain again. In the subdivision ordinance that we have right now, under the low density there's 3 zoning options. RSF, PUD, which is the smallest lot can be 11, or the R-4. Those are the 3 zoning options. These twin homes do not meet any of those. In order to do an attached product, the same thing we went through with the Pulte, you have to do a medium density. We've pointed that out as kind of one of the flaws with our ordinance so we would have to up zone that. What we're recommending is that we would do a PUD and then give exceptions for those 5 lots. You'd have to re- guide that though in order to make that happen. Sacchet: That part I understand, but I don't understand what are then within this new framework it would be actually acceptable to subdivide, whether you would support a subdivision at that point. Aanenson: Well the thing, if you do the PUD, you give a density allocation so they cannot create additional lots. Is that what your concern was? If you say this density is, unless they wanted to, if somebody wanted to subdivide and create an additional lot, they would have to come back and rezone the property. Karlovich: I guess I kind of have the same question. Would they be able to subdivide it and have that unit without a garage or would they have to do a type of a condominium type of?. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Aanenson: Well the State law is right now, they can do the condominium. My understanding from the applicant is their desire is to have a lot. In order to have a lot, to convey a lot line you have to have certain amount of square footage. So what we would be looking with the PUD is it provides specific standards which the anomalies would be those homes that are the twin homes. We would develop different standards so we'd say Lots 1 through 10 would have these standards, which we do in other PUD's where we've got different types of products. Similar to Walnut Grove where we say these are the standards for this, and call out the different zoning districts. So that's what we would do. Would that prevent somebody from still wanting their garage? We would convey as part of that PUD that one unit would have the garage. Just how it is now. Both garages are one side of the house. We would say as a part of this, this unit has this garage. This unit has the other garage. We'd make that part of the requirements of that specific PUD. Claybaugh: How old is that subdivision? Hoium: It was originally platted in the late 1960's. First part was platted, I think it was 1969. The second addition was platted in 1971. Claybaugh: And I'm to understand this is the first thing that's come forward relevant to that subdivision looking for a variance? Hoium: There have been numerous variance requests in that area. To an attachment or to porches. Claybaugh: How have those been handled? Aanenson: We tape verbatim minutes so .... . Claybaugh: How have those been handled in the past? Hoium: Just from going through the staff reports and the files, some of them have been, some of the variances have been approved. Some of them have been denied based on the fact that they could not, hardship. They couldn't come up with a hardship. They couldn't prove a hardship. Aanenson: I think what we went through last time, this is the second time we've heard this. This lot is one of the smaller ones so the lot that's being created, that's the struggle the staff is one of the undersized by creating two significantly smaller lots as opposed to some of the other variances that went through. Claybaugh: What is the average lot size? Any idea? Aanenson: For the twin homes? Claybaugh: No, not just for the twin homes. She said you've got 95 that are non-conforming overall. Hoium: The average lot size throughout the whole subdivision? The average lot size is approximately 14,000 square feet. Claybaugh: Would they need to take these down too in order to accomplish splitting the lot? Hoium: On this specific subdivision one is approximately 6,000 and one is 9,000. Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah Madam Mayor, I have two more specific questions. Hopefully get a little clear answer on those. Kind: Madam Chair. Sacchet: Did I call you table or what? Never mind. Kind: He'll get it. Sacchet: Eventually I'll get it straight. One place in the staff report, I wasn't quite sure whether you were proposing that Chanhassen Estates PUD would be folded together with the PUD for the Hidden Valley development. Did I understand that correctly? Aanenson: That's one alternative. Sacchet: So it would be one PUD for the whole area basically because they have somewhat the similar characteristics and all. Okay, so that was part of your suggestion. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Now real specific, within the PUD there are still some restrictions in terms of lot si.ze. In terms of lot width and so forth. 'Now you pointed out in your table on page 4 that in the PUD, the requirements, 11,000 square feet, however there is a 75% that needs to be met so there's some leeway. Some flexibility and you said that there's 7 lots under the 11,000 square feet and I was wondering about how many are under 8,250 which is 75% mark, and I believe there are two. At least that's what I deducted from the table of lot sizes in the attachments and those two happen to be'the one duplex that was allowed to" subdivide, correct? Now what I don't know is when you look at lot-width in the PUD, there's a 90 foOt requirement with a 75% flexibility will be 67 feet thatare reqUired. And how many don't meet that, do we know that or do we have a handle on that because that I couldn't extract from the report? Hoium: It was no more than a handful just from looking at the original plat. Just guesstimate I would say 5 possibly within the entire subdivision. I would have to go through. Sacchet: So pretty small number. Hoium: It was a small number. The majority of them were 80. 75 and 80. Sacchet:. Okay. Hoium: Some of them were 60. 65. A small handful were. Sacchet: So they were really close. And the resulting lot lines, if we allow this one to subdivide would be, one would be 61 and the other one 3 8, is that correct? Hoium: One would be 62. The other would be 40. Sacehet: So both of them, one would be significantly less. Do you happen to know whether there's any other one in that area that is as low as 40? Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Hoium: No, there are not. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question. Thank you. Karlovich: Are we in order here or do we just kind of. I have another question for staff. I'm still confused. I'm looking at option number 4 which seems like a good thing in general for the subdivision but with this preliminary plat, how can you let them split, have a line down the middle and a fence, but then he gets the right to go on the other person's lot to get in the garage and get out or, I'm still confused on how that happens. This preliminary plat will never happen, even under option number 4, is that correct? Aanenson: Well you could put an easement together, and that was the original suggestion with the subdivision is that they would do an easement. Karlovich: Does the applicant want to do that? Hoium: The applicant has been willing to do that. They have spoken with an attorney about putting up an easement together and what would be needed to have a private easement from one side to the other garage. Karlovich: And what is that getting them besides just setting it up as a condominium type? Just so they could have a fence down the middle? Hoium: Just so, they didn't want to be landlords. They wanted to be able to own their own property. Have somebody else own the other property and not have to take care of the maintenance of the yard as. well as, I believe perhaps they could speak to that better than I could. Sidney: Any other comments? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee, please come forward and state your name and address please. Terri Lee Paulsen: Hi. My name is Terri Lee Paulsen and I live at 8006 Erie Avenue. First of all I'd like to thank Julie and the staff for their hard work on this. I'd like to introduce myself and my husband to the new commissioners and those who were unable to attend the last Planning Commission meeting. My husband has owned the duplex at 8004 and 8006 Erie Avenue for 10 years and we are before the Planning Commission looking for a way to be able to subdivide our property. We no longer want to be landlords, but we want to continue living on the property. Another duplex in the neighborhood was subdivided in 1986 and is now two single family homes, exactly the outcome we are asking for. We're very flexible about how this is done and have worked with the city to explore many options. One option we are pursuing involves building a single car garage, giving each side of the duplex access to their own garage. We have consulted with an attorney about easements and that is a viable option. Personally I think the one car garage on the 8006 property would alleviate any confusion and problems with people being on the driveway or what not. The PUD option looks to be a win/Win situation for both us and the city. Not only would it allow us to subdivide but it would allow the city to make the Chanhassen Estates Addition compliant. At present only 27% of the 130 lots meet the current zoning ordinance pertaining to minimum lot size. And we'd be willing to waiver our rights to the 60 day rule to allow the city to hold a public hearing and discuss the PUD matter further. I think my husband wants to speak. Bob Paulsen: My name's Bob Paulsen. Like my wife said, I've lived on that property for 10 years and I just, this whole, can you put... Right now everything we're asking for has been done before. When we 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 talked to Julie originally about a garage, my next door neighbor has been given a variance for a garage. I think it was like in '85. Chanhassen has already split two subdivisions, one on 2 houses, 3 houses over and one on Iroquois. And everything come back to us. We're just trying to stay there and we're not asking for anything that hasn't been done before. And I think everything keeps on coming back to...property that is very unique and with the recent facts, it shows that it's just an odd situation but we're just trying to get past and that's pretty much all I would say. Thank you. Sidney: Okay, questions of the applicant? Commissioners? Okay, thank you. I would like to open this up to a public hearing. I'd like a motion to do so please. Slagle moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, would you please come forward and state your name and address. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I didn't expect to be talking on this issue at all tonight, but living in a neighborhood nearby, knowing a lot of my friends live in Chan Estates, that's an RSF. That's not a PUD development and I think you're opening yourselves up to a whole, huge neighborhood issue by suggesting that become a PUD. A PUD has requirements for open space and I mean there's an elaborate list of requirements for a PUD and I think that all should be explored without jumping into thinking this is a viable option. That's all I'd like to say, thank you. Sidney: Anyone else wishing to speak? Kind mOved, Claybaugh seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ~ ~" Sidney: Commissioners, comments please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, yes my comments. I sympathize with your referring to precedence and that was one of the main things we asked to look into at the last meeting because the precedence really don't fully straight on apply. The way we looked at them last time and the one that was allowed to subdivide has tuck under garages so the two lots are equally sized. The other lot that was given a variance to build a garage never built it, is expired and I at this point would be very hard pressed personally to make a recommendation for a variance like that. Now, the city attorney made a statement that precedence don't apply so I think we cannot make our recommendation based on precedence because that's very clearly established from the legal side that precedence don't applY. In terms of the idea of making a PUD, I do agree with you Debbie that that's a pretty big undertaking to retrofit a whole neighborhood into planned unit development framework. I do like the idea of exploring that and considering going that route in order to make the whole neighborhood compliant and especially in the view that somewhat similar size and similar character neighborhood just maybe a couple years younger next to it, the Hidden Valley neighborhood is a PUD. I think from the way I see it would make sense to go that route. I can support that notion. Now what I really do not see though necessarily is whether that automatically includes a recommendation to allow the subdivision of that lot. I personally still believe that it's stretching so many aspects on a lot that is 40 foot wide. It's not ideal to say at the least and so I would say yes to exploring the PUD idea. Merging this to Hidden Valley PUD but I'm still hard pressed to support the subdivision of the property of the applicant. Basically, one question, even in the PUD framework would there be a need for variances? 11 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Aanenson: Yes. The way the PUD is set up is, the other option was to give us another zoning that works for the city but generally we've done that through the PUD application and set each anomaly would have the different lots would be assigned different standards and that's the purpose of the PUD. To give some flexibility. Sacchet: So that's my understanding too because it's still less than the 11,000 square foot and even if you go with the 75%, at least the smaller one is less than the 8,250 square feet and in the width, they're both not compliant, isn't it? Well, no. They both don't make the 67 foot.' Aanenson: Just so you're aware, even in a regular straight subdivision, I mean a PUD which would be the low density PUD, there's often anomalies that we get relief from. For example we'll say because we're trying to save trees or there's a wetland, we'll give a variance for a 20 foot front yard setback instead of a 30, so each PUD is unique. Sacchet: Is a little different. Aanenson: Andjust in case you're, we did look at what other zoning, you know we tried to explore every option for you. Give you the alternatives. The other thing is, if that's the route that you want us to pursue, this is on the 60 day time frame so we'd make some recommendations. If you wanted us to explore it, we'd have to go back and it takes a whole other process to begin that dialogue so we just want to give you all the options that were out there. Sacchet: Basically where I'm trying to go with this last question is that, I would be very hard pressed supporting a variance because I don't see a hardship. I mean I cannot consider the fact that the applicant _doesn't want to be a landlord anymore a hardship.- That I'm really struggling with and that's one of the fundamental requirements in order to approve or recommend approval of a variance is that there is a hardship involved. That's my comments. Sidney: Mr. Claybaugh. Claybaugh: My comments would run parallel to Uli'so Sidney: Okay. Mrs. Kind. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a few comments. I think rezoning the whole subdivision to PUD is overkill. I don't even really want to open up that can of worms at all. I am intrigued with the concept of Option 3, which is to rezone the lots with the twin homes on them right now to a PUD. To bring them into compliance. I think that is a valid solution and as long as there's conditions attached, that the PUD would require these lots to only be used as sites for twin homes with a zero lot line. My concern is, I don't want to change the rules on the people living in Chan Estates right now and all of a sudden have this be R-8 and allow apartments on those sites so I support Option 3 with that condition. Sidney: Okay, Commissioner Karlovich please. Karlovich: Madam Chair, Option number 1 is in front of us right now. I think that the 60 day rule that we should recommend to the City Council that what is before us right now be denied. I just can't see that ever going through. I think the easement idea as opposed to a condominium just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there was going to be a garage built, but I don't even know if a garage could fit in there 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 without a side yard variance on that side of the house. Therefore I think at least Option number 1 needs to be recommended for denial. Option number 4 is not before us. I guess I could see the applicant hasn't made the applicant for the whole subdivision be reviewed or public hearing. We could recommend that to the City Council. I don't have a problem with that and see what the neighborhood has to say but Option number 1 should be recommended for denial. That's all I have. Sidney: Okay. Slagle: Madam Chair, I had fully been prepared to participate in this discussion until I entered the room today and saw Terri, the applicant and she is one of my clients, although her name has changed since the last time we had worked together so that's why I didn't draw the conclusion so I really think in this case I should abstain. Sidney: Okay, thank you. And I guess my comments are similar to Commissioner Karlovich's in that I think that the applicant was brought forward having to do specifically with these twin homes and I feel uncomfortable expanding it to all of Chanhassen Estates. And the other option still require a lot of work to make them viable and because of that I feel that this request should be denied and the vote thusly. So can I have a motion please. Karlovich: Madam Chair I would move that the action in front of us right now, the option number 1 to firm that up a little bit, that we recommend to the City Council that the applicant to subdivide 8004 and 8006 Erie Avenue as presented to us be denied. Sidney: Second? _ Sacchet: I second that. -' ' : Karlovich moved, Sacchet seconded that the Plannlng Commission recommend denial of the request for preliminary plat to subdivide Lot 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Estates 2na Addition into two lots with variances, located at 8004 and 8006 Erie Avenue. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Rich Slagle abstained. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE SEC. 20-94, GRADING & EROSION CONTROL. Mahmoud Sweidan presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Any questions from commissioners please? Kind: Madam Chair, I do have a question. I'm just wondering how you arrived at the 5,000. Is that a worst case scenario of a hill just totally slides away it would be covered if we have to repair it? Sweidan: Actually it was 5,000 but from our staff experience due to the last few years, they noticed that they are reaching this amount and they are taking the position that more for bigger size development which may have it. And to avoid that instance you know in the future, it's going to reach and to be more than 5,000 so that's why they estimated this 5,000 per acre. 13 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Saam: If I could add something also. I did a rough estimate of a 1 acre site. I said say we have a 1 acre site, 43,000 square feet. It's a square site so it's about 200 square feet on each side. Put a silt fence around the whole thing at $3.00 a lineal foot. I came up with $2,500 and then, well what if there's a hill where'we want an erosion control blanket, that price is also about $3.00 a square yard. If you have a 800 square yard hill, that's another $2,500 so with the combination of the silt fence and any other environmentally sensitive areas on the site, I think it's a reasonable amount, $5,000 so that's one example of how it would work. Kind: I'm assuming that you decided that to come up with prices per linear foot and some sort of table that developers can refer to was just too complicated and that just putting a dollar cap was the way to go. Saam: Yeah, and as we discussed some at the last meeting, this was we thought then you'd have to raise them every few years and have to come back and ask for a commission to do that so just to avoid that, we thought we'd just have an amount per acre. Kind: But we will have to raise this number too over the years. Saam: Maybe in 20 years but I don't think we have to every year. I don't know, do you? Kind: No, thank you. Sidney: Any other questions? I'd like to open this up for public hearing. May I have a motion please. Sacchet moved, Karlovich seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened,- . Sidney: Anyone wishing to address the commission on this item, please come forward. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Karlovich: ...draft ordinance, which is the last few pages of this item, I was just wondering why is MnDot in the title up on the top? And then in paragraph (c), after the word for and then there's 4" within parenthesis. I think we can simply put inches in there. Aanenson: If I can clarify that. That was part of another code amendment. We had 3 or 4 that was part of the same section. Instead of carrying this part forward, we just held it all back and to get this part, the Planning Commission asked for clarification. So all of this will be carried forward. The 4 inches was another amendment that was noticed at your last public hearing so this entire thing will go forward but it's the same section of the code. So that was addressed at the last Planning Commission. They did recommend approval of that amendment that's shown in bold. Karlovich: I think the word inches should go in there. After the parenthesis. Aanenson: Okay, yeah. Thank you. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Question too of more linguistic interest. In paragraph (a), in the middle it says the maximum escrow required for parcel is $5,000 per acre. I think that should probably say the maximum escrow allowable per parcel is $5,000 per acre, not required. Because that's not, the $5,000 is not what's required. That's the maximum allowable, okay. That's something that's a miss edit. That 14 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 needs to be lined up. Other than that I think it's a straight forward shot. I'm happy with the 5,000 as a ceiling. I hope that's not going to be changed too frequently and I think it allows the intent that was stated that we try to accomplish here that in cases where there is a need, it can be more than 500. Sidney: Okay. May I have a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Mayor, I move. Sidney: That's 3 times. Sacchet: Madam, oh Chair. Mayor and Chair. Alright, the mayor and the chair. Madam Chair, alright not quit yet the mayor. And I move that we adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City Zoning Ordinance concerning grading and erosion control as proposed. With two changes. Well actually three changes. That we don't say Minnesota Department of Transportation in the title. That we say allowable instead of required in the middle of paragraph (a) and I do agree with Mr. Karlovich that feet and inches would be more easily understandable than the single and double squiggles. Kind: I'll second that motion. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapter 18, Subdivision Ordinance and Chapter 20, Zoning Ordinance regarding Section 20-94, Grading and Erosion Control with the following amendments: , . Deleting "Minnesota Department of Transportation" in the title. Using'the word "allOwable'' instead of"required" in the middle Of paragraph (a). -. Inserting the word "inches" after (4") in Paragraph (c). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PERM_IT FOR FILLING OF 2,000 SO. FT. (0.05 ACRES) OF WETLAND FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION LOCATED AT 3675 ARBORETUM DRIVE, MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. Well first of all I had a fantastic adventure trying to read this blueprint. Trying to figure out where is actually road and stuff. I mean the parking lots are somewhat clear because of the little parallel, sort of parallel lines but I just want to clarify, make sure I got this right. There is really like almost a circle road around the parking lot, right? I mean there's a road on the north side of the parking lot as well. Haak: Actually if we could hold off on that question. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Sacchet: Sure, we can wait for the applicant. Okay, I'll address that with the applicant. Now I do have some other question though for you too. Now when you said where the fill actually happens for the wetland, that's just that little triangle in the very top? Haak: Actually that's what was taken out of the original proposal. The cross hatched area. It's actually the drainage way that you can see there outlined in bold. Sacchet: So the drainage way is wetland? Haak: Yes. Sacchet: So that whole skinny, squiggle is wetland? Haak: Yes, that's correct. $acchet: And that whole skinny squiggle plus the triangle on top is not more than 2,000 square feet? Haak: The triangle on top is not included in the current proposal. On the grading plan it says that it's about 500 square feet and the corps of engineers required them to take that out of the application in order to streamline the permitting process through the corps of engineers. So what they're proposing to fill is actually. $acchet: Right, that whole thing. Haak: And this is not included in the fill area. It's 445 'square feet. It's like 445 square feet that they were required to take out because of the corps of engineers permit. ,. Sacchet: But basically the whole area, that 2,000 does' include that whole long corridor. Okay, that's one of my key questions. And you touched on why they're not fully held to the 2 for 1 replacement because they're doing a lot of other good stuff. I don't mean to be picky on the Arboretum. It's the greatest thing, one of the greatest things we have around here but I do think we have to treat them as we would treat everybody else so. So we're actually proposing to give them some of our city credits. That was a little unclear. I mean on one hand you said well they're going to have all this kind of filtration and extra stuff there but then on the other hand you say you would give them city credits. Can you make that a little clearer please. Haak: The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act does not allow for that sort of thing to get credit at this point. They're looking at allowing credit for infiltration of basins and rain gardens and that sort of thing, but it's not part of the rule yet. When I was speaking with the Arboretum and they were interested in incorporating some of those elements into the plan for the Arboretum and because they're into landscaping, it's a good fit for them and they actually came to me with that. I thought that it would be appropriate for us to do that. In order to encourage them to look at some of those practices because the city, it's my perspective that the city isn't really in a great position to go ahead and try some of those things. We don't really have a lot of land that we could, basically in the long run it's cheaper if we do it this way because then we can go out there every once in a while and say how are those rain gardens. How are those infiltration basins going? We can do that in the long run. Like I said, we have 22.4 acres of public value credit and that's just an inordinate amount of public value credit when we have 4. some oddacres of the new wetland credit, which like I said earlier, that's the stuff that takes 5 years to really. Once you create the wetland, it takes 5 years for that credit to be certified so that's the stuff that's hard to 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 come by and really keep very close tabs on that. You know once we get down below 10 acres or something like that. Basically I made the recommendation because I felt that this was a good use of that 1,800 square feet and frankly 1,800 square feet isn't a whole lot. Aanenson: Can I just add to something too. I think the bottom line is they're doing some modeling for us that we can go back and measure and test. It's experimental. As some of you may know, this is something that Riley-Purgatory looked at with the Bluff Creek. Trying to implement some rain gardens. We were saying they're a little experimental so this gives us an opportunity to go back and measure some of that and so it's a good resource for us too. That's why we thought it made some sense. Sidney: Any other questions? Claybaugh: Did they delete the section here that you've got hashed off to come in under the Corps exemption. Square footage requirements. Haak: That's correct. Claybaugh: Are we staying behind that? Haak: Yep. Claybaugh: What stage wetland is that? Haak: It's a Type III wetland basin so it's got, in the middle it's got all the cattails. The sides and the drainage way are more grassy types. Claybaugh: Okay, so the bank site woUld be similar compOsition? Haak: I believe they're proposing a Type III for the bank site so. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Sidney: Would the applicant or their designee please come forward and state your name and address please. James Robin: Good evening. My name is James Robin. I'm the landscape architect who has prepared the document that you have in front of you. My address is 5935 Glencoe Road in Excelsior. Can I tell you about the plan? Sidney: Oh yes please. James Robin: Much of this, this whole program was prompted by the addition to the horticultural learning center and just for orientation purposes, this plan is oriented with north up. Highway 5 is across the marsh to the north. The main Arboretum parking area and buildings are off to the south and east here. And what, as I say, what prompted much of this is the construction of this large addition to the learning center and in doing that addition, and recognizing the increase in visits and so on and so forth, the decision was made to begin to implement some portions of the master plan which the Arboretum has been working on. One of the things that this accomplishes, this plan accomplishes besides increasing some available parking is that there's never been a school bus turn around, nor decent fire access to that 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 building, and this plan accomplishes both. I've had a chance to review this with the fire marshal and I think he's happy with where we're going with this. The issue before you tonight is prompted by the fact that old Highway 5, which is the roadway that originally came past this building, when it was built, who knows when. Many, many years ago. A culvert was put under the roadway to connect this wetland to the south to the Lake Minnewashta wetland to the north. And the area that we're talking about is the highway drainage ditch that was a result of that earlier construction. Because that elevation of the marsh and the bottom of the ditch relative to the working surfaces, or the use areas of the site, it's not possible to accomplish any of this, even in a revised format without impacting then so we've decided to approach it from the standpoint that we would fill it and implement the plan. A good part of which envisions the demonstration of rain gardens and runoff ideas in this central parking area. And if you'll let me I'll just share with you a brief sketch. I think it's upside down and backwards but it doesn't matter. This is an aerial view of that parking facility, looking from the building and what we're proposing to do hopefully in concert with the Minnehaha Watershed District is to develop a series of models based on segments of the parking area that demonstrate differences in rainfall volume that is produced by a totally paved segment. A segment with some soft surfaces. Segments that are more aggressive in the off pavement areas. Going all the way to doing some, hopefully some permeable pavement and ideas that actually allow water to infiltrate into the hard surface. In concert with some monitoring basins and/or demonstration basins, we haven't really worked out all of the details. Our ideas in the setting of a learning center would be a great benefit and you're more than welcome to come under any set of circumstances and observe what we've hopefully accomplished down the road. In addition to that there's a whole host of bio-engineering kind of ideas. There are some rainfall storm water quality issues that we can hopefully deal with. We think we're at the front end of an interesting project so that's where we think we're headed and your help in this wetland issue would be much appreciated. Sidney: Questions 0fthe applicant. Sacchet: Yes, I actually do have some questions of the applicant. Ibelieve fromseeing your color version of the print I actually confirm that I was reading it correctly. I would want to ask you, you made a comment that this was actually a highway drainage ditch at one point, so that's, it wasn't even a natural thing to start with. Okay. Just want to make clear I understood that right. And so the connections of the wetlands, I mean that was artificial in that sense but we would want to maintain a connection or are they still going to be a connection? James Robin: To answer the first half of the question, I don't know if there was a connection there. There was a farm here for many, many years. And this culvert connection is so old it has actually collapsed. It is really not functional. We are proposing to replace the hydraulic connection between the two with a pipe and in the process use that as the receiving point for some of the storm water that, you know right in this immediate area which is currently draining into the ditch. Sacchet: Okay. Then one more question. There is a list of conditions that was recommended by staff. A silt fence, seed mix, drainage and utility easements, wetland buffer areas, and so forth. Wetland buffer edge signs. That's all fine with you? You don't have an issue with any of those? James Robin: In discussing the list with the Arboretum people, we're not quite sure about the need for an easement over this pipe facility in a public facility. And I frankly can't tell you where the University would, legal minds would come down on that. Other than that one issue, we saw no problems. Lori and I have had a chance to chat about a couple of her concerns and we have no issues with those. Sacchet: Thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Haak: If I might shed a little light on the question about the easement. After speaking with Kate and Matt, we decided it would be a good idea to have an easement and when the question was posed to me I wasn't quite sure exactly why it was a good idea, but on public property you still need to retain the right explicitly to go in there for drainage purposes. Because these basins are not contained solely on Arboretum property, we could have surface water issues. Granted it's a long shot but I think the city is in the business of protecting of it's own interest and I think this would do that satisfactorily. Saam: And in addition to that, when you say public property, I mean a school is public property but there's still easements on it. Somebody owns that piece of property. It may be used for a public purpose but it's not publicly owned so just a clarification. Haak: The other, I have one more thing. The applicant was received on March 8th of this year so the 90 day deadline is approximately June 8th. Just for your records because I neglected to put it on the staff report. Sidney: Very good. Any further comments? Thank you. Okay, this is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open this item up for a public hearing. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.. _ Sidney: Okay, anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this item, please come forward and state your name and address. . -Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing.- All voted in favor and the motiOn carried. The public hearing .Was closed. Sidney: Okay, commissioners. Slagle: Do we need to vote on the motions? Karlovich: Do we need to vote on... Kind: Do we need to vote on the motions to open and close the public hearings? We never have in the past but I think technically, if you crack open this book I think we're supposed to. Sidney: Okay, let's back up here. Karlovich: I just feel strange knowing a motion is seconded... Kind: And then no vote. Sidney: Oh, okay. I guess that's what we have been doing, haven't we? Kind: We have been doing that but I think technically we're supposed to have a vote on it. Sidney: Wow. She says, should we? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Slagle: I think we should and I think they'd be quick. Sidney: Okay, we have a second. Let's back up to the last close. Kind: The last one which was. Sidney: Close the public hearing. Karlovich: We could just vote on all of them we've made so far. Sidney: Okay, all °fthe above. The commission voted on all the previously made motions to open and close public hearings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Sidney: Now, commissioners. Comments. Thank you. Sacchet: Want me to start? Sidney: Oh yeah. Sacchet: Madam Mayor. I do think that the recommendation of staff to recommend approval of'this wetland alteration permit is fine with the conditions as outlined. I can support that. Sidney: Other comments? . Kind: Madam Chair, I'm really excited about some of the experiments they're going to be doing out here, especially the impervious surface. That's an issue that comes before this commission often and I'm interested in the results of that sort of thing so I support staff offering our credit and I support the staff's recommendation with the conditions° Karlovich: I would just throw out for discussion, if there is any push back from the State with regards to the easement, I think we should still go forward with it anyway. I don't know if they have to give us an easement or not. I know staff wants it but it's not a live or die issue. Sidney: Thank you. I guess one comment I really support the scientific investigation part that is attached to this. I think that's great. It can only benefit the city and those involved. Really good effort. Okay, may I have a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-1 to allow wetland fill for the road construction as shown in the plans prepared by James Robin, Landscape Architect dated March 9, 2001 subject to the following conditions 1 through 11. Sacchet: Second. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-1 to allow wetland fill for the road construction as 20 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 shown in the plans prepared by James Robin, Landscape Architect dated March 9, 2001 subject to the following conditions: o 1 o . . e o o o Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 10. The wetland mitigation area shall be constructed prior to wetland 'impact occurring and shall meet the City's buffer strip and structure setback requirements. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pre-treatment. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed 'and staked in accordance with the city's' wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs~ under the direction Of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign.- A 20 foot wide easement shall be provided over storm pipe connecting public waters/wetlands. The rim elevation for Manhole No. 2 shall be 956.0. The proposed invert elevation of the storm sewer on Wetland A shall be shown. 11. The survey benchmark shall be shown on the plan. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: CHAPTERS 18 AND 20, REGARDING THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAT LOTS: Sidney: Okay the next items that are up for public hearings include amendments to the City Code and in this case what I'd like to do is to have discussions on items 6(a) and 6(b) followed by 6(d), and then leave 6(c) to the last item since that could involve substantial comment. So the first part of the item here is discussion about amendments to the City Code Chapters 18 and 20 regarding the use of private drives and flag lots. Staff report please. 21 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Thank you. Questions of staff commissioners? Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair I do have a question. Two questions actually. I have a whole collection. I have flag lots in blue, in yellow, in green and now in pink and so this has been going around a little bit so in one of those other colors you were actually referring to a different variance segment. Like in Option 1 now you refer to the subdivision variance section 18-22. In a previous incarnation of the same entity we were referring to the zoning variance section 20-58. And I wanted to have a little clarification why one or not the other or what's the background there? AI-Jaff: The private driveway will come in as part of a subdivision. Sacchet: So the subdivision thing is basically more applicable than zoning framework. Now it appears to me by my looking at how they compare that the subdivision variance framework is a little less stringent. At least it has less numbers of things to look at. I think that'd be something to clarify. Al-Jaff: These conditions would fit in with a subdivision. There are only 4 of them. They apply to subdivisions. The other set of variances that deals with additions to homes for instance, setbacks. Sacchet: It's more specific. A1-Jaff: It's more specific to home additions. Sacchet: Okay, And then my second question, I think When we discussed that last time, my interest was all of the above. You may remember-that. Of all the options. I think this is a pretty balanced approach.- I however wonder whether it could be possible to combine it with for instance Option 3. To have them both part of it or whether that would be carrying it too 'far. I wonder whether you have any feedback, whether that would practiceable. Aanenson: I think it's wide. That's why we wanted a variance because each circumstance is different. I think that was the intent of saying we would attach conditions depending on the circumstance. It would be implied that we would be recommending and certainly you would put your fingerprint on that as would the council, but that was the intent is that based on orientation, whatever's happening in that neighborhood. And it may be set back. Maybe need a deeper lot, wider lot. Whatever is kind of that neighborhood standard and so that's why I think we'd leave it open° Leave that flexibility in there. Sacchet: So what I hear you say Kate is that it will be almost redundant to have that additional, these additional points because it's a variance in either case. I mean a flag lot by nature would require a variance? Aanenson: I guess I'm saying, I don't want to put a standard in there beCause it may be more or less. You know I would leave it open to say whatever's happening in that neighborhood is what we'd come back and say in order to mitigate the variance we would recommend these things and if you want to put a list to say, it may include width, depth. I'm not sure we could cover everything but that's the intent is that we would recommend some different standards to mitigate that. One of the things that Sharmin had mentioned that seemed to be some of the point of discussion is the orientation of the home. That's where we've had some of the problems when the houses may be imposing on someone's back yard and so that would certainly be one of them to make it consistent with that° 22 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Sacchet: Just to be real clear, understand you correctly Kate. So what you're saying is that with Option 1, with putting it into the variance framework, it gives the city the capability to put all these mitigative factors into effect without necessarily have an increased requirement for a lot width, depth, setbacks and so forth? Al-Jaff: It could be a condition that you would impose upon a variance. Sacchet: In the framework of the variance, okay. Aanenson: Right. For example, I'm assuming you may get one in a different zoning district' This is assuming that they're RSF districts. You could have it in a different zoning district which is some of the problems laying out specific setbacks. So that's the intent is that with the variance procedure you would apply something to mitigate that. Karlovich: I have a question for staff too. I don't know the history of any of the difficulties with trying to impose the current ordinance but can you correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm seeing is that the city would have to make Findings 1, 2 and 3 and either deny or say a private street can go in if the 3 factors are there. If we added a variance process then, there's also going to have to be a finding of undue hardship. Is that the goal as to what we're trying to get to? Aanenson: I think that's the direction we've been given. Karlovich: Okay. That makes sense. So it actually, at least in my mind, gives us more control over the situation. There has to be a finding of undue hardship and then I think within the varianCe framework you Can put the conditions On the variance. I don't know if we could put conditions on, in your finding 1, 2 and 3 or not finding 1, 2 and 3. I'm speaking out loud. .~ Sidney: Other questions of staff?. Kariovich: No. Sidney: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing, excuse me. I'd like a motion to open this up for public hearing. Slagle moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Commissioners. I think I have a few questions here in the definitions. Definitions are key. For example, what exactly is a private street. Should access 2 or more lots. What does that mean? Also private drive. Private drive isn't mentioned in here. There's no definition in our code of private drive. Private drive is the situation that caused the problems in the Igel project. I want to know what that means and why is that in the private street ordinance. Or if it isn't, where does it belong? Also lot area. Currently it says it doesn't include street rights-of-way. Doesn't a private street have street rights-of-way? Well on the Igel property we were told it wasn't street rights-of-way, it was a private drive. Also def'me lot. Currently the code says is lot is 23 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 undivided by a private street or a public street and our staff did not agree that with a private drive easement that would be true. So I want to know where do we stand on these things. A private street easement doesn't have a definition in our code, what is that? Because that's what's used to squeeze in more homes on smaller pieces of property as opposed to a private street that stands alone. And the impact, private streets, there's no parking allowed so the impact is great on the neighboring property or the neighboring street. Where do all these people park? They park on the public street. And also the upkeep. After the street starts to deteriorate, who's going to fix it? And then in 20 years, they have a covenants. Covenants last 30 years and then something else has to be decided. In the interpretation, the city staff feels they can interpret as they wish. As a citizen I wish to read 'the code and understand what it means just by reading it. I don't have to go and have special interpretation. I have a few questions about Option 3. This would be the requirement that you have on side yard setbacks of 20 feet and it was changed several years ago because quote by staff, it was unworkable. It would have been great if they'd left it. Some of the examples used. This is Golden Glow Acres. This area is within. . . of Lake Lucy so it should have a 20 foot setback on a private street... The bottom of the L here is 30 feet. The rest of it is 25 feet. I thought the minimum was 30 feet easement for a private street. It's called a private driveway easement so what does that mean? Does this mean after the current ordinance was set? Also in the future, and this isn't supposed to be, I looked it up in the Carver County Records, this is supposed to turn into a cul-de-sac here and this is the private street here. So again it's... I have a question on this picture. · ..actually in front of this flag lot here. How do we define... Sidney: Now which subdivision was that? That you just showed. Janet Paulsen: It's Golden Glow Acres. Sidney: Okay. Janet Paulsen: And this is White Tail Cove... has a private street going in. Given as examples of flag . lots but I don't know if you can call, these aren't flag 10ts. This is a private street going here. It has 3 homes on it and it's leading right to this property that wants to develop so how many more can go on there? It's kind of an awkward situation. And then finally... This lot is a flag lot but this lot sitting out here supposedly with a private street going to it. I guess that's all I have to say. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. Some of your faces are very familiar over the last year. Others of you I welcome to the Planning Commission. You have the hardest job in this city I believe. Next to the mayor's of course. Mayor Jansen: Well I don't know about that. Debbie Lloyd: We have worked over a year on this one subdivision. We've learned a whole lot about the code and the shortcomings of the code. When we address this private street, flag lot issue I think we also have to look at Section 18-60, Lots. Section A. It reads, all lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street, or a flat lot which shall have a minimum of 30 feet of frontage. So ifwejump in and change one thing, we'd better start looking at the ramifications of everything because if I've learned anything is that there isn't just one isolated part of the code. It's all tied together through different sections. 18 and 20 and even in some other parts of code. Surprisingly in the very basic foundation of the code. And Jan touched on some other elements, I think definitions really need help in this section. Definitions have gotten us I think into a lot of trouble because we use words interchangeably and this is something I read at the City Council meeting the other evening. Street. It's amazing how this word has been manipulated. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Shared driveway. Common portion of the driveway. Cross access easement. Private driveway. Private drive. Private street. Driveway access easement. I just hope that when we look at the entire private street issue we consider everything. I know the Paulsen's and I would be very happy to participate in a, just maybe a general discussion off the record, just to interrelate all the findings that we have. I have a box full of information at home. I mean it's a massive, it's a massive change we're looking for because it is so intertwined. And I hope no one else has to go through what we went through in the process and I think it will only help benefit the Planning Commission and the council to get these things fixed and done so that a common man can pick up this book in the library and say, this is what I plan to do with my land. Or this is what my neighbors are planning to do. I need to read this and get acquainted and figure out where my rights are and where their rights are because no one wants to, you don't want to take away anyone's rights. Neither do we. We just want to make sure all of our rights are protected. Thank you. Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Commissioners. A lot of questions. Karlovich: I'll start off by saying first of all it appears as though the term private driveway is not consistent with the ordinance. It probably should read private street. One.of the other comments I just want to make with regards to definitions. Not everything in the code can be a defined term and as an attorney, even if you have a defined term, that doesn't mean that everything is cured because if you show me a defined term, I can argue that it means a couple different things one way or the other depending on' which client's paying you to read it one Way or the other so. Definitions are great, or a tOtal update of the code would be great or add more definitions. ! just don't know if that's in front of us right noW. kind of throwing that out for commissioner discussion}. · Sidney: Any other comments? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Well first of all I want to thank the Paulsen's and Debbie for all your support and your hard work researching all that stuff and I think, I would like to encourage staff to take them up on their offer to help line up maybe some of this terminology. However on the other hand, I don't think the terminology is necessarily what's in front of us to consider right now. I don't think the issue is so much the private road situation. To me at least, the way I see it, what's in front of us, the crucial thing is the flag lot element. And that's what we run into some challenges in the past with, I really like the aspect of having the variance element in the picture so that it gives the city some say in how a house, a building is oriented. That it gives us a say in the setbacks. Now myself coming from the environmental perspective I would propose to add some, maybe not elements of requirements as they are proposed in the Option 3 but at least express the intent. That the intent for flag lot would be to have the extra 10 foot in the front and rear setback and I would say probably 5 extra feet on the side would be proportionally more appropriate than have 10 foot all around. But rather than make it a requirement, at least express the intent in this framework that with a flag lot we'd expect some extra spacing. And to address your concern that we encountered with a recent situation, I do believe that would give us enough of a handle to be able to put things in a better context than we were able in the past with similar situations so. In terms of term definition, I mean one term that I continually struggle with, and I don't think it can be defined is the term hardship. If we go this route and we define that route to go with a variance, one of the key things that was pointed out is there's going to have to be a hardship involved and that's a very elusive term and...objective in exactly how that's being nailed down so we're opening us up 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 to another element of interpretation in the end but I think it fulfills the intent of what we asked staffto look into with these flag lots so you have a little more control basically over what's happening. So I do support the staff's recommendation. Would like to state however the intent of increasing the setbacks and the lot width and depth and all those aspects. Sidney: Any other comments? Kind: Madam Chair. An idea to just Uli's concern is, I don't know if you have your ordinance book with you. It looks like you might. On page 1009. If everybody will turn to their ordinance book. Page 1009, number 6 talks about the private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. I think that might be a good spot to insert the types of things that we would like. For instance the next sentence says, the city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. I'm suggesting maybe we could add building orientation and increase setbacks to that list to give people who are subdividing an idea of the types of things we would be asking and then when the particular case comes before us, we can apply conditions that would be appropriate. And I too like Option 1. I like the idea of haVing a little more discretion for approving flag lots and private drive. Private street lots and I also would like to direct staff to do a word search in our ordinance book on private drive or private street. Get them in sync and then come up with a fabulous definition. Sidney: Any other comments? Claybaugh: They indicated that the City of Minnetonka and Plymouth also had permit flag and neck lots. Any discussion with those cities in terms of pros and cons? A1-Jaff': Again they follow the same, identical criteria that we have for flag lots, as well as Private streets. It is intended to preserve environmentally senSitive areas. ' . .J .. Claybaugh: The question was more along the lines of,' as they implemented it previously to this, what kind of problems have they run into, if any? A1-Jaff: None were mentioned. Sidney: Other comments? I guess I might make a comment that I feel adding the variance language is quite beneficial and I think that would be to the residents benefit as well so with that, any further discusSion? Slagle: Madam Chair, let me throw out one thing that I just thought of. I would like to encourage staff to really sit down with the Paulsen's. It sounds like they will but just again another encouragement. It sounds like some very valid concerns. I'd really like to see some type of report or something that, on how that interaction went, if that's okay. Sidney: Okay. And staff, I also wonder if you could address some of the issues that we, or questions that we heard tonight. Jan had a number about definitions and then specific examples. If you could maybe go through some of the responses you have to her questions. Aanenson: Tonight or? Sidney: Would you prefer to do that in another session? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Aanenson: Yeah. Those were all brought up through the last process. We'd be happy to do that again. mean I'd prefer to do that in writing. Sidney: Okay. Aanenson: If you wanted to table or something. Karlovich: I have one other question for staff. With regards to the wording, the use of a private street may be permitted if the. I just answered my own question. I withdraw my question for staff. Sidney: Yes, and I guess I heard Kate, did you suggest that we table this item for further? Aanenson: Well if you want me to respond to all those. They have been answered by the city attorney, a lot of them so I guess I'd like to, you know instead of mis-speaking. Sidney: Miscommunicating. Aanenson: Exactly, and just to be clear that we're on, and interpretation has been made. That I stick with that interpretation since it's been made by the city attorney, I'd like to have the opportunity to bring that forward to you. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: I'm not sUre though, Madam Chair, whether that.would require tabling this. I don't know whether they're so closely intertwined, the two things, Mayor Jansen: If I might Madam Chair, maybe add to that. It might be beneficial for us to move the two forward together, and I'm hearing what you're saying hs far as tabling it. If only so that you can maybe see some of those issues and they are rather complex, and I don't know that they can actually be simplified or not, but it might be worth taking a look at and bringing forward with this so that you know how they're all interacting. Any idea how quickly you'd be able to bring that back? Is that a monumental task as far as pulling together all those comments? Aanenson: That was part of the last, no. I think that we could put, if you table it for 2 weeks, we can sure. Yeah, it's all in writing it's just that I want to make sure we pull it all together and again, some of the city attorney had given opinions on and so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sidney: Okay, I'd like a motion. Kind: Okay. I'll make a motion that we table the private street, flag lot item so staff can address some of the issues brought up by the public tonight and also do a cross check, is what I'm describing it, and do a search basically in our code book for the word private street, private drive and flag lot and just make sure that we're bringing all of those issues forward at the same time. And oh, and when you come back include some sort of list of the possible conditions. Possible conditions that we would attach if we approve a variance for a private street or a flag lot. Sacchet: I second that but I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Actually two friendly amendments. 27 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Kind: Thank you. Sacchet: I'd like to be with your last element you requested, I would like to be specific that we would have it worded so that it fits into paragraph 6 on page 1009 of 18-57. Aanenson: 18-57(6), yes. Sacchet: That we would actually have proposed language that would be inserted there in the middle of that paragraph to kind of define the expectation of what we'd be looking for. And then my second friendly amendment would be, if you could, with the recommendation of the variance.., we would, the intent would be to have increased minimum lot width and depth. Minimum front and rear setback and minimum side yard setbacks. Slightly increased. My suggestion would be 10 feet, except for the side ones where I would say 5 feet. If that could be defined, I think that would be nice. Can you accept that? Kind: I'm not sure ifI accept that second one or not because I think it depends on the situation as to whether we would want to increase setbacks or increase landscaping. Sacchet: As a possibility. Not as a requirement. Kind: So I would not put it in an intent statement. I would put it in number 6. Sacchet: Oh, as a possibility. Kind: Exactly.. Sacchet: Obviously it would have to be from case to case. .' Kind: So I'd probably leave it out of an intent statement. Sacchet: So it would be an intent statement. It would be in an example framework of what we would be asking for? Kind: You're saying that you want an intent statement? Sacchet: Well I'd like to anchor in, and I might be pushing it beyond the ideal balance point with this but as I said before, from an environmental viewpoint, I'd like to have that somewhat clarified that when we make this type of an exception that we do want a little more space around it. That we do want a little extra environmental value in it. That's where I'm going with this. Karlovich: There's always going to that circumstance we'll need a variance from our variance. Kind: I think it's probably implied with the variance. Sacchet: Okay. I can accept that if you don't accept it. Kind: So I accept Uli's first friendly amendment, and do we have a second to that? Sacchet: I already, oh we need to second the amendment? 28 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Kind: I think you seconded it. Sacchet: I seconded your motion yes. We need to second before we make amendments, don't we? Sidney: Right. Okay, so it's time to vote then. I'm trying to think here. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to Chapters 18 and 20 regarding the use of private drives and flag lots and direct staff to address the issues brought up by the public, do a cross check search of the code book for the words private street, private drive and flag lot to make sure all of those issues are in sync, and to direct staff to include a list of possible conditions to attach to Section 18-57(6). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Sidney: Motion carries and we'll see that back in 2 weeks. Aanenson: Yes. We'll get together with the neighbors and hopefully we'll have it back in 2 weeks. Sidney: Thank you. I think on that note I'd like to ask that we take a 5 minute break and we'll be back in 5 minutes to resume. The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE: CHAPTER 20 REGARDING LAKE SHORE PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES. .. Lori Haak and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this' item. Sidney: Questions of staff. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, yes I do. I have kind of a philosophical question here. Were the lakeshore owners in our city notified that this would be on tonight's agenda? Ha,ak: No. Kind: And the question for my cohorts here is whether we should send specific notice to lakeshore owners in our city because this really does affect them. I know it's probably not required but I think it might be a nice idea and if we think it's a nice idea, then I would suggest that we stop our discussion and have our discussion when lakeshore owners have been notified and have a chance to be here. What do you all think? Sidney: I'd like to continue the discussion since it's here. However I think I agree with your comments sine this is an ordinance that will be affecting quite a few homeowners. In this case they should be notified. Other comments? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I do agree with Deb's point that lakeshore owners should be notified but I do not agree with Deb in that we should stop our discussion because I think since we're looking at this right now, let's take a step with it but maybe not do it as exhaustively. I mean there are certainly discussion part where you would think if there are lakeshore owners that would want to be part of it, I 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 would want to respect that but at the same time also I'd like to also be able to give some feedback to staff in terms of the directions of the things maybe we see which direction we would want to go from our end. And then we have it one step further already when we bring it in front of the lakeshore owners. I think that would be fair to do it that way. So I would say a maybe shorten discussion. Sidney: Other comments? I guess I have one question for staff. I'm confused, and maybe it's the time of night but I guess we're looking at Section 20-481 and it says placement design and height of structure. Where do we get view protection out of that? I guess I don't understand. Is it, it's implied? Aanenson: Right, that's correct. Haak: Yep. Basically after the table that's shown in the code, there is a section that says you must use, and I can come up with it here. Sidney: When a structure is. Haak: Correct. And basically the intent of that portion was for view protection. It's not called out as such in the ordinance. Aanenson: Let me just add to that. There's kind of a two prong process here. One where we're saying there's ambiguity in the interpretation of the current ordinance so ultimately if there's ambiguity the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the council of the interpretation, so that's one approach. And what we're saying is we kind of took that a step further and said, because there's ambiguity we'd recommend some different language. So that's kind of the two prong. Whichever direction you wanted to go. We just gave you a recommendation. - _ ~ Sidney: Okay, this item is up for public hearing and I..guess. Karlovich: I have a question for staff. Has the city attorney rendered an opinion on that language or is that from staff or just? Aanenson: There's concurrence it's ambiguous, right. Slagle: I have a final question Madam Chair. On page 5, the listing of the tables that shows the different cities throughout Minnetonka. Am I correct to assume that when it says no view protection ordinance, that is correct in all those cities. They do not have an ordinance. Haak: That's actually the staff report from 1999 1 believe you're looking at. Slagle: Okay. Has that changed since in those communities? Haak: No. That is not, I checked the web site of each of those. Haven't made the call but from what I could find on their codes, none of them have it and I was particularly interested in Minnetonka, Plymouth and Wayzata because those are the big cities that I believe would be most likely to have something like this. And I made sure I double checked each of those and I could not find anything so. Sacchet: I still have a question too of staff Madam Chair. There is ambiguity so we're trying to solve a problem. Now your suggestion is eliminate it. However, what I'm missing a little bit is a clear definition of the problem. What exactly is the problem? The problem is that. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Karlovich: What I kind of view as the problem is, even if we send out a notice to, or when we do send out notice to all the lake owners, they're going to want some protection in this code so that they kind of have at least a sight line easement over their neighbor's property. So that if the house is torn down, it's not built a little bit closer to the lake and they have a sight line easement, I think what the staff and city attorney is saying is that if the person wants a sight line easement over the adjacent piece of property, they should buy it. Preserve the sight line easement and then sell it somebody else and that possibly with.., code here, we might be, it might constitute a taking when we deny a building permit for... Sacchet: On that basis. Karlovich: So that's going to be the problem. Maybe I'm answering the question. Haak: That's exactly right. Basically, and just maybe I didn't call it out enough in the staff report. Basically there's one sentence in the staff report that kind of encapsulates that and what it says is the first 3 options deal with views over other people's property. And the final option, basically entitles people to view down their property lines. That's what they have control over. Sacchet: Yeah and that's where I'm trying to go actually so, however our language in our ordinance and our framework does not necessarily go into the aspect of view. What we're dealing with is setback, okay. So we're staying away from the aspect of view. That's very smart. But now it seems like there are multiple problems because when we're talking about the Minnetrista standard which has a couple things and then you make a statement that with them excluding, if something is further than 200 feet, that eliminates one problem. It appears to me from the examples you've shown that it' actually eliminates pretty much ali the problems, and I'd just like to clarify that a little bit. If you could address that please.. - Haak: Absolutely. Fll get to maybe your first'question. First thingg first I guess, ifI can get the overhead camera. Basically this, I've tried to illustrat6 as many scenarios as I could for what staffruns into in these types of problems. Boil them down to the nuts and bolts. What we have here is the lake, the dotted line is the ordinary high water level and I've shown the 60 x 60 building pads. This is the proposed pad. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. The dotted line is the 75 foot setback. Haak: Oh, I'm sorry. That OHW, thank you. I've been looking at these for too long. This structure and these two are the existing structures. This structure in my diagram is set back 84 feet. This one is set back 192 feet. If you take the ordinance for the word, what it is saying right now, it says that you must use the setback of the structure on the adjacent lot. It does not say the greater but staff would interpret it as the greater, so what you're looking at on this particular piece would be the 192 foot setback. In which case this person with the new house has a complaint, but that's the issue. The way staff has interpreted the ordinance is one of two ways. The first is to take a mathematical average of the 84 and the 192 and you come up with 138, which also does a pretty good job is you draw a line between the two properties. It's pretty consistent with that. That, and I'm getting ahead of myself. And that is the other option that staff uses in instances where the shoreline is undulating. In geometric fashion, as it always does in nature, but if you have the lakeshore being varied, it's not straight across ever. Then it makes a whole lot more sense to keep these in a line and a lot of places, a lot of cities just do that naturally. Sacchet: And you would do that also is it bubbles out, not just if it bubbles in. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Haak: That's correct, right. Basically you would maintain that same looking setback. It wouldn't, these people would have more back yard but the appearance from the street would be the same, and then likewise if you get into the views, which we won't do anymore, it would be similar. The difficulty with maintaining the same setback comes in something like this and I believe I've included this in the staff report as well. If you have 162 feet on either side and you can get this bubble in or out, 162 feet is either going to be this way or this way, depending on which way the shoreline goes so that's the difficulty you run into there. And I have some other things here that I've drawn up but they don't apply so, does that? Sacchet: Thank you, yes that does. Yeah, I think that answers the question to where I want to take it right now. Sidney: Any other questions? Kind: Yes I do. I'm debating about whether asking them tonight or when this comes back but maybe I'll just ask them both times. I'm wondering if there is any history on previous setbacks before the DNR 75 foot requirement. Haak: Well I was unable to find anything prior to, the city adopted the ordinance in 1994 and that's what...Minnewashta Landings subdivision prompted the adoption of the 75 foot and the 150, well basically that table that you have in your code. Staff was unable to find out when the DNR standards were put into place. I was checking around with staff a little bit to see if they had any indication and the consensus was that if there was something, it was much less because there are a lot of instances, especially with, if you start thinking about cabins or things like that, these standards apply to the entire state. When you start looking at cabins, there are. some cabins that are right up to the edge of the lake that are very close probably 25 t° 50 feet and so our educated guess was that if there, was something, it was less but I haven3t been able to confirm that. .. . .t Kind: I'm sorry, I'I1 keep going. And referring back tO that map that had the pink and it looked kind of purple on our screens, where many of those properties were unsewered and so if they're newly developed right now, we would require them to be 150 feet back. And then when they get sewer, whenever that is, their neighbors could be 75 feet. Am I understanding this right? Haak: Unless they redeveloped the property. If they, for some reason decided that maybe the lost next to them was developed at that point and they wanted to redevelop their property, they would be at that point eligible to move their house up to the minimum setback so it would involve redevelopment. Aanenson: They're bound to the minimum unless you have some other standard in place. Kind: Okay, that's it for my questions of staff. Sidney: Other questions? Karlovich: Yes. Has staff taken a look to see what the City of Minnetonka does? Haak: I also did check their web site and I could not find anything. Karlovich: And one of the things, the reason I suggest that is the City of Minnetonka has an awful lot of lakeshore. The one thing that they do have is an in-house legal staff and a lot of times if you want to see 32 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 some of these ordinances that are on the cutting edges, a lot of time it's either the League of Minnesota Cities or the City of Minnetonka. I think that would be a good place to start to see what they're doing. Sacchet: I've come up with just one more question. Sidney: Go for it. Sacchet: I'm still struggling with one aspect, and that the framework from the Minnetrista standards basically throws out if the structure is more than 200 feet back so you won't have that skewedness that you were worried about. What other problems would we possibly run into? Haak: Well, the one main thing that I came up with would be that even though you remove structures that are over 200 feet away from the existing structure, or from the proposed structure, that still could get you a ways away on some of the lots. Maybe the proposed structure goes right up to the 10 foot setback. Then you've got 190 feet to work with and it can still skew your numbers quite a bit. Especially when you're looking at lots like the Whitetail Cove where you have quite a bit of wetland on the site, and some of the other considerations that arise. Sacchet: Now in a situation like that, what would be our options if we had a framework like that? I mean couldn't these people apply for a variance or? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: So it's nOt a dead end necessarilY. _ _ Haak: The other concern that I had about that would be that it's the greatest of those so, noTM I'm . thinking on the spot and my brain's just not going to do it at 9:30. }had some other concerns that I might be able to. Sacchet: That's fine, they'll surface. Thanks Lori. Sidney: Okay, this item is open. Other questions? This item is open for public hearing. I'd like a motion to open it as such. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Anyone wishing to, yes indeed, address the Planning Commission. Please come forward, state your name and address. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'd like you to turn to, let's see. The sixth page of the staff report. On the reverse side of it. It actually says page 5 dated 2/10/99. Does that make sense? Sacchet: Yeah we've got it. Debbie Lloyd: There's a statement there that's referring to the standards of height and it says these standards were adopted in 1977. Okay. The State of Minnesota has the Shoreland Management Act that regulates all land within 1,000 feet of a lake and local units of government are required to adopt these or stricter standards into their zoning ordinance. These are the State standards on height. Height is 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 important in view and that's why I'm bringing this up. If there's one thing that we can help control, I came home tonight, I just got the staff report at noon so I didn't have much time with it but I came home. I live on property within 1,000 feet of the Lotus Lake and I came down Laredo Drive and looked at my neighbor's house and I realized if their house were 10 feet higher, my whole view of the lake would really be obstructed from the point at which I was looking at. So our code really doesn't have the State standard. Our code has a 35 foot height standard and I think that might be something that, I heard the concern about being subjective. If we adopted the State standard of 25 feet, we'd no longer have something that were subjective. It's a hard and fast number. And I think those homeowners who have already built, you know those would be non-conforming lots, that's true bUt I think there's a lot of lakeshore at stake. When you look, the staff report says there aren't many lots but there's a lot of lots around the lakes and even though you may not reside within 1,000 feet of the lake, when you're driving by I think as citizens we all get pleasure from looking at the lake. From the beautiful scenery. The trees and everything. I think it's part of our comprehensive plan. Part of our whole objective is to retain the aesthetic value we have in Chanhassen. So I'd like to bring this up as a point of discussion and consideration for you. Thank you. Sidney: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Commissioners, comments. Karlovich: With regards to the last comments made, I just.want to. throw out discussion for the commission that if this is a state mandated, state law, you don't always have to have it in your ordinance the exact same as the state law. You are pre-empted. You can restrict things further but'then one of the things at least I've found in practice is, if you start trying to put everything from staie law into your ordinance and they start changing the state law, then you have to start updating your ordinance all the time so just for a discussion item, I just wanted to throw that bit of reality out. Sidney: Thank you. Any other comments? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have comments. I really do not agree with staff report here. I think we're shirking the problem. I mean we don't identify what exactly the problem is. We're not solving it. We just say let's do away with the language that possibly gets touched by it. I definitely don't want to see anything in the context of a view ordinance but I definitely would like to see something in a setback framework, and I do believe that the Minnetrista standard is a good starting point. However, if we are not very clearly identifying the problems we have, then we have a hard time solving them. That's why my previous question, I was trying to understand what exactly are the problems because we do use plural in the report. What exactly are they and then how can we solve them? It appears to me tike we say well there are problems and let's just take the context out and to me that doesn't solve the problem. I think we're shirking the problem so, on that basis and on the basis that we want to invite the lakeshore owners, I would suggest that we table this issue and would like to ask staff to try to address the problems and I would encourage not necessarily literally take the Minnetrista standard but kind of take that as a starting point and see where, adopt something that really addresses the problem you're trying to solve. That's my comment. Sidney: Okay. Any other discussion? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Kind: I guess I would like to add that staff should take a look at the building height issue and it's 20- 48 l(f) and maybe put some language in there about building height must comply with the state shoreland requirements and then we don't have a moving target. Aanenson: I'd be happy to show you the implications of that recommendation. Kind: Oh, well come back with the implications of that recommendation. Okay. Aanenson: Yeah I mean it's huge. Huge. Kind: Come back. Aanenson: We have four story apartments next to a lake so, it has huge implications. Kind: For residential though. Aanenson: That's residential. We'd be happy to put together a map showing the implications of that and what the height restrictions would be and for someone that wanted remodeling or whatever, we can show that here. Kind: You're talking about the Lake Susan Apartments? Aanenson: The implication of the 25 foot height. Kind: But they must exceed 35 feet. Aanenson: Right. .- " ~ Kind: So we granted a variance in that case. Aanenson: No. We have shoreland regulations that are adopted. They are consistent with the shoreland regulations, correct. Karlovich: So this is just a guide. Aanenson: Correct. We have adopted shoreland regulations. I'd be happy to show that to you. It's good information. Kind: Okay. Come back to us with that please. Haak: In addition we'll prepare something about what our shoreland regs are and how that compares to the state standards so you can see both of those. Kind: That'd be swell. S lagle: Madam Chair, I'd also like to see if I can ask staff a listing or at least a number of copies of the local communities, if you can get those updates, that'd be great. Especially Minnetonka. Aanenson: Can I just comment on Minnetonka? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Slagle: Sure. Aanenson: Minnetonka really has just a small part of Gray's Bay. If you want to get other lakeshore, Tonka Bay, Greenwood, Deephaven actually have more lakeshore so those are going to be the models to follow. Slagle: Good point. Haak: Then we'll contact cities. Slagle: That'd be great, thank you. Sidney: Okay, how about a motion with including direction to the staff. Kind: Anybody want to tackle it? ! can. Go for it Deb. Madam Chair, I will move that the Planning Commission table, let's see ifI can find it here on my list. Chapter 20 regarding lakeshore placement of structures and direct staff to come back with information regarding rationale for how this solves our problem. And also come back with information regarding building heights and how it syncs with state guidelines for shoreland. And anything else guys? Sidney: Notification of lakeshore. Kind: Oh and please notify all lakeshore owners for our next meeting. Aanenson: Can I get a point of clarification, excuse me. This is just my recommendation, for what it's worth. I think it would be helpful if we had consensus on an ordinarice before, I mean if you want input. from the neighbors because we're kind of moving around on this. I'm not sure, chicken and egg kind of thing. If we're looking at all these other ordinances trying to put something together, do you want to get input and then try to adjust something or? Karlovich: I would tend to agree to bring, or send out the notification to all lakeshore landowners that something's going to happen to their view. Right now I'm thoroughly confused as to where we're headed here and. Aanenson: So is the staff. Karlovich: To face all those people at this land of confusion here. Kind: So leave off the notification at this juncture and have staff come back and report to us the other requests and then we'll get some sort of consensus of where we want to go before we notify lakeshore owners. Aanenson: I just think it'd be helpful if there's a clear understanding what we're trying to do. Certainly there can be modifications through that based on the input but I think if there's an understanding of what we're trying to achieve. I'm not sure we understand the goals. Just to be clear on the background, this was approved in 1994. It was specifically for one subdivision. We've had problems administering it. It was put in place by one problem and I'm not sure that ordinance that was put in place by the council at that time has been solving, so I mean we can go back and look, if we pull some numbers together too. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Number of instances, some of that sort of thing. Where it hasn't worked. But if, I'm just trying to figure out timeframe. If we can come back. If we notice the neighbors, that's going to take at least a month to wrap it up. Get the hearing notices out. Put it in the paper. Kind: I think people are saying let's not notice the neighbors right now. We can get some clarity. Aanenson: ...consensus and then come back with... Karlovich: Now I'm waffling back and wondering if we don't notice, someone will feel like they weren't brought into the process early enough. I did this all the time on the park commission. I always switch gears. Sidney: But it's published in the Villager. They are notified. Sacchet: If I may add my two cents Madam Chair. Kind: Should I withdraw my motion or what do you' think? Sidney: We're still in the motion. Sacchet: If we can, it appears to me if we can clarify a little bit the intent of where we'd like.staff to go, maybe we have a higher comfort level to project to inviting the neighbors. I would kind of make it contingent on that. And in that context, I don't know if I'm just naive but I'm not quite as confused. It seems relatively straight forward situation. What the problem is, that we have the ~framework that is not applicable widely enough. And so if staff could look at the different cases that have surfaced and be kind of distilling it down to what are the different problem Situations, I think that would be the first step. And then the second step would be to see to what extent the standards from Minnetrista would solve the problems or what other problems remain and then ma3ibe try to think, is there some way that this could be mitigated. And I think that is a relatively clear direction to go with taking Minnetrista as a starting point. With first having identified what are the situations we ran into and then we can take that one sentence with the setback that has created problems and we can replace it with something that is more thought through. That is more widely applicable. That is applicable to the problem situation that we encountered in that context and if you come back with that and I don't know if I'm asking for too much or I'm too optimistic here. What's possible ultimately but if it comes to that point I wouldn't see an issue with the lakeshore owners being part of when that comes back and is presented. I'm an. optimist so. Sidney: We still have a motion too. Slagle: I think it was, did you withdraw it? Kind: I'm thinking I should withdraw that motion so we can continue our discussion. Sidney: Please do. Kind: I will withdraw my motion so we can continue our discussion. Sidney: Okay. 37 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Claybaugh: I'd like to address the staff. Are you aware what precipitated the ordinance for the subdivision that you noted? Aanenson: Correct. It's the older areas where the conflict is when you have older areas that came in under septic that have a greater setback because they have a septic system. The standard at that time was greater and now when you come in with a subdivision with sewer, they can be as close as 75 feet. Claybaugh: You said this was adopted for a specific subdivision, was that the case? Aanenson: Right, this case precipitated a change in the language and what we're saying, the problem is the interpretation of that language. So I don't know, I feel like we're making it much more complex. We tried to explain to you how we're having problems interpreting it. I mean it can be as simple as tweaking some of the language in here or you know, I think we're. Claybaugh: I think once it goes to public notice and people show up, it will get much more complex. It's a very dynamic issue and I'm certainly not in favor of going public with it until we have substantially narrowed the scope of the problem. Aanenson: And maybe it's just some work tweaking, some word smithing. I guess that's fine too. I mean we're just looking for some direction. Mayor Jansen: And I guess Madam Chair, if I can maybe jUmp in. I'm hearing what Kate's saying and probably agreeing that if what you end up doing is just tweaking the language or making it easier for staff to interpret and apply, you may not have to bring the lakeshore owners in in droves. And I don't think you're excluding them from the process because you're still trying to balance everyone's prOperty rights, but you're just trying to give staff a clearer frameWork to be able to apply it and I think that's what I'm. hearing. Karlovich: Ijust want to make one more comment. What I see as our view with regards to lakeshore, we obviously have the setbacks in the different areas which protects the shoreland, but then I think we also go, not that we were trying to give neighbors easements back and forth but I think we do have the ability to have the neighborhood, the setbacks look normal and good instead of having houses back and forward, in front and back. I think the new ordinance should somehow have them go in a line or kind of go in a smooth flow back and forth and be written to achieve that. I guess I'm kind of speaking out loud. I think that really should be our focus. Setback away from the water won't destroy our natural resource but then I think we should have something on the code, instead of just deleting this out that gives us some power to make the subdivision and the houses around there not look goofy. Sidney: That's what we do. As a commission. Haak: If I might Madam Chair. Real quickly. I think that with the direction I've gotten from you so far, I can certainly work up something that's more clear. I'm willing to do that. Claybaugh: For staff, it sounds kind of like the 80/20 rule. You threw up the one house up here that was set back substantially from they had to be for 75 feet and you've got another one up front here so, you're covering both ends of the spectrum so where are you ever going to come up with anything that protects the sight lines and the rights of either one of those. It's never going to happen. So we need to identify, the person that places their house back 200 feet, whatever the setback was, they made a choice to place that back there. The person that places it 75 feet made a choice. They're both within standards, okay. 38 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 At a certain point it's got to become a moot issue. I mean if that person moves back 200 feet, the person at 75 feet is extremely limited for anyone coming in and purchasing the property adjacent to it. And that would also affect the lot value and that would be also reflected in the purchase price of that lot, in my mind. If sight line is restricted in there, that would affect price of the lot for somebody coming in. They would pay less for that lot. They wouldn't be buying the same deal. I think you're chasing a problem that's extremely difficult to solve. Haak: Yep. Claybaugh: Well in that case typically it's, in my opinion speaking out loud, is to piggyback some other ordinance, whether it be the state ordinance or otherwise, whether they change it or update it, at least there's an audit trail for it. You can update your's accordingly. Haak: And we'll try and flush that out a little bit more before we bring it back. I think you get to kind of the point of what Uli's concern was as far as the integration between... Claybaugh: There's a justification. Haak: ...so I think we need to be clear that we're not doing it for the view perspective and maybe I wasn't even clear when I was writing the report. Claybaugh: Well that's the underlying intent, no doubt about that. Haak: Right. . Claybaugh:- But I mean if the person?s justified for being back 200 feet, and I guess.that'.s something. different but to just arbitrarily say this person put their house back 200 feet and we're going to restrict somebody else from not going with the minimum Setback in response to that, I struggle with that. Aanenson: Well it's a little bit more complex than that because they were held to a different standard. Claybaugh: Pardon? Aanenson: They were held to a different standard. They had to be back 150 feet because of septic and the circumstance that started the ordinance. The concern that we have is you're holding to a standard. Now if that house was to go down, they could go as close as 75 feet, so now you've penalized somebody but they still have complete control of their property, you see what I'm saying. Claybaugh: Right...address that with redevelopment but that's an awful high ante in so. Sacchet: Well, are we ready to make another motion Madam Chair? Sidney: Yes, let's attempt to. Sacchet: I wonder whether we need to make a very long motion. Why can't we, I would propose a motion that we table this and with the direction to staff as we discussed. Sidney: Good. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Karlovich: I second that. Claybaugh: I was wondering that direction would be paraphrased by Uli. I may be na'fve but I think there may be some room for misinterpretation. Sidney: Quick vote. Sacchet moved, Karlovich seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the amendment to Chapter 20 regarding lake shore placement of structures with direction to staff to bring the item back with clarification as discussed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Aanenson: Can I just get clarification then? We'd be happy to notice. I'm not trying to exclude anybody from the process. I just want to make sure that there's a little bit of clarity because it seems that there's ambiguity so if you'd like us to notice the lakeshore, we'd be happy to do that. Whatever you're. Sidney: I guess I would advise not doing it at this point. They are notified in the Villager about what we're discussing and if we want to get specific, and we have something that we've crystallized and we can explain, then I think it's the time to bring in all the lakeshore owners. Aanenson: So we'll hold that off until the next, make that decision after the next meeting is what I'm hearing. Sidney: Madam Mayor, do you agree? Mayor Jansen: yes, I think that's a good idea. Then yOu've got more of a target for them to be able to speak to, whereas things went back and forth here tonight. They might go' back and forth again so, yes. But thanks for mentioning that Kate. Karlovich: I'd just like to make a comment for the record that this is an open hearing process and we're not excluding anyone. We're not inviting anyone or not trying to withhold them from the process and I think that each of the commission members will at any public hearing have an open mind on everything and if they're anyone like me they will switch back and forth at every meeting on different issues so. Sidney: Thank you. And we're rapidly approaching and it is 10:00 p.m. and it appears that probably, well I'm certain we'll not be getting to Chapter 20 including site plan review. That part of the amendments to the city code. So if any of you are here specifically for that item, I apologize but that will be on another agenda that will appear in the future. So I would like to press forward if possible and staff, are we prepared to do so? Aanenson: Yes. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE: CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 REGARDING SUBDIVISION AND STANDARDS IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions ofstaff. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Questions of staff. The confusion arises here, I mean for one thing. One thing we're talking about blending, and I'm certainly not interested in blending home styles. What I'm interested in is blending size of lots. Specifically in existing neighborhoods. So would there be a way to anchor in this aspect that it's relative to an existing neighborhood. I think the reason why we're pursuing this and gave this relatively high priority from the Planning Commission side is that we did run into situations where we felt our hands were tied where we really would have liked to do something when subdivision of lots come in, and I think the context, would there be a way to separate out the context from the new development context to the context of an existing framework? Aanenson: That's what Option 3 I believe says. Sacchet: That's pretty much what Option 3 does. Now you did answer what this 36,300 figure is. One question I had was, when you say it does not allow land to develop to it's full potential. Full potential. Meaning squeeze in as many houses as we possibly can? AI-Jaff: 15,000 square foot lots. Sacchet: Okay. I just wanted to be clear that's what we're saying here. Okay. Now and we're saying they should allow, when we're looking at this example with this Rice Lake Manor and are we saying that they should be allowed to subdivide? Aanenson: Some of them have. Sacchet: Some of them already have? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Like into stacked lots or? Aanenson: Some of them have, yes. Sacchet: So these or flag lots, right? Okay. That's my questions for now, thanks. Karlovich: I have a question with regards to the approach of the tying anything in with an average lot size. Has there been any discussion with the city attorney if you were to recommend, instead of tying something into an average lot average, could possibly be viewed as arbitrary depending on what your neighbor wants to do with this property. If he wants to have a 100 acre farm next to you, and continue to farm that as opposed to if your goal is to preserve this neighborhood, creating a new district like in an SF-1 with different standards. I just am speaking out loud a little bit. I think from a legal standpoint and trying to go forward with it, it just doesn't seem logical to tie it into an average lot size if we need a new zone category. If our current zone that fits all 15,000 doesn't fit all, it seems as though we should possibly be looking at creating a different one and rezoning property as opposing to tying it into an average lot size such as, it seems arbitrary. Aanenson: I would agree. That's what we're saying. We've stated in this that the minimum lot size is 15. And this is the same example as the one you just discussed. If the person next to you has an acre lot and you come in and subdivide and you have to maintain an average, then or larger, then they can subdivide too, either the 15,000 works or it doesn't. So that's part of what we said is the beauty of the PUD. We don't like the over use of the PUD but with the PUD, in order to add an additional lot you 41 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 have to rezone because the density's allocated for that subdivision. Some of the older subdivisions that have the 15,000, just as you're stating. That's the minimum unless we come up with something inbetween, or there's some other covenants or conveyance that says they can't subdivide. Say there's a homeowners association or some other instrument that they can control. Karlovich: I just hear about the enforceability of this average lot size. If we did change to that you know, if we could. Aanenson: Right. Sidney: Other questions? Kind: Madam Chair. When this was last discussed with the Planning Commission, I think it was at a work session and in our packet at that time was an Edina ordinance. Could you speak to why you didn't include that as any of the options? A1-Jaff: We spoke to the, well what they have is Option 1. And with that it's area within 500 feet. I apologize. Karlovich: Option 2. Kind: And .if I remember right, their minimum lot size is 9,000 square feet. Al-Jarl: Correct. Substantially smaller lot sizes. The majority of Edina is fully developed. I mean they really don't have much open land left that comes in for subdivisions. My understanding when I spoke to their planner at the time was, they get probably 3 subdivisions per year and mainly, most of what they do- is commercial, industrial and redevelopment. .. " Kind: So it doesn't really apply to Chanhassen. A1-Jaff: It doesn't apply. It's a different city. Different standards. Different character altogether. Versus in Chanhassen you have open land and land is constantly being brought into the MUSA and we're a developing community. They are a developed commUnity. Kind: Now one thing that they had in their ordinance that I thought was kind of interesting in addition to they had specifics for averaging width and depth and all sorts of stuff which I agree. I don't think that's going to work here because of the case you put in our, the worst case scenario that's in our packet this evening. But one thing that they had in their approval process was something that was called considerations and I took the liberty of re-wording it to fit maybe for us and I just want to throw this out to the commission as a possibility that would allow us to have some discretion, and here goes. When reviewing plats and subdivisions for approval or denial the Planning Commission and City Council may consider the following: The impact of the proposed development on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by the suitability of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the proposed lots relative to the existing lots in the neighborhood. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed development relative to the comprehensive plans guided use for the neighboring lotso 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Food for thought. And it might, I guess I'd be interested in staff's feelings about that. Aanenson: I think that's fine. I think you could take that same and imply it to the intent of the flag lot. It's the same sort of scenario, and it's how you make that transition. I guess what we're saying is because we have a larger lot already, it kind of goes back to what Jay was saying, but I think those are, what's our intent and that we may want to attach conditions to mitigate some of that intent when they're subdividing. Whether it's orientation, additional width, depth, whatever to make it to feel better because that's when the rug comes in... Kind: What I liked about it in the Edina ordinance was that it seems to give the Planning Commission and City Council a little discretion when a lot doesn't seem to fit, to coin an expression that we've used in the past. I just thought that might be a way to solve it without having specifics about lot averaging and things like that, because I agree with Jay. I think that's a slippery slope. Aanenson: So do we. Kind: So I'd be interested in my fellow commissioners thoughts on something like that and staff's opinion too and maybe the appropriate thing to do is to table it so staff can respond. Aanenson: We anticipated most of these would be tabled and come back with direction. Sacchet: Madam Chair, is this a hearing? Sidney: Yes it is. So we will have discussion afterward as wel1. . Sacchet; Maybe we should, if we want to open it for a hearing and then continue with discussion maybe after. Sidney: Correct. Okay. This is a public hearing. Kind moved, Karlovich seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Okay. Now, I can say. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission please come forward. State your name and address. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Okay, discussion. Or motion. Sacchet: Yeah I'd like to make just a brief comment. I think this is a pretty fundamental thing in terms of the vision, where we want to go as a city so I think this is really more a vision setting, policy setting thing. That it's going to be up to the council because the fundamental question is to what extent can we, or do we want to try to preserve the existing character of neighborhoods, because that's basically what it boils down to with those lot sizes. So it's really, it's quite a bit further than probably our scope is as a Planning Commission. I do very much like your suggestion that to have a set of guidelines. I kind of expressed intent rather than a fixed set of rules that gives us some sort of a context that we can do 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 something. I mean one example we give you that weren't here before is, like we had somebody come in with what effectively was 2 ½ lots and they want to subdivide it into 3 lots. I mean you get kind of things that you can't really oppose it and then you start fishing for things, trying to well, can you do something. They can't have access from here and there. It gets messy so if we have a way to address the issue that's really at hand to protect the neighborhood structure, but then again that becomes a policy issue. That's where I would like to see us go with it. If we can formulate a little bit of vision or suggestion that then can be passed onto council, that's I believe what we're doing here. Again I'm not after blending home style. I'm after blending lot size here. I do think it's important that we do something and I do definitely like Option 3 better than Option 4. I do think we need to do something, but yep. So in that context I would recommend to table it with the direction to staff to research for one thing the suggestion that Deb made and it's again a situation where we kind of shirk away a little bit from exactly identifying what the need is to try to fulfill it. Being flexible is good but we saw situations in the past where we were at a loss to be able to address the issue in front of us. That's my comments. Mayor Jansen: Well and Madam Chair, if I could maybe speak a little bit to the policy piece of this. I think what I'm seeing when I look at this is the mechanisms and the tools that we use to create these smaller lots .and you spoke to that earlier tonight when you were looking at the flag lot issues and the private streets. And if you look at those tools that are used to then change the make-up of these neighborhoods, how do we guide those tools to less impact the neighborhood, and I think earlier this evening you were starting to touch on some of those issues, so I think conceptually and vision wise you're definitely on the same track that your council would be on, and it's do we have the right tools and mechanisms in place to keep our neighborhoods with their integrity as they are. That we're not so · impacting them with stacked homes and where the orientation of the homes is inappropriate to the neighborhood or we think it isl And I think in that earlier report again staff spoke to that very well as to front yards facing the same directions, but conceptually and to your policy issue, I think where You're :~- going is accurate to Where your council will be. ~ '- ' - . ,t Sacchet: Thank you. Karlovich: I don't think that we really have the tools to stop every subdivision and we really do not want. I'd also agree with my fellow commissioners, it's a little bit beyond our scope and I think we'll fail too if each lot coming in we try to say well, it's our thought here to save this neighborhood. I guess what I'm possibly envisioning, and I hate to think of more work for our overworked planning staff but it almost seems like there should be a planning, little study of the different neighborhoods within the city and identify which ones we want to preserve and then they should be rezoned. And what you're going to get, if you rezone a neighborhood like this, you're going to get some of the neighbors that cheer you on because they're being preserved, but there's always going to be those in there that had always banked on the possibility of subdividing their lot to pay for their kid's college tuition so, if we have a kind of... study of the neighborhoods that we want to preserve, I think we'll have a little bit more of the back bone to fall back on and say this is our vision and I'm sorry about your property value. I'm kind of speaking out loud, for further discussion amongst the commission here. Sidney: Thank you. Any other thoughts? Sacchet: Here's one little piece I'd like to add. I do take exception to consider developing to it's full potential to try to stack in as many buildings as possible. To me, coming from an environmental viewpoint, that's not really very good vision. And I think that's where, as the city fills up, as we grow, we get to see more and more of these lots that are big enough, they want to split. And yeah, we can have a rule that applies to everything but I'd be just trying to get a little more handle on that. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Sidney: Okay. How about a motion. Sacchet: Well we heard this one before. I move that we table this subdivision of all lots within existing neighborhoods proposed ordinance amendment with the intent that is expressed in the discussion. Kind: I'll second that. Sacehet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the amendment to the City Code, Chapters 18 and 20 regarding subdivision and standards in existing neighborhoods. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Aanenson: Can I just add some? I think what we're seeing tonight is the two tied directly together, as the mayor pointed out. The flag lot and the lot blending. We've gone through some of that. I think Commissioner Karlovich raised an interesting point that we've talked about too. We tried to do an old town plan. Trying to preserve the character. We got through that process and it went up in flames for the exact reasons you pointed out, but I think it's an interesting dialogue and maybe it's been a long enough time that if you're interested we could resurrect it and talk about and just on some bumwad, show you some subdivisions that have exceeded the standards and what some of the implications would be and just kind of maybe go through that exercise before we come back and look at the tools more specifically. Is what I'm saying is these may slow down a little bit to kind of maybe digest a little bit smaller, pieces. The complexion up here has changed, to just kind of talk about that in broader terms. When you're talking about older subdivisions, Carver Beach throws out a whole different set of rules and so does old town so I think maybe step back a little bit and look at that, just to get everybody up to on the same page. Talk about what makes a neighborhood. 'Some of those sorts of things. If that's okay with you. I think maybe we'll just slow these, down a little bit, if that's okay. _Maybe step back and do a little bit more exercise on that. Just so we're all kind of coming together. You can understand the complexity just on these. There's the same complexity on a lot of other i§sues in the ordinance. In speaking with the city attorney, we've been making kind of ad hoc changes. I think it'd be our recommendation as we come into the first of next year that we're probably going to maybe look at redoing the whole city ordinance and some of these things, I think if we just slow down a little bit and look at them in big picture, it might be helpful to see what the issues are out there. A lot of the subdivisions again we've done recently are PUD's. And we talked a little bit about the differences and just step back a little bit if that's okay. Maybe take an extra month to look at some of these issues, if that's alright. On those two specifically, the flag lot and the blending. Sidney: Yeah, and I was just thinking too, have we given you good enough direction in terms of what we want as an outcome, and that's another point that maybe the commission needs to specify in terms of objectives. What are the problems? Do you feel you need more direction? Aanenson: No, I think it's clearly stated. Some of the tools that we use as the mayor stated, certainly affect whether or not someone can, you can change the tools and then that affects the lot sizes but I think also it steps back to say what's the character of the neighborhood and do we want to look at a different, or is that a tool? Maybe we need to implement a different minimum lot size of 20. I mean maybe there's some neighborhoods that we want to look at that so I think we can take a step back and maybe look at that level and then go forward. Just step back and then go forward, if that makes some sense. Sidney: Okay. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Aanenson: So what I'm saying is these may not make it onto the next, the lakeshore one we'll come back with and this other one that we tabled, but maybe these flag lots and the other may take another one, if that makes sense. Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, my only question to staff would be, we don't have any proposals that would be coming in utilizing the flag lot and the private drive, do we? That we need to be suggesting to those applicants that we are potentially making changes that will affect their applications. Aanenson: There is one that is part of, Whitetail Cove. We can apprise them of that. I guess the first step, yeah we can certainly let them know that we're looking at that. I guess my first set was to say, what standards are out there right now and then we can decide where we want to go. Just kind of do a, like I say, on a bumwad take the city on of the zoning map and show you what some of the neighborhood standards are. Karlovich: And that's where I guess a lot of my, I'm speaking out loud, the question and this issue of, I live over by Galpin and Lake Lucy and I see the subdivisions going in around some big area lots but looking at the big picture, those big area lots that are left are those the ones that we need to preserve, and we've got to preserve every single big area lots left in? But maybe something like this is something that we want to preserve so the whole thing fits around just, if we need to kind of step back and identify which areas we want to preserve. Mayor Jansen: And maybe even to better define what we're talking about when we're, saying existing neighborhoods, because I guess what I'm seeing here is an existing neighborhood and when I see some of these large lots, if they're still 10 acres or. : Aanenson: ...neighborhood. .. Mayor Jansen: That's not a neighborhood Aanenson: Right, that's my concern too. Are we using the same terminology and getting everybody on the same page. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Slagle: Madam Chair? Kate, how would that take place? I mean what format or will you be providing us with information? Aanenson: Yeah, I think we'll just do it, put something on the overhead. This table with. Slagle: At our next meeting or? Aanenson: I'm saying that's going to take probably a month for us to put together. Try to pull some things together. What we will bring forward for you next time is the lakeshore ordinance and we'll have our first run through of the design standards so. Slagle: And I don't know if this is appropriate but if there's anything prior to that that you can provide us through the mail that we can catch up, that'd be great. Thanks. Sidney: Okay, moving on. 46 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3,2001 NEW BUSINESS. Aanenson: We did have the Holiday gas station was scheduled for the next meeting. We did find a quirk in the ordinance regarding a 250 feet separation between gas stations. They currently do not, are legal non-conforming. Technically we have to notice a variance. We got a legal opinion on the language. It's another one of those ambiguities so it will be table to the first meeting in May to get the notice for the variance, the 250, even though it's currently in violation. So they're remodeling their gas station. Other than that you'll be seeing additional code amendments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 20, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Sidney: I requested and hopefully this will be brief, a report from our commission liaison to the City Council. Kind: And who was that? Sidney: I thought it was you. Kind: I don't think it was officially me but I was there. Sacchet: Oh that was me. I think I was the official one last time. · Kind: Were you the official one? -~ Sacchet: I believe so. It was a wonderful meeting. They sat up here and talked. They made good decisions. Without having brought in the sheet, let me think. What was on there? Aanenson: You just had one thing on consent. Mayor Jansen: Yeah, your part was real easy. Was it something with Ashling Meadows? Aanenson: Ashling Meadows is on next time. Sacchet: The sheriff had all the good news of having caught the bad guys, yes. That was one of the things. But there was one main issue. I'm trying to remember what it was. Mayor Jansen: It was Highway 101. Sacchet: The 101. They were talking about the 101. The trail. People really want a trail but they don't want a wide road and there's going to be further study and discussion. Good summary I believe. Mayor Jansen: Much shorter than the meeting. Sidney: Open discussion, I think we discussed ourselves out here. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Aanenson: I'll take it off unless there's something on. I'll have Vicki do that. We won't put it on the agenda, open discussion unless we publish something under open discussion. Mayor Jansen: Open discussion would have been like what you did with the Foss Swim School, correct? Aanenson: Absolutely. We have an interpretation of the roof line. We also used it for the car dealership. We asked that... Mayor Jansen: And Kate literally pulled the tables together. Everybody Sat around the tables and had more of a work session presentation. That's the only one I can think of. Aanenson: Right, and then we used it for the car dealership too. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Aanenson: So I won't put it on the agenda unless there's something underneath it. Sidney: Okay. And I looked at my Robert's Rules of Order here and because the Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30, the meeting now is adjourned. Chairman Sidney adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 48 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 9, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the work session to order at 5:35 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Labatt and Councilman Ayotte COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Todd Hoffman, Roger Knutson, and Sharmin A1-Jaff A. OLD ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH UPDATE/EDUCATION. Scott Botcher provided the council with background information on Colonial Church's interest in acquiring the old St. Hubert's church building. He asked the council to think about two things. What is possible to do construction wise with the building and what is the city's vision for that corner. Mayor Jansen and Councilman Ayotte questioned the ownership of the property. If the corner would stay in private ownership and why the city owns that property. Scott Botcher asked the council members to begin thinking about this corner and what the city's vision should be and what the city will allow to be done with development of the church building itself and the property around it. Councilman Peterson provided historical background of what the planning department and Planning Commission has done in the past on the "Old Town" concept. He stated his personal preference would be to keep this property as parkland but isn't sure how. much it would be used by the public. Mayor Jansen stated she would like to see the property be park as well. Councilman Ayotte stated he would be in favor of allowing something that would generate revenue for the city. Councilman Labatt stated that since a library won't fit on that site he would be in favor of seeing it remain a park, not knowing what the City could get into to generate revenue. Brad Johnson, from Lotus Realty, told the council members that it was his belief that this site is very developable because of the parking available to it. Mayor Jansen asked staff to clarify the parking issue and what's available on the site. She also asked council members to go out to the site and walk around to get a feel for the piece of property and it's surroundings. IL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE. Vernelle Clayton, Brad Johnson, Kevin McShane, Tim Erhart and Mr. James were present from the business community to provide input on this item. Scott Botcher gave the background information on creation of an Economic Development task force He stated that he has been in discussions with Vernelle Clayton regarding the use of lodging tax as a revenue source. Mayor Jansen thanked Scott Botcher for providing information on what the city of Delafield, Wisconsin has done. Roger Knutson stated that he works with other cities that have similar Economic Development City Council Work Session - April 9, 2001 task forces. Scott Botcher stated that the advice he received from employees from the city of Delafield was to proceed slowly. Mayor Jansen stated that she had talked with the Rotary and Chamber of Commerce this past week regarding getting input on their thoughts for the make-up of the commission. Who should be members of the task force? Mayor Jansen then asked for input from the community business people in attendance and Councilman Ayotte asked for input on what the business community feels Chanhassen needs. Mr. James stated the Chamber of Commerce is looking to make Chanhassen a city people feel they can both live and work in. Tim Erhart stated the city needs to play catch-up and look forward instead of looking backwards as to what amenities the city needs to thrive. He stated the city has had a history of resisting change and growth in the past and that the city needs to look at surrounding cities and see what amenities they have and how can Chanhassen those same amenities. The City needs a vision of what it wants in the future. Kevin McShane felt that the city needs to survey the business owners in the city as well as the residents. He also stated that the City should have a person in house to provide development answers to business owners and residents. Councilman Ayotte asked if the business community could provide input as to what hasn't worked in the past with the city's development process. Vernelle Clayton stated that she would like to move away from what has gone wrong in the past and move forward. She stated they have conducted a survey and will provide the answers as to what's gone wrong in the past if the City Council wants to see that information, but would prefer to move forward. Mayor Jansen thanked the business people in attendance for their input and having a conversation with the City Council members. The work session meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 9, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Ayotte COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Kroskin STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, and Todd Hoffman Public Present for All Items: Name Address Linda Landsman Terri Lee Paulsen Wayne Fransdal 7329 Frontier Trail 8006 Erie Avenue 6200 Murray Hill Road PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Jansen: Good evening, thank you for joining us this evening. Under our public announcements I do want to check and see, is anyone here representing the Tonka United Soccer Association this evening? Okay. What I'd like to do is on our consent agenda we are actually going to be accepting a $2,500 donation from the Tonka United Association and I certainly don't want to fail to thank them for that donation. It's towards our fields and the maintenance and we certainly appreciate their partnership so I did want to acknowledge that rather than just have it go through on our consent agenda. Our appreciation to them. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Ashling Meadows First Addition, Lundgren Brothers: 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Approval of Development Contract b. Accept $2,500 Donation from Tonka United Soccer Association. c. Approval of Bills. do Approval of Minutes: - City Council Minutes dated February 5, 2001 - City Council Minutes dated March 21, 2001 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 26, 2001 - City Council Minutes dated March 26, 2001 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Minutes dated March 20, 2001 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF LETTERS FROM THIRD GRADERS AT CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REGARDING A SWIMMING POOL. Public Present: Name Address David & Emily Royer Debbie & Alyssa Fuhrman Jim Thompson Barb Force Matt & Anna Marijke Van Doom Sommara Monthiran 950 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1031 Lake Susan Drive 8511 Flamingo Drive 1001 Hesse Farm Road 8674 Chanhassen Hills Drive 2381 Stone Creek Lane West Mayor Jansen: Under visitor presentations this evening we have a presentation of letters from the third graders at Chanhassen Elementary School received regarding a swimming pool. Staff report. Thanks Todd. Todd Hoffman: Mayor Jansen, members of the City Council. I received these letters oh about a week - and a half or two weeks ago and I thought it would be appropriate, since the letters are addressing a community wide issue, first to present them to the City Council and then we took that a step farther and asked if some of the children would like to come in and then actually read some of their letters so I'll let them introduce themselves and they'll sit at these microphones and introduce yourself by name and then read your letter. Justin Thompson: My name is Justin Thompson. I am representing a Chanhassen public swimming pool. Somewhere in Chanhassen, an easy place to get to, could you build a public swimming pool? A swimming pool in Chanhassen would be good because, because Chaska's too far away. If you go to Chaska you have to pay more money. All of Chanhassen will get to go more often. It will be fun to have a swimming pool in Chanhassen. If you could build it by this summer we would really appreciate it. Residents of Chanhassen and other towns like Shakopee, Chaska, Eden Prairie would be able to come too. I know it will cost a lot. I know it will be expensive but we would really like it. Please build it. Sincerely, Justin Thompson. Mayor Jansen: Thank you Justin. Hi. Chris B: Hello. My name is Chris B. and I wrote this letter for the Chanhassen swimming pool. Dear Mr. Hoffman. I want a public swimming pool in Chanhassen. Somewhere easy to get to. I don't want to go to Chaska because Chaska is too far away from where I live. The people of Chanhassen can go for free and others like Chaska, Bloomington and Shakopee can go get a fee. But if you have guests they can get a low fee. More people in Chanhassen will go to the Chanhassen pool more often. The pool will be fun and Chanhassen is a growing community you know. My mom, Alison B. is on the Planning Commission and she really wants a pool too. I really hope you can... Sincerely, Chris Blackowiak. City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Thank you Chris. Hi. Anna Marijke van Doom: Hi. My name is Anna Marijke van Doom and I have lived here for almost 5 years. I came here from Germany. Germany has a public pool. Could we have one? Dear Mr. Hoffman. Would you consider a Chanhassen public swimming pool? Maybe in a place that is easy to get to. I would like a public pool because Chaska's pool gets so crowded that you can hardly swim so you hardly have any fun at all. Since Chaska is so far away, about 15 minutes to get there, 30 minutes in total, not counting traffic, that sometimes it takes too long so I can't go. This pool would be much closer. The resident fees would be lower. I could go there more often. The community would be very proud. I would be able to have more play dates at the pool. A lot of people in Chanhassen would be there and love it. It would be so much fun. My parents love the idea. We are a growing community. If it was an outdoor pool I would like it this summer. It would be for residents of Chanhassen and guests if they pay a small fee. Please consider a swimming pool. Pleeeease! Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Sincerely, Anna Marijke van Doom. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Todd Hoffinan: I might have failed to mention that these students are from Mrs. Force's third grade class. Mrs. Force is here in the audience. If you didn't get the hint, this is a persuasive writing class. Mayor Jansen: And speaking. Todd Hoffman: And speaking. Since real is always more effective than pretend when writing letters and making public presentations, they decided to come in in person so thank you very much for taking the time and putting the effort into this presentation. Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to add one point though.. I think you've got some competition next time round here Mayor. My goodness. Mayor Jansen: Absolutely. Well on behalf of the entire City Council I want to thank all of you for submitted such wonderful letters to us. You've made some terrific arguments. We certainly have read them all now and can appreciate that you've acknowledged to us something that you need and you think is important to our community and we always appreciate hearing those things. We do have a community survey that's going to be called around for during the month of May and we'll see if the majority of the Chanhassen residents agree with you. So that question will be on there so make sure your parents know how you want them to vote on the survey. Scott Botcher: Offish it out of the mailbox. Mayor Jansen: Thank you for coming this evening. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT ANNUAL UPDATE REPORT, LEN SIMICH. Mayor Jansen: Also under visitor presentations we have with us this evening the Director of our Southwest Metro Transit Service. Len Simich. Hello Len. Scott Botcher: You're not going to be able to follow that act Len. City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Len Simich: Yeah, thanks Scott. Put me behind kids. Well I'm Len Simich, Executive Director of Southwest Metro and I do live in that far away town of Chaska that you just heard about. Mayor Jansen: With that wonderful community pool. Len Simich: It is too crowded. Chanhassen does need their swimming pool. I'll throw my vote behind that. It's my pleasure to be here this evening to provide you with the highlights of Southwest Metro Transit's past year. Now I understand that you received the 2000 year in review document that was prepared for my commission in your council packet so I won't go through all of that same information in that great of detail. But I would like to point out some of the major highlights. In the year 2000 ridership again increased. Overall we grew by an additional 8% in our overall ridership with our express ridership increasing by 15%. Our revenues generated by fares increased 8% and the overall cost or subsidy per passenger actually decreased by 31 cents per passenger. For the budget our system revenue which not only includes the dollars generated by passenger fares but generated through various contracts that we have, and on interest on our investments, increased by 37% overall. Our tax revenue was a little less than we projected, or that was projected for us by the Department of Revenue and that's primarily due to delinquencies and abatements but we were able to spend less than we originally projected. We did this by bringing various functions in-house like lawn maintenance, snow removal, general cleaning and so forth, and we also held off on various expenditures. Overall we were able to spend about a quarter of a million dollars less than we had originally budgeted. As for the milestones, the agency really accomplished a lot over the past year. There are four milestones or basically four major areas that I think really stand out that I'd like to spend a little time on. The first is that we were able to stay relatively stable in terms of our front line staff, which is our drivers, dispatch and customer service. This is no small feat considering that these are the $10 to $13 an hour employees with limited benefits. These employees are highly sight after. Our major competitors pay quite a bit more than what we're able to pay, and we've very proud of the fact that last year we did not miss a trip due to any labor shortages. Now as a comparison, and it's the only reason I point this out is just'for comparison purposes. The region's largest transit provider misses on an average 3 to 5 trips per day because of the labor issue that's going on. Currently have about a $1.3 million effort to try to attract more drivers into their system, so we're very proud of the fact that we are able to retain the quality staff that we have. The second major milestone is that we took another step towards becoming the premiere transit provider here in the region. Our equipment is highly maintained. Our new coach style vehicles are the envy of the other metro transit operators here in this region. Our breakdowns or road call per miles are well below the other regional providers as well as national averages, and our on time performance exceeds 97%. Our customer approval rating is very high. Third major accomplish is that we secured over $15 million in capital grants for the next 5 years. These grants will enable us to replace, as well as expand our fleet as well as our facilities without forcing us to use valuable operating funds that are generated here locally through the tax dollars. The fourth and final major milestone is that we finish master planning our 22 acre site in Eden Prairie. We entered into a purchase agreement with a developer to develop a transit village with retail, office and housing, all which will work well with our overall transit operation. We also re- negotiated the payback provision with MnDot for the property which will provide Southwest Metro Transit an additional $2 million that we are able to put back into our overall operations. There are many other milestones. The year 2000 was very busy. I think it was a very good year for Southwest Metro Transit. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about the agency. Mayor Jansen: Council members, any questions for Len? Councilman Ayotte: I'm kind of curious as to whether or not you see, I hear the good things. Where are your anticipated issues with respect to Chanhassen? Any at all? City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Len Simich: I see more growth. We're seeing more and more ridership coming out of our Chanhassen park and ride lot for example. We're putting in additional, and we have put in additional express service from Chanhassen that does not stop. It goes direct basically downtown. By doing that we're seeing even some of the shifts take place. We're at full capacity basically over at our southwest station facility in terms of parking and seats on the bus so what we're doing is adding more direct trips from Chanhassen. We'll probably be adding more from Chaska as well to try to, some of the passengers that are currently driving to Eden Prairie we're now able to pick them up on the system before they actually get out onto the road. So that we see. We also see more of a need and a demand for regular route services off peak hours. Really services that tie the three communities together. Right now everything's done with the man responsive, our Dial-a-Ride. Dial-a-Ride's are only going to be so effective. A good dial-a-ride operates at about 5 passenger per hour, which we're almost there right now. What we're seeing is density starting to increase. Population increase that we think regular route service will be able to be successful. We rolled it out about almost 3 years ago, I think it was a little bit premature. We think it will be able to be successful now and we're in the process of designing that. Councilman Ayotte: Do you see stress on parking then? Len Simich: There is a big stress right now on parking and the availability of parking. We're working with MnDot in coordination with their 212 expansion and we're going to secure some property from them to put in additional park and ride lots. We're also looking at some additional areas in Chaska and as well up on Highway 41 and 5 in combination with the church that is looking at developing shortly. Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: You kind of answered my question there as far as expanding the services directly in Chanhassen. The lot down at the bowling alley. That?s pretty well packed. ' Len Simich: Yeah, we're averaging about 100 cars a day there and that is up I would say about 30 to 35 cars over the same time last year. Councilman Labatt: Okay. That's it. Mayor Jansen: Okay. I have to commend Len and his staff for the job that they do on behalf of the communities with Southwest Metro and your ability to have secured that $15 million in grant funding. I mean it's a significant amount of capital that comes into the organization that then our taxpayers are not having to pick up and you've got some just wonderful relationships and you work with the other organizations so admirably well that we certainly benefit from it, so thank you and our appreciation for that. Len Simich: Thank you. Sometimes it's just good to be a little lucky as well. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Scott, did you have anything to add? Scott Botcher: No. Their service is outstanding. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it Len, thank you. City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER RAISING FEES FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSES AND ON-SALE 3.2 MALT BEVERAGE LICENSES. Scott Botcher: This was in response, pursuant to Mr. Kroskin's request, who is not here tonight but it was his request, and the memo I think is fairly self explanatory. Mark had an interest in considering an increase in specifically two of the fees, and if you look on the back page liquor license fee summary is there and so I guess it's up to you as to whether or not you wish to increase the fees for on-sale beer and wine and the on-sale 3.2 licenses, which is what Mark had identified. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any questions for staff or shall we open this for public hearing and then come back to staff?. Councilman Ayotte: I would prefer the public hearing first. Mayor Jansen: Okay. If there's anyone here wishing to address the council on this agenda item, if you could come forward please and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, we will bring this back to council. Reading the minutes from the last meeting, the suggestion had been that we're not within even the average of the communities that in fact have been surveyed for these license fees. In fact in speaking with staff I gather this is more to cover the cost of our actually administering the licenses. They have not increased since '94 1 believe was the date. So if only to maybe bring us a little bit more in line with the averages that are reflected here, I'll throw out at least a base number for consideration. On the 3.2 beer fee, if we just simply went up, what is that, to the 410. 410 is the average for the other 11 entities that were surveyed. It would at least bring us up to average. And on the wine license fee, we would be putting a tremendous increase on this. The average is actually 994 for the license, so currently with these, if you look at the two fees, they're actually comparable to each other so I thought maybe if we just kept them comparable and again went 410 on that wine license fee, it's still half the average of the other 9 communities that are listed here. And maybe better reflects the additional cost of processing and administering the licenses and certainly would seem reasonable I thought from that perspective. But if I could maybe throw that out for discussion if council wants to kick around the 410. Councilman Ayotte: Would the 410 cover costs? Scott Botcher: I don't know if it would cover all of them but it would certainly go a long way more toward covering it than 280 would. Councilman Peterson: How many do we have? Scott Botcher: If you look in the back, right behind the hearing notice. In back of the hearing notice there's a list. There's 6 parties. 2 with the on-sale non-intoxicating 3.2 and 4 with the on-sale beer and wine. Councilman Peterson: I think the 410 is reasonable and logical so no other comments. Councilman Labatt: I had taken a little different approach. Close in the numbers. I had come up with the average and then I rounded up to make it even and I came up with an on-sale of 500 and the off-sale of 100. And in looking at the comparison of wine license to on-sale, there's some cities that seem to be 1½ times up to 3 times as much. So I wanted, with wine licenses I went up to 750. City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Councilman Peterson: Yeah I think, I thought about that same thing when I looked at the original numbers but the kinds of restaurants that are currently in Chanhassen are not high volume sellers so I think we're putting an undue burden and they may just drop it because of that. They're probably not making a lot of money with the amount of wine that they sell already, so I'd be concerned about that big of an increase. Mayor Jansen: I guess that's initial reaction as far as taking that big a jump on the licenses. I'm wanting to maybe equalize it from where it is currently, but to a more of a reasonable level. That would be, what is that? 2 ½ times on the wine license fee. And we could always have staffdo something of an analysis maybe because these are, it's reviewed annually as to whether or not it is actually covering the cost. But I guess I would concur with what Councilman Peterson said as far as the size of the establishments and not wanting to too burden them in the increase. But at least try to cover our costs a little more effectively. Any comments? Councilman Ayotte? Councilman Ayotte: No. I don't have any additional comments. I think I feel comfortable Mayor with what your point and Councilman Peterson's point. Don't want to hit them too hard at this point in time. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Labatt: No. I like my numbers but there's more people up here so it takes 3 of us tonight. Mayor Jansen: Okay. IfI could have a motion please. Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion that we raise the on and offsale to 410 and the wine and liquor fee to 410. Councilman Ayotte: I second that. Resolution #2001-18: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adopt a resolution establishing the 2001 liquor license fees at $410.00 for on-sale 3.2 beer and on-sale beer and wine. All other fees will remain at the same level as established in 2000. All voted in favor, excluding Councilman Labatt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Scott Botcher: Linda you didn't touch the 3.2 off sale did you? That's still $55? Mayor Jansen: Correct. Yes. Correct. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL. Mayor Jansen: We have the conceptual approval of the Fire Department Relief Association proposal, that was previously distributed in last council meeting's work session. Scott Botcher: Right, and you all discussed at that point, and the Fire Relief Association felt more comfortable. I won't recite it to you, because you guys all have it. Having at least a motion on the record that shows a conceptual approval of the fire department proposal. They will then begin working on their By-laws, so a simple motion saying that is what we're looking for. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any discussion council? Otherwise looking for a motion for approval of the conceptual approval of the Fire Department Relief Association proposal. City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Councilman Labatt: So moved. Mayor Jansen: A motion. Do I have a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council give conceptual approval of the Fire Department Relief Association proposal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. LIBRARY PROGRESS REPORT, PRESENTATION BY MS&R. Public Present: Name Address Janet Karvis Melissa Brechow Lois & Conrad Fiskness David Happe Jeffrey Scherer Patrick Mackey 782 Liberty Heights, Chaska Carver County 8033 Cheyenne Avenue 604 Summerfield Drive MS&R Architects MS&R Architects Scott Botcher: What's their time limit before they start? You think I jest. Mayor Jansen: Welcome. Jeffrey Scherer: We want to give you a brief overview of where we have taken this project to date. Mayor Jansen: Mr. Scherer, if I could just bother you to maybe puli the microphone over so that we do capture everything on the minutes. I think it will swivel over for you. Scott Botcher: And we are live at home so they want to hear you. Jeffrey Scherer: My name is Jeff Scherer. I'm with Marsh & Rockcastle, the principle architects. Barry Pettit, principle at Marsh and Rockcastle, as well as the project manager and Pat Mackey is the project architect. Over the last several weeks we've had a series of three public meetings and we wanted to quickly take you through the conclusions that have been reached by those public meetings. There have been really good attendance. I think we've had somewhere in the order of 30 to 50 people at each meeting. Some people have come to all the meetings and some people have not been able to do that. We've had some new people at the later meetings who weren't able to be at the early meetings, but generally the process has been one where we would present an issue, or a process and then we would open it up for very candid discussion about the pro's and con's. And I'll just stand here Barry and talk if you want to put the sheets up. Let's just start with this, now who's got the zoom. Barry Pettit: What we're going to do is real briefly just, real briefly, just sort of go through what the process was. City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Jeffrey Scherer: The first thing we did was we had what we called a Roshak test. Can everybody see? Scott Botcher: Well do lights help or do you want to use that? The overhead Barry. Jeffrey Scherer: Well we were asked by somebody. Barry Pettit: Let's just see what happens. Scott Botcher: I know we're trying to get home but if we can't see, it doesn't do us any good. Jeffrey Scherer: Do you want to switch that camera then? Okay, while she's doing that let me just explain what we did in the first meeting and that was, we conducted a series of, we had what we called Roshak test and we showed slides of libraries from around the world and we actually had score sheets and voted on those and we came up with a series of, a list of guiding principles for the building. And I'm going to ask Scott if he could, or Pat if he could put these 10 guiding principles, actually 13 guiding principles. And these were really important because they not only were the consensus about, from the committees, but also they represented our, the boundaries that we wanted to work with on the project. The first, there was a strong preference for a building that was symmetrical. Second, a building that balanced the calm and intense places to work and by that we talked about the interior having spaces for lots of activity and for quiet places as well. Use of natural materials sUch as masonry and wood were important to the group. We had a lot of discussion about brick and how brick is used. That was one of the more lively conversations I think. Use ofdaylighting is important. We're not going to dwell on these in detail. The building should express a sense of purpose and not be too busy and that really was a reflection of some of the slides we showed and intentionally trying to get some points of view so we could be clear, but I think generally the consensus was they wanted a building that had a sense of purpose. It had a sense of civic pride, but it wasn't too designed if you will in the sense that the architect should restrain themselves. Number 6. The design should flow fro~ the program and the practical needs of the community and not be wasteful. 7. The library in general and the main entrance in particular should be self evident and expressed and we'll get into that a little bit more because that guiding principle is still a tough issue to deal with on our site. Number 8. There was a lot of discussion about what is Chanhassen. In other words, we tried to talk about the question of if you drive by this building, should it express what Chanhassen is, and we had lots of recommendations including thinking about the origin of the word. Looking at historical things from the past and that discussion is still going on. The building should be warm and soft. And then the landscaping, there was a lot of lively discussion about the landscaping, including issues about all seasons. The smells. How the space could be used both by adults and children. There was a lot of discussion about how to balance the needs of the adults and those of the children. And then the last one, the last 3 was the library should be joined with, not separate from existing civic building and should compliment, not copy the existing building. Now we have moved on from this one in the sense that one of the proposals you're going to see respects this, but after we got into the design, the committee then voted to also amend that guiding principle and include another option. No parking on the street and public art is important. Now there are a lot of drawings here and I want to really save our, save the most time for the recommendations but let's just quickly go through that first set of processes and then we can have you be aware of what we considered. Obviously you can see from this site plan, we're looking at solar access...building is about, a little over 2 acres. The Coulter Road extension through from Market to Kerber, I would say it was more than a majority's opinion amongst the group is that that cut through should go away. And you'll see that reflected in the drawings in a second. We then went through a series of very schematic plans. I think we had a total of 8 on this round, and these were then narrowed down to 5, and then we've narrowed them down to 2 ½. Because we have a librarian that has an interest in one variation. In this option for example, and these are all done to the City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 same scale. We also talked about the, you'll see in this in a minute the differences between a single story and a two stow building. This option extended the parking along the west. It included a little deck and it had a drop off entry off of Market. This option showed what it would look like with a two story building at the comer of Market and West 78th. This is Option 3 which was to put the building one story in front of City hall, and create some kind of link that would be open between City hall and the library. You can see we were doing a little work there in the meeting. This is what the same drawing but in two stories. And another variation on that same theme with a big parking lot on the west, reducing the green space in front of the two stoW building to the east. That didn't get many votes. A long, thin one stoW building with parking between the green space and the City hall. Now after each of the public meetings there were building committee meetings the following day and one of the things that has emerged, you'll notice in the upper right hand comer of these drawings there's sort ora parking count. One of the things that has emerged is how we deal with parking. We're going to add as much parking as we can wisely add within the budget, but we want to have some design that allows for increased parking in the future if the demand shows that it's necessary. This is a one stow building at the comer of West 78th and Kerber Boulevard. And I think we've got 1 or 2 more on this one. Two story building with a new parking deck on the west side that would open directly into the upper level of the library with some kind of vertical circulation going down. Now those were all reviewed and we voted on those. I think at that meeting that was, I think that's the Saturday morning meeting. I think we had close to what, 50 people or so. Somewhere, and those were voted on and we then went to the next round. So we have two more rounds, right? The next round, we came up I think with 5.- That is a new surface parking lots on the east and the west with a front yard that's approximately the size of the existing front yard. About 100,000 square feet. But two towers either side of that atrium piece that would signal where the front door was, but you would enter the building in that enclosed atrium between City hall and the library. Now obviously one of the issues about this guiding principle of having the front door self evident is difficult when you have a City hall that in itself has it's front door on the north side, away from the street, and how these two things fit together is a tough little issUes and we're still struggling with that, which we'll show you in a minute. Councilman Peterson: Is that a two stow or one stow? Jeffrey Scherer: That's a one story. We are evaluating the two stow, both in terms of the economics of building them, but also in the operating cost and we're not done with that analysis. This option put a one story building along West 78th. This was done at the expressed interest of many of the community to look at what it would be like if we were to respect that planning principle of bringing buildings out to 78th. It's already been established further along the road on the east, and putting a courtyard between City hall and a park on the comer of Market and 78th with new parking on the west that would more or less serve the library and new parking on the right that would be overflow for meetings but could generally serve City hall. And then a covered walkway, but not enclosed, running east/west along that entire fagade so that if you were parking on the west you could quickly get into that logia and walk to the front door which is on the west side. This is a variation on that theme except that in this version the through street was kept. This was nixed pretty loudly by the group. Not wanting to have that cut through for safety reasons. For lots of urban design reasons that was not considered ideal. That last drawing by the way, when we made it drop off only without a through road, went way up in voting for so it was not the placement of the building so much as it was the through road along that way. And then is there one more? Two more. This is a basically three city parks, if you will. One more formal between City hall and the library, and then two at the comers of Kerber and Market and those parks are approximately about 150 feet square so they're about half an acre each. And in this case you can drive through to Kerber but it's not easy. It's a one way system from east to west, and it would also allow us to have in this case, because it's on the drivers side, a drive up book return on this version. And then scheme 5 is 10 City Council Meeting- April 9, 2001 attaching the building again like we saw before. This is just a refinement of that but with two stories instead of one story. Barry Pettit: I think it's important, it's out of. Why don't you show sort of the three schemes that have evolved. This, well I just wanted, real quickly. This one was not a top vote getter at the point of the meeting and one of the concerns was the cost for attaching to city hall. Now I've done a little bit of work on that and there's a bit different thinking on that than we shared on the last meeting, whenever that was. So this one sort of is still hovering around. And then this again, as Jeff just said, once Coulter got eliminated from the equation, this became a much more popular scheme. And then the final one, and this one was kind of interesting because it kind of evolved during the meeting. Again Coulter got eliminated. The building start to get closer to city hall. It didn't go all the way to city hall like we did in the other scheme but kept about 100 to an 80 foot plaza between city hall and the building, and those are the next 3 schemes that I think we're going to see. Jeffrey Scherer: Another important aspect of that is, the scale and the material relationship between city hall and the new building. We've had a lot of discussion about whether the building should simply look like city hall. Whether it should have it's own identity. If you get too close to it, does it have to be big enough to mask the city hall or what is that design relationship and those are really tough questions but, okay now we've narrowed it down to 3 schemes that from the 5, so we started with the 8 or 9. We went down to 5 and now we're down to 3. And these will be looked at in detail but in this case we have a net gain parking of 82 and we have a single story library that is connected to an enclosed glazed link serving both parking lots, and one of the important things to notice. You've probably already figured this out but if you come onto Market and park on the east side and that lot is full, you have to leave that parking lot and go around 78th to the other parking lot. So this symmetrical issue is great except that the, those lots are not connected and because of the grade change, the upper lots are not connected to the-lower lots so one of the issues there is, is whether the parking on the west side, the shared parking that's labeled on the upper, the northwest comer and the new parking should be thought Of as more library parking and the parking on the east should be thought of more as city hall parking. So that's one scheme. The second version creates a two story building, more out towards 78th. Now this is a hybrid of the previous ones we showed in the second meeting. In order for us to start thinking about respecting that alignment of the buildings along 78th but getting it close enough to city hall that we can, that we would have a covered walkway connecting city hall with the library. Those dotted lines on the west and east side would be a logia that would be covered that you could then walk in a covered way. And one of the important aspects to this too is that city plaza in the middle would become a different kind of plaza. More intense and more manicured and designed than say the green space that surrounds in a U the remaining, the library so you would concentrate some of the landscape money in the middle to create a kind of city plaza and then have a different kind of landscaping, more informal on the rest of the site. And if you park in either side, really anywhere on those two lots, you can get into a covered walkway to get into the front door. Now, one of the things about this version that some people are not happy with is the front door is not self evident from 78th. Now if we flip this building around, and we had unlimited operating expense, we could have two doors but it's just out of the cards to have two means of ingress and egress for the library, just in terms of the management of the thing. Because of the economics of supporting it, so that's a big issue we have to straggle through here. And then finally, this is, the group hasn't seen this. Those who are in the committee, building the public review haven't seen this one but this is a drawing up of what we talked about. If you cut out that through road, you would have a drop off and a waiting to pick up and then that's that scheme, I think it was 3 or 4 that's on the comer. And then you've got one big green space to the east. 11 City Council Meeting- April 9, 2001 Barry Pettit: You can sort of point this out Pat as I go along. One of the issues with that last scheme that was compelling to some folks is the fact that the building came back out to the street. The 78~h Street and began to reinforce that urban edge again. The other issue with that, right. Yeah. The other issue with that is it began to break down the scale of Byerly's parking lot, especially as you came from the west heading east. Again the topography along 78th is such that the parking lot is a pretty formidable object, and the theory with this idea as an urban idea that a couple people were fascinated with is it began to break up that kind of open zone if you will. Jeffrey Scherer: Now one of the other, finally and then we'll open it up for questions. Another one of the important design issues here is it was obviously clear to a majority of the public that they wanted a symmetrical building around the axis of city hall. The advantage to that is it satisfies that sort of inner urge to have things lined up. The disadvantage is that if you place it axially along city hall, do you then create a design that's different or same or as if it were an expansion of that? By placing it off center you are obviously not the same building. You're a different building so it creates a different opportunity or different thought process of how that object is designed. So it's a real interesting conundrum between wanting to maintain the landscaping, or excuse me the symmetry and having a larger landscape to the east or putting it in the middle and having smaller landscaping on the east and west. This one would also have, if you're going west on 78th, it would be more clear that it's not, that it's something different than an extension of city hall. And I think from that we can open it up for questions. Obviously we still have a long journey to go to get to the right solution but we are closing in. We have these 3 distinct, different points of view and we need to reach a conclusion at some point here but we'd open it up for questions nOW. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. And council, just maybe to frame up the point at which we find ourselves tonight, is as we're reviewing all of these different plans and diagrams, the building committee is working as that link, if you would, or filter from the public comments to council. And at this point your building committee has been going back and forth on a couple 'Of issues, and those issues being addressed here already, attached or not. Whether council in fact has any strong feelings or not, the building committee is certainly working through some of the key issues on each one of these so if you care to comment and give any perspective, certainly do but I guess this evening we're anticipating that we're reviewing it. It's going back to building committee and we've already scheduled another public hearing, correct? I don't have that date in front of me but. Barry Pettit: 17th. Mayor Jansen: April 17th. Jeff Scherer: Yeah we added one. We had 3 planned and we needed another one, obviously. Mayor Jansen: Okay. So as it was raised here tonight, attached or not. We're reviewing one or two story. I'd say your building committee is strongly in the one story category due to the operational costs as well as building costs. And the parking issue. On being able to more so look to the future expansion versus building a tremendous amount of parking initially on this site where we may be able to be more flexible with that and put a little less asphalt around the two buildings. Jeff Scherer: One caveat that I would make for you to consider about that parking issue is, just be ready to act quickly if the demand is there. We've just finished a project where we did the same thing and their circ doubled and their attendance went up from 1,000 to 2,000 people a day and we thought we had a good 5 years of wiggle room. And the building's only been open 2 months so the council's already, this 12 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 is in another state but they're already planning the expansion of the parking so I think the prudent thing to do but just be aware that you need to act fast if it's needed. Mayor Jansen: Sure. Scott, any comments before we open it up for a conversation? Scott Botcher: No, the only thing I would add, and I've mentioned this to the council before. We do have to be aware of the agreement we have with the Chan Bank as it relates to parking on that side. And not that we have to base any recommendations you might make tonight to the building committee so we can continue our work upon that agreement, but understand that it is out there. And at some point we're going to have to either we'll have the good fortune that our design selection will allow integration of the same parking, consistent with that agreement, or we will have to go back and deal with that agreement. Councilman Peterson: What is the agreement Scott? Scott Botcher: You know I thought I had, have I shared that with you all? Have I distributed that with the council? Mayor Jansen: I thought we had it at one point. Scott Botcher: I thought we had. The down and dirty is that where the existing building is oUt front here, the city entered in, the old bank building. The city entered into an agreement to allow the Chan Bank a parking, they called it an easement or an option, that they have the right until December 31, 2010 to facilitate the construction of 80 parking spaces on that site. And there's all sorts of clauses and liquidated damages and all sorts of things in there and Mr. McShane at the bank has indicated certainly a willingness to work with us if his parking needs as outlined in the agreement and our parking needs as determined through the construction of the library, dove tail together so it's not an adversarial position at this point, but it is certainly a legal obligation the city has made witl~ the Chan Bank and we need to make sure that we deal with it at the appropriate time. Mayor Jansen: If you need more detail we can have staff provide. Scott Botcher: Please call me and we'll be more than happy to do that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Alright, we had not actually slated this for any public hearing. I don't know if there's anyone who at this point cares to make any comments or if we shall just proceed but I don't want to fail to at least acknowledge the people who are here, and I know you have been diligently attending our public hearings and we sure appreciate it. I think the one thing that I heard said here was that at the 3 meetings we have had new people attending and that to me is a great indication that we may have done the right thing staggering the days that we held them as well as the times and the intention was to try to enable as broad a segment to be able to attend the meetings as possible. So I appreciate your flexibility in having allowed us to do that kind of staggering, including a Saturday morning, so thank you. Was there anyone who felt a burning desire to say anything at this point? Okay. If you could say your name and address for the record please. Randy Wall: Randy Wall, 6891 Redwing Lane. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. 13 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Randy Wall: All the design concepts were great and everything except for, I saw a couple of the images where there was no, where Coulter Boulevard got eliminated, and coming from a fire department perspective, we've got about 25% of the members living in the northwest quadrant if you will, northern Kerber, Carver Beach area and stuff, so from a response standpoint, when you guys do figure out what your scheme is. I saw a couple of them with the road up onto, to the north. There you go. That would make a nice, for when we respond to the station, otherwise coming down to West 78th there, we're probably going to get pegged with a couple of lights and could slow down response. I'm sure we've got enough members that live on the east but for those that live out in the northwest, but that was about it. Just from a response standpoint, some sort of road con6ept. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Okay, council members. Open this up for discussion, if anyone has any comments you'd like to share. Councilman Peterson: That's a hard question. I mean that's a lot to process clearly for not really having been through the meetings thus far. I think that what I warmed up to I think was the idea of that, of the center park space or gathering space, however the definition is. Similar to the one that was just up there. The need to balance, the closeness of city hall with the closeness of the library and how do you still build a new building that's creative versus what, by all standards is this is an uncreative building. I think you need to keep them far enough apart to be able to let you guys create something that the city can be proud of so I'm probably biased towards keeping them farther apart, but I like this kind of design where it is in there. I won't say that it's covering up city hall but to some degree I guess it is. Go ahead. Jeff Scherer: Just to say on that one point. Several citizens raised a really good point and that is, we've programmed this for 20 years. We really haven't stepped back and say okay what's city hall going to be in 20 years. How big is it going to be? What's going to be in there? At some point it might be worth considering that because if that building is going to need to expand, that might inform more, more better inform the whole block. ~ Mayor Jansen: Staff is in fact addressing that very issue as far as taking a look at that and again, you've got a building committee that is comprised of staff members to be able to give some of those sorts of perspectives on it, as far as the specifics of how we accomplish it. The conceptual part of what I heard you share was you don't want the two buildings to look alike, and being able to direct the architect in that direction certainly is the right way to go. If it can be connected and they can be unique, there might be some amenities in fact that can be gained from that but if you don't mind my maybe coming up with conceptually what I heard you say. Councilman Peterson: It was a good summary. It goes back to what I didn't like when the library was set off to the left towards the Byerly's parking lot. It just, for whatever reason, didn't work from a flow standpoint. It looked like it was just put there. You lose the connection with city hall so, but I like the idea of a park on both sides, or some sort of green space on both sides and a gathering place between the two I think is in a very encapsulized summary that would do that. Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt: ! was kind of taking the opposite approach. My concern is with scheme 1 and 2 having the road, can you put up scheme 1 or 2 to show that road on the north side of city hall. It cuts through the 2 hockey rinks. We lost 1 to the skate park and I don't want to lose 2 more. As selfish as it sounds, Chaska and Chan have a lot of hockey players that use those rinks. 14 City Council Meeting- April 9, 2001 Jeff Scherer: This road here? Councilman Labatt: That's the skating rink. The concrete or asphalt pad to the right. Jeff Scherer: Here? Councilman Labatt: No, down. That square pad there is the skate park and the hockey rink. Jeff Scherer: How you would connect this to preserve that is an important piece, right? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Barry Pettit: I think just as a quick point, I think that idea is pretty schematic and it does ultimate it goes back to the city and say is there a way to weave around back there. Re-organize some of the kind of parking... Mayor Jansen: No, it's a good comment. Councilman Labatt: But in looking at that though, that's not going to be something that's done for a couple thousand dollars. It's a huge portion to put a road up there, so is that money used for that road being taken away from the library then? Mayor Jansen: No. It's not even a real serious part of the discussions at this point quite frankly. _ Scott Botcher: It's been reflected in some previous stuff and I know Todd is aware of it and it's just one of those things that's out there. It's not even in your 5 year CIP. Mayor Jansen: It apparently was just on a master plan someplace at some point, yeah. Councilman Labatt: Okay. I personally like scheme number 3 better, which was the one that Craig didn't like. Councilman Peterson: Big surprise. Councilman Labatt: I like them. I mean I agree with hiding up the mass of Byerly's parking lot and having, is it better to have two parks smaller on each side of the building or one larger green space? I like the fact that it has a drop off turn around right here. And it gives you room for expansion if you do have to cut in there for additional parking. On the new parking deck, are you talking a two story structure? Jeff Scherer: No. We turned the why's in the financial equation here and that would simply be extending the existing lot out level on the upper level and tucking in something below so it's not really, it is a structure ramp above but it's not like a formal parking garage in that sense. It's creating a shelf. Councilman Labatt: ...up on top. Jeff Scherer: Making the upper one just keep going and then because of the grade change, a portion of that could be tucked under parking for staff and things underneath. 15 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Councilman Labatt: What is the black and yellow or black and green? Jeff Scherer: That's a bad rendition of a stair. The treads were drawn in and when it was reduced to this scale the treads became black, sorry. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So it's a stairway going from the upper to the ground level. Jeff Scherer: Right. And another thing that's critical is, this one hasn't been, this was a hybrid of the two. It hasn't been studied as carefully as the other two so whether or not' that drop-off actually looks like that or is in exactly that position is not really relevant for now. But the idea that there should be a drop off on this scheme is there. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Jeff Scherer: So we have one vote for the plaza. We'll see if the percentages equal the percentages from the public. Scott Botcher: We're not letting them vote yet. We're just getting into it. I have a couple of questions, and I guess for Randy, this is what I thought you were going to ask. I didn't think you were going to let me take the fire relief money to build that road to increase response time. If you want me to, we could do ' that. No my serious question is this. Can you guys make that cul-de-sac with your fire equipment? I mean can you, and I guess it's a multiple choice question. Can you build a cul-de-sac with a radius that will allow him to drive his equipment in there? Randy Wall: The truck and ladder would be out, that would take 'the shared parking over on the east and it would take the shared parking on the east and west side on the north up there. But an engine could get in there. '~ Scott Botcher: Okay, so if you had to. Jeff Scherer: What we've done in some communities is to, even though this is rendered as public plaza, in some communities we've designed those pavements to accept emergency vehicles just to go straight on through and planned it so that there is a way through. You can drive the hook and ladder right on through there° Scott Botcher: Yeah, I don't want the building to be so, and isolated is a terrible word but so isolated on the comer away from the equipment that you guys need to use in care of an emergency that we can't get there. Councilman Labatt: It sounds like a good issue for the building committee to work on though, yeah. Scott Botcher: Okay. Thanks. Councilman Labatt: ...the radius of some of the residential cul-de-sacs. Scott Botcher: Some are tight. Mayor Jansen: Were you through with your comments Steve? 16 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Just 5 points. Cost analysis trade-off, parking, life cycle analysis, operational expense, access. Whatever concept we go to, I hope we have high reliability, and that's key. The building committee's going to take a look at the concept but what you bring up and what others bring up is extremely important. Get as much library for our buck as possible, and there is that trade-off between architectural aesthetics and so on, but these points are extremely important. To me, and I'm hoping, and I've heard you. I know that it's embedded in your thought process, but reliability's got to be a key term in this whole thing. Scott Botcher: Did you all, just because it piggy backs on what Bob said. We talked the other day about, it wasn't a pure cost benefit analysis but a cost comparison between the glazed connection between the two buildings and the court yard and then the life cycle costs involved in that and Mr. Hoffrnan mentioned issues of again, maintenance and skate boarders and everything else with the outside. Or is that something that's still in the works? Barry Pettit: Yeah, I did a quick little comparison and the two that Scott is talking about, can you kind of put them side by side. That's not too bad. Just keep them moving around. Interestingly enough, this sort of street, this internal street if you will that connects city hall with the library, came out not costing much different than the plaza. The issue with the plaza is we have these logia's. These sort of covered walkways that certainly have, when they're done well there's a cost to those. I think the kind of plaza that Jeff was talking about that becomes a highly regular, highly designed, more crafted if yOu will, becomes pretty expensive so by the time that you took those two factors into account on the right scheme and balanced that with the enclosed space, they were pretty close. Pretty close. Scott Botcher: And then the maintenance issues when you're comparing that. Barry Pettit: Of course the issue with, when you've got the outdoor space, it obviously has a different level of maintenance because it's subject to you know to the other issues and, versus the atrium. For those obvious reasons and so the maintenance on the outdoor areas is just your general clean-up. It also comes along with the issues if you're going to go in with a very formal planting with the trees, flowers, whatever. They need some time and maintenance and annually you've got to take care of those so. Jeff Scherer: One concern that we always have, since we get the call, is what is the water integrity and if we do, this is a scale of the height of the existing city hall. And this is the height of the single story library. It's shorten just simply for this discussion because it would end up way over here. But you can see that city hall is higher than a single story library and how we do that connection, knowing a, that this building is going to move differently than that building and how we glaze that without it causing issues with the water integrity, and the fact that these offices will all lose their outside daylight, need to be thought through also in the equation. So you're not really masking it totally. You're really kind of continuing to step down. It's not an easy issue. Scott Botcher: I guess I wanted to raise the issue because I thought you were probably still working on it but I know that, knowing Bob's focus on life cycle costs and cost benefit analysis, that that was something that the committee frankly is still looking at I believe. 17 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 Mayor Jansen: Yes. The building committee is meeting again tomorrow I believe and taking those issues into consideration. And it's been an interesting process. Being able to get the public comments and coming back as the building committee and working those issues through and especially with staff as a significant part of that process so that we can work through more the technicals and how we actually can bring all of this together in a practical way. And coming up then with that next public hearing, based upon just bouncing things off of council, taking it back to the building committee. Working through some of these cost analysis and then going back out to the public so it's been a really interesting and I think very productive process. And Melissa you're standing at the microphone. Melissa Brechow: I am Mayor Jansen. I just wanted to tell you city council a little bit, some of my concern. Some of my concern. I've been the loudest proponent about this front door. If you put the front door in an atrium that connects these two buildings the idea of where is the front door and we know we can do some design things but my concern is, where is the front door and how do you access that front door? And our discussion has been, closed atrium? Open atrium with a green space in there and how we define that. I think if we put the city hall and the library together with an atrium, we restrict both buildings for future of what we do. I also see some security issues happening with an atrium. Mayor Jansen: And we're certainly working all those issues through with the building committee. Melissa Brechow: We are. I just wanted to bring that forward, particularly about the front door. Where is it and our architects know that too. How do we access this building? How do we get in and out? How do we park? How easily is it for the parents to bring their children to the library? Mayor Jansen: Absolutely.. No, we've appreciated Melissa's insight on libraries and it's certainly been very constructive so thank you Melissa. Any other comments from council? I think we've got a good conceptual overview from everyone and we certainly will continue to keep everyone informed as to how this is proceeding. Like we said, the next public hearing is April 17m. I believe 7:00, is that correct Lois? At the senior center and hopefully we'll have some nice attendance there so thank you very much. Thanks for the presentation. Councilman Ayotte: Thanks a lot. COMMUNITY SURVEY, DECISION RESOURCES. Scott Botcher: What we have before you this evening is a preliminary draft of the survey. This has been, we had a meeting with Mr. Morris, the Mayor and department heads to review some surveys from other communities. We indicated to him some of our areas of emphasis as it involves the city of Chanhassen. And Mr. Morris has put together the preliminary version that is before you today. I guess two things are expected, or requested this evening. First of all, I hope that you've all had the opportunity to read through the survey. If there's anything in there that you find to be offensive or lacking or somewhere inbetween, speak now please. And then secondly, I guess we would ask for a motion authorizing the mayor to formally execute an agreement with you all, as soon as you give it to me, so we don't have to wait another 2 weeks frankly, if that's okay with you. So I don't know if, I guess what I'd recommend to spare you the, unless the mayor wants you to, introductory of who you are, that sort of stuff. I don't know if you need to walk through this for us but if there's anything of special interest the council has, they could direct it directly to Mr. Morris. Mayor Jansen: I guess I was assuming we'd probably just direct questions° Council, if you've come with some. I had posed one that Mr. Morris already answered that I think maybe everyone else might be 18 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 interested in what you and I had discussed. And my initial reaction was, it seems awfully long and so what amount of time can we expect our residents to stay on the home answering questions, so maybe if you wouldn't mind answering that. I found your reply very interesting. Bill Morris: I'd be happy to answer that. Mayor Jansen: If you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record. Bill Morris: Certainly. Bill Morris, 31218 Court, Minneapolis. The mayOr raised a good point. It's a point that comes up constantly when we're dealing with quality of life surveys. And from the surface it may look like it's a very, very long document. However remember that people won't be reading through it. They'll actually be interviewed on the telephone and time then becomes a little bit more relative. But we always follow the same, or we recommend the same pre-survey protocol in order to ensure that people know first that this isn't going to be a fast 5 minute, quick impression of number of questions about their impressions of the community. We do make appointments telling them beforehand that it will require some time on their part. And we do ensure them that people have the opportunity to be interviewed at the most convenient time for them. Now the current questionnaire that you have in front of you, we estimated would be at about 30 to 35 minute mean. That is the average respondent would take about that long to go through. It's not a prohibitively long survey by any stretch of the imagination. One way that we keep people on the phone is you probably noticed that topics jump somewhat. That's deliberate. We found early on that if we ask 50 or 60 questions on recreation facilities we get a drop off among certain segments of the community terminate before the survey is over with. But that 30 to 35 minute approximation really does cover one fact and that is that we've talked with people at Hennepin County and up in Carver County. We actually have at least 10% of the respondents who will stay on the phone with us for over an hour, by their choice. The record is held by a woman in Chaska who spoke with one of our interviewees for 1 hour and 56 minutes. She was 90 years old. She then called the mayor to talk to him about the fact that she was glad that she was chosen, but she expected him to give her name to us. She didn't understand random samples, and thanked the council for the opportunity to express her opinions. What we've found, we do a lot of product surveys. We do political surveys and then we do quality of life surveys. Is that residents are more than willing to stay with us on the line through an extensive survey as long as it deals with one of two things. Their cities or their school districts. If we tried to do something like this dealing with a political campaign, or dealing with a product for example one product that we've dealt with a lot of 3M scotch tape. We could never even attempt a survey a quarter as long as this one. So it really is the topics. It's the interest. It's the pre-work ahead of time announcing that a survey is about to be taken and then the convenient way we give respondents in terms of being able to tell us when they want to be interviewed. In surveys this long we expect our non- response rate to stay below plus or minus. Sorry, not plus or minus. We expect to stick below 5%. The problem will be, as we found to be the case in the last survey we did for the City of Chanhassen, and also for the survey we did for the Carver County library, is finding your residents at home. And there, we're in the field for 2 weeks. We will call our target households up to 30 times if necessary in order to make sure we do get them. But rather than refusals, our refusals generally stay at about 2% or less. The other 3% usually comes in in terms of not being able to find the target and make a substitute. Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that. I actually found myself too to be a perfect example. Any time I pick up the phone and somebody wants to ask me questions, I decline. I got one of the phone calls for the park and trail referendum. I stopped what I was doing. I sat down and I answered every single question and I was not a knowledgeable resident at that time by any stretch of the imagination. Didn't even realize there was a survey going on but as soon as they said, you know this is about Chanhassen and at the time they were saying it's about your taxes, because it was about a referendum, you know I definitely sat 19 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 down and gave it the time so I thought it was an interesting bit of background that Mr. Morris was able to share. Craig, did you have a question to add to that? Councilman Peterson: I guess I was surprised, you know I looked at 160 some questions and I got scared, just like my fellow council did. What did surprise me, you said only 2 to 3% refused. I would have assumed for this long of a survey it would have been significantly more than that, thus biasing your results so you indirectly answered my biggest concern about you have to call 100 people to get 2 to do it and then you've got a biased group so, I'm amazed at that. Bill Morris: That isn't the case with quality of life surveys. It can become the case in product type of test and that sort of thing. The record length that we have is the City of Richfield where residents actually sat through, or stood through in some cases, a 238 question survey. But it talked about the airport issue. It talked about highway construction, that kind of thing and all of those were very, very salient topics as far as residents were concerned. Scott Botcher: The two samples we had in our packet to work for, one was from Lakeville, one was from Woodbury. One was 180 some and one was in excess of 200. It was like 2 and a quarter, give or take. Both communities, from my conversations with the professional staff in those communities had very, very strong responses. The same type of refusal rates that he's indicated here so obviously if it's, I'm fairly comfortable with the methodology. Councilman Peterson: I didn't compare the number of questions last time, the last sUrvey to this time. Were they significantly different? The number of questions. Scott Botcher: I don't remember frankly. Mayor Jansen: And those were just targeted at the par. k and trail referendum questions so it was just one topic, so I think that was, or is the difference between the two as far as length. Because when I looked at it I thought okay, we have to carve this in half or something, but you go through the questions and staff did such a wonderful job of throwing out the issues that we're really going to be faced with over the next 2 years, this survey will give us a very good indication for a lot of our policy and strategic planning issues and things that staff is going to be bringing forward so I had a great deal of difficulty trying to come up with anything to cut out. I was intrigued with the questions. I did come up with some and I don't know how much time we want to spend on actually going through the questions, judging by Steve's face he doesn't want to spend too much time. I can throw my questions out to staff and Mr. Morris to see about some of these revisions. Mainly in some of the terminology and maybe a better definition for instance on the, we ask about the need for affordable housing. I'm looking for a definition so at least they know what they mean when we hit that topic but I have 2 pages worth so I can certainly go over those at another time. If there's something conceptually or if there are specifics that other council people have. Councilman Ayotte: I just want it to happen quickly. The results of this tool is so important for us to do our business. So even if there was a discussion point or whether or not a question needs to be tweaked, I think it's extremely important that we get this thing going and done. So that's my. Mayor Jansen: Good. We are targeting having it ready to go after this meeting. After a little, maybe if you could, maybe speak a little bit to the time line for us. I believe we were talking about making phone calls starting in May? 20 City Council Meeting- April 9, 2001 Bill Morris: That's exactly, although we may be able to push that up by a week. We'd certainly like to pre-test this month and then get back to you, if residents are doing anything unexpected or if they're having problems with a particular concept. Usually we stay in the field for 2 to 3 weeks. Again we track down people who are, who have active life styles because we don't want to bias against those people. Then normally it takes us 2 weeks after that to tabulate, get the data on the computer and then one week after that we would have the frequencies out to you with an executive summary. And then set up a meeting and also start generating out cross tabs for a final report. Mayor Jansen: Wonderful. So I'm hearing results sometime in June. Bill Morris: Exactly. Mayor Jansen: Great. Very good. So per Scott's direction, if we can have a motion to approve. Scott Botcher: I would just ask to authorize you to execute the agreement. Mayor Jansen: What he said. Scott Botcher: Because he was going to, I haven't seen this yet but we're all comfortable with it and, just so you're authorized to sign mayor. Mayor Jansen: Okay. A motion authorizing the mayor to finalize the agreement with Decision Resources please. Councilman Peterson: So moved. Councilman Ayotte: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council authorize Mayor Jansen to execute the agreement with Decision Resources to conduct the community survey. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Mayor Jansen: So it passes 4-0 and I'll give my comments through Scott and yourself then. Bill Morris: Fantastic and I'll get a revision out to you as rapidly as possible. Then we'll pre-test. Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Appreciate it. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Jansen: The only thing that I added to this were any commission reports. I did attend as the liaison the last Planning Commission meeting and in that meeting, the main topic that ended up being of discussion were the ordinance reviews and all of them were tabled. No surprise. Lot of issues to work through. We're expecting that at the next Planning Commission meeting that 2 out of the 4 will come back for their review. They were just minor questions that needed to be walked through, and then 2 of them will probably take more of about a month to come through, so they're working on some detail and reflecting some really good questions on behalf of the planning commissioners. They were doing a real good job of walking through some of the issues on those. The other thing that I did want to mention, I think all of you have gotten a copy of the press release that Kate had put together on the housing forum. 21 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 She did a wonderful job of taking the initiative on this and contacting people and pulling together all the plans so she really, really did a wonderful job of being proactive. The first date for the first public forum is April 26th at 7:00 and it's at the Chanhassen Dinner Theater, and the title of that first topic is affordable life cycle housing. What is the issue? And she has a professor coming in from the Urban and Regional Planning at Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. And then also a speaker from the Met Council. There are two follow-up forums after that scheduled for May 3rd. The title of that one is, how can affordable housing be achieved? Who's providing it and how are they doing it? Those speakers are from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Also the Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Director and someone from the Met Council. And then the last segment 'is on May 10~h. The title of that program is what has Chanhassen done and what is the city's role? And that will be a facilitated session with Ms. Aanenson and Nancy Lenhart from the University of Minnesota Extension Office facilitating the group discussion around everything that has been heard at the previous two forums so it should be a good basis then for us to get some good information back from the community and businesses. The press release went to the Villager. It is also going to businesses. Our churches. As well as I asked her to also forward it onto the Carver County Board of Commissioners because they have a large educational project that they're working on also as far as affordable housing. That's all I had on my list of things under the council presentations. Did anyone else have anything else to bring up this evening? Councilman Labatt: 4 l's closed. It's under water. Mayor Jansen: So is 101. Councilman Labatt: Yep. Mayor Jansen: Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Scott Botcher: I just have two quick ones. First of all, and this just came late today. Received from Hennepin County, these are the revised 2001 Section 8 income limits, which as we do our affordable housing stuff, will become important and you guys can have a copy of those and Kate handed me this late today and asked that I just... When you share that with other cities of course, we'll knock off the billable hours. And then secondly, I just want to call attention to one thing in your correspondence packet, and that is a letter that I wrote to Carver County officially seeking relief for the $91,000 in penalties applied to the Chanhassen bowling alley property. It's staff's opinion, and we hope it's your's, that the, you know it's in the county's best interest as well to get this property cleaned up and maximized in terms of value to generate revenue for, not only the city because we're just 20% of the pie, but for the schools and for the county. For everyone else that receives tax payments. And that all parties would be better served by having that $91,000 available for reinvestment into the property in order to maximize the money and maximize that future revenue instead of simply paying it to the County of Carver. And so we have officially made that request. It's our understanding that it will not be on the agenda for a matter of several weeks. I guess I bring this to your attention because I know that some of you have contacts or have regular contact with county commissioners, both from our area as well as other county commissioners in Carver County and staff might solicit your support in, if you speak to these individuals, that you bring this to their attention because we feel very strongly that if we're talking about nearly $100,000, I'd much rather sink it into the property than simply write a check to Carver County. And under the law, unless I misunderstand this Roger, the County keeps the penalties. This is not something that's split with anybody. It's simply just, they keep it. And we would like them to be partners with us in 22 City Council Meeting - April 9, 2001 maximizing the revenue stream from this property. Secondly, and parallel with that, I don't know what influence Mr. Lundgren may or may not have but I guess I would say the same thing that I said about the commissioners about Mr. Lundgren. If you have contact with him, you may wish to impart upon him the importance of this $91,000 relief because it's staff's belief that certainly a positive recommendation from Mark would go a long way to helping our case. Conversely a negative recommendation certainly would be more difficult for us to deal with so, please pay some attention to this because we're talking real money. Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Thanks for initiating the letter. Scott Botcher: So I will try to do that. Beyond that I don't have a thing. Mayor Jansen: Okay, appreciate it. Motion to adjourn. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 23 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Vice Chairman Berg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Rod Franks, Jay Karlovich, and David Moes MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Lash and Mike Howe STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffrnan, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Karlovich moved, Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 23,2001 as presented. All voted in favor and the .motion carried unanimously. CHANHASSEN LIBRARY, APPOINT REPRESENTATIVE TO PARTICIPATE IN PLANNING MEETINGS. Hoffman: Thank you to Chair Berg, members of the commission. This body has expressed an interest in being, or participating in the development of the library. The Chanhassen library. I've inquired with City Manager Botcher on how he would like to see that happen and his recommendation is that a representative from the Park and Recreation Commission be appointed to attend the public planning meetings. There's two more meetings left. Are on March 10~, this eoming Saturday or a week from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and Tuesday, March 27th at 7:00 p.m. and I know, well both of those are held here in the City Council Chambers so if you see fit you can appoint a representative to that body. Berg: So we're looking for a volunteer or to appoint. Franks: Is this just someone from this commission in attendance or is this someone from this commission being an active participant in what the library board or this planning committee, I guess I'm a little. Hoffman: Somebody being an active participant of those public meetings. It's not an official appointment. Franks: Not an official appointment. Hoffman: No. Manders: Is this Tuesday the 27th, is that like the same time as this meeting? Hoffman: Same time as us, yeah. We got bumped and I think we'll be meeting upstairs so. You can all attend that night if you choose to reschedule. I attended the first one. For a $6 million product, there was probably about a doze of us in the audience. Not a very big representative sample of the community but very interesting meeting. Nice job on tht presentation. But those are the people that are having, at least from what I'm gathered, the people in the audience are playing the direction for this library in look, feel, color, quantity, quality, upstairs, downstairs so it's an important process. Berg: Is there anyone who would care to volunteer to. Ruegemer: Did Jay raise his hand? Karlovich: No. I'm a basketball coach right now. I'm kind ofmaxed out. Berg: Okay, the right hand side of the table is evidently clear. Did you have time to think of an excuse yet, either one of you? Franks: Well I'm going to be out of town on the 27th but I'm available on the l0th. Moes: Well I heard the 10th was taken. Berg: It's unfortunate that it's the same night. Karlovich: Well I could do the 27th meeting. Berg: Could you? Okay. Sounds like we're set. Thank you. Hoffman: I'll be at both of them. Berg: Thank you very much. Karlovich: How can you do that? .. Hoffman: Excuse me? Karlovich: How can you be at both on the 27th? Hoffman: Well I'll be at the first half hour of the 27th. These meetings by the way are going to be returning to 7:30. We had a meeting at 7:00. The agenda's never been changed back so I compliment you all on reading that 7:00 but we will be going back to 7:30. Berg: I was wondering what happened with that. Hoffman: Well we switched in December I think and just never got put back. SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 REQUEST TO UTILIZE CITY SOCCER FIELDS FOR FALL SCHOOL SEASON. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Berg. Fred, would you like me to go through the whole report? Berg: Just give a couple highlights. We don't need to, maybe get Mike up here to plead his case. Ruegemer: The cliff note version of it. That's how I got through college, what the beck. To make a long story short, in 1999, November School District 112 did pass a successful referendum. A good portion of tha~, or a portion of that was for field improvements, namely at the middle school and the high school. There were some other projects that were sprinkled in but the bulk of it was at the two locations that we had mentioned. Roughly about $935,000. We did go through a facility's task force that met throughout the course of the year. In 2000 starting in I believe March or April and going to August. Kind of reviewing and making recommendations as to kind of what is the best use of the money and that would make the most sense to do that. Through that process the school district has made the determination on once the recommendation was made to the school board to go ahead obviously with the project. The bid documents I believe are already out on the streets and they're getting finalized at this point. And what the school district has decided also, instead of phasing the projects, they're going to really kind of bite the bullet so to speak and just take them, take all the fields down at one time. Kind of live through those pains and move on. Hopefully have available fields back again in the fall of 2002. What Mike Warren, he's activity's director sitting behind us with the Chaska High School is here tonight asking if the City of Chanhassen could assist through that process. Since they will be losing soccer fields and practice space at their current locations, basically they were kind of coming in the City of Chanhassen to see if we can assist in kind of facilitating their needs for their soccer programs. The JV and the high school programs are going to be taken care of down on the campuses down at the high school, middle school areas, and then they're looking for field space for the B and the JV programs. Both boys and girls. Totaling 8 teams and that's 4 teams per level I guess. B and JV. In a facility scheduling standpoint from the city it's a request that is relatively easy to accommodate the times that they have requested. It's during really after the school is done for the day and is done before the community based groups start for the evening. So it's an easy thing to accomplish if the Park and Rec Commission chooses to grant the request tonight. Looking at a number of different areas, the rec center, the fields out there. City Center Park right here. Lake Ann, Bandimere, and just listed a few concerns. Just with the watering ban that we would kind of leave it up to staff to work with Mike and the high school if the commission does approve their request. And kind of to not so much earmark fields tonight but kind of look to the future and let us kind of make that decision once the fields are kind of up and going again after the water tower and that gets completed. So that is our request, and really it's my concerns is really to have those fields or grant the practices and games on irrigated fields so we can kind of manage that process. So. it's staff's recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission approve District 112's request for soccer fields roughly August 13th through mid-October. And also staff recommends that specific locations not be designated at this time and we'll certainly work with School District 112 in coming up with a usable plan so they can accommodate their activities in the near future. Berg: Okay, thank you Jerry. Before we have Mike come up are there any commissioners who have questions of Jerry specifically? Franks: I'm assuming by your recommendation Jerry that this is not intended to conflict with any of the already scheduled users on these fields? Ruegemer: No. Franks: Well it sounds kind of like a no brainer. Karlovich: I agree. Maes: On the pre-season, being a 4 hours a day and that early in the morning, late in the afternoon? Ruegemer: Talking to our park maintenance crews, I think Mike is somewhat flexible on that is from what I gathered before. Talked with our park maintenance crews. It's certainly my recommendation that we do that in the latter half of the day so we can still get mowing of grass completed. Aerating, fertilization. A lot of those field maintenance types of issues because that is after our summer season gets over with. We're kind of in that window of opportunity where it can really kind of gain momentum again before the fall season starts. So we really do need that time in the morning to accomplish our goals with the fields. So to answer your question David, it'd be better to have the 4 hours on the tail end of the day. Moes: Would that still be ending at 5:30 then? Ruegemer: Yeah, I think that's somewhat flexible but yes. We would end at 5:00-5:30. Moes: I just know the community soccer starts about mid August and we've got the 6:00 start time there so ending at 5:30 gives a half hour transition for those leaving and those coming then. Ruegemer: Sure. Berg: Other questions of Jerry. Manders: One other questions on this watering thing. I mean supposedly the water tower problem or whatever that is is supposed to be fixed up by mid June and this doesn't start until the middle of August so I'm presuming the fields that we're talking about already have sprinkler type set-up's so there shouldn't be problems with field use or anything? Ruegemer: Right. I mean we do have some time inbetween when we can start watering again. Approximately 2 months from that so we can make up ground again so it's relatively easy... Berg: Okay. Mike, is there anything you want to say or ask? Add? Mike Werner: I'm here to answer questions. Appreciate your support on this. Berg: Mike, do you want to come up to the microphone and state your name and. Mike Werner: Mike Werner, Activities Director at Chaska High School. People have asked me why we made the decision to take everything down at once because basically that's what we're doing except for our practice football field and our main stadium. What is now our football stadium is where we'll actually be playing our varsity soccer games this fall as well so that's going to be heavily used. And the answer to the question of why we did it is, the history and Fred knows something about this, on these public projects is if, my concern was if we tried to phase things in and just take a couple fields down at a time and then do a couple the next year, is that the money would be gone. The money would go to other projects. We know that those building projects in the school district are, there always seems to be a ways that the money goes to good use but it goes and my concern was that if we didn't get this project done and put it off, there would probably, some of the money would not be there for fields in a year or 2 years. So that's why we decided to take them all down. The expectation is that we'll start work on those fields as soon as we can in the spring. They will construct over the summer. They will seed in late summer so given the fall growth time, next spring, next summer, we certainly expect all our fields to be up and going again for the fall of 2002. Manders: So what is it that you're doing? I mean it doesn't describe it much. Mike Wemer: We are, what is now our soccer stadium at the middle school is going to be completely renovated. That will be torn out, rebuilt, new bleachers put in. There are new lights already that were installed. An area just west, just south of middle school west is going to be constructed into a soccer field. That was used for practices. It's just kind of an open area now. The area east of our current soccer stadium on the middle school campus is going to be renovated into additional soccer space. There will be 3 new soccer fields built on the middle school campus. Those aren't currently being used but they'll be built and then our existing practice space at the high school. When that area was constructed it's clay. There probably was not, I think they did the best they could when they built it but it's not a good turf surface so that area's going to be renovated. Not torn up completely but turf managed, whatever that is. So that's why those areas are not available. Berg: Any other questions for Mike? Hoffman: I have a couple. Who is the consultant on the fields? Is it, the field consultant is the same guy we used? Don Hotfield? Mike Werner: Yes. Hoffman: And are you asking Chaska for any additional city fields or are they not available for your use? Mike Werner: There are no fields available. There's a field at Bluff Creek. Not Bluff Creek. There's a field at Jonathan Elementary that is a possibility. I've looked at other options, if this commission would not find this acceptable, and there are various fields around small areas that we could use and we could bus students to. The part that's appealing about the, if we could use the Chanhassen fields is that we could run a couple of buses to a couple of locations and do the bulk of our practice areas there as opposed to running to a small space here and a small space there. The City of Chaska right now really does not have many open spaces when we take down all the school fields. Berg: Other questions for Michael? Franks: You know you're going to have to pay up later. Mike Werner: As I alluded to in my last paragraph, we have had an excellent relationship with the Chan and Chaska Soccer Association. We'll have quality fields there and to the best of my ability you certainly want to continue in that cooperation spirit with the City of Chanhassen. And I remembered where I was too. Berg: I wasn't going to bring that up. I think this is important to do too. As Jerry said it's a no brainer but it's also I think, because of what sort of what you just alluded to. It's important that Chanhassen keep establishing an identity with the district and willingness to work because we're just as much a part of the district as any other community and it's good, I think it's good to have that give and take back and forth. Karlovich: Yeah, I think we need to view it as an opportunity, not a burden and to just advise staffto do everything possible to accommodate our school district. Mike Werner: And we want to work with you. For example, I would guess the coaches would probably in that pre-season, they prefer to practice in the morning. Depending upon the weather, it's a little cooler. They get going, but we understand the issues of the field. We'll take the block of time whenever it's available and likewise in after school situations. If there are times or particular days when for some reason or another you need to get on those fields sooner, we'll work with you. That's certainly our intent. Berg: Okay, thanks Mike. Mike Werner: You're welcome. Berg: Is there a motion? Moes: I move we approve staff's recommendation that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the request for School District 112 to utilize the City of Chanhassen soccer fields from August 13th to mid- October, 2001. And that specific locations not be designated at this time and that staff will work with School District 112 to determine the specific locations depending on field conditions due to the watering ban. And this determination will be established far enough in advance as to not hinder School District 112's planning for the upcoming fall school season. I guess I'd also like to add that, based on the notes that are here, that activities would be completed by 5:30 to allow transition to the community based youth soccer programs. Berg: Is there a second? Karlovich: Second. Moes moved, Karlovich seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the request for School District 112 to utilize the City of Chanhassen soccer fields from August 13th to mid- October, 2001. Specific locations will not be designated at this time and staff will work with School District 112 to determine the specific locations depending on field conditions due to the watering ban. This determination will be established far enough in advance as to not hinder School District l12's planning for the upcoming fall school season. School District 112 activities shall be completed by 5:30 to allow transition to the community based youth soccer programs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR THE INT WATER SKIING TOURNAMENT AT LAKE SUSAN. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Berg. The 1NT is requesting to have another tournament out at Lake Susan again this year. Last year we did move the date earlier in June, and that's approximately about the same date as what this year's request is. Moving it from July to early June really mitigated a lot of those types ofsituations that we incurred in the past and I think everybody was happy last year with that. This year's request is Saturday, June 2nd and Sunday, June 3rd. That tournament out there roughly about the same time again. Same type of format. I don't know what else there really is to say. We'll have the same conditions kind of identified that we identified last year through the neighborhood meetings with the zero tolerance behavior types of issues. Notification to residents. A lot of those types of things have been identified here and INT is more than willing to police that themselves in order for the tournament to continue. After last year's tournament, I don't know ifI heard really any comments back from the tournament other than they were happy the tournament was moved earlier in June. School was still in session. The weather is not super warm yet for boating but it really did work out good. The residents again of the lake were notified of the INT's request. They were mailed the memo that was prepared. That list is attached to your agenda item and I did not receive one phone call in regards to that. So I'm not sure if Todd did or not but I did not receive a phone call so I'm assuming that people were satisfied with the attempt of INT last year and staff' s recommendation that we approve the request again for the INT for June 2nd and 3rd with the reservation fee being the same, $250 a day with a total of $500 and then a $1,000 kind of damage deposit. Manders: Do you recall how many years this has been now? Ruegemer: This is their fifth or sixth. Manders: I seem to recall that there was a bunch of issues from earlier years but. Berg: Considerable flack last year before they changed the date. Manders: Yeah. But this last year it seemed to take care of business? Ruegemer: The biggest thing was the monitoring of the access. Not really letting people onto the lake during the tournament but all of that was rectified last year. Manders: Okay. Berg: Yeah, weren't there people around the lake or something that wanted to jump on and try the course themselves or something and that creating a problem. Ruegemer: You bet .... 4th of July and it just wasn't the best situation. Just kind of an FYI for the commission too. The INT plans on putting in and taking out the course every day so they're not going to have a permanent course.., leave it in the water overnight so therefore they do not need a permit from the Carver County Water Patrol. Berg: Jim, do you have any other questions? Manders: Nope. .. Berg: Jay? Karlovich: No. Berg: Rod? Franks: I think it speaks for itself that there's nobody here to talk about it. And no calls. Moes: When was the notice sent out? Ruegemer: Last Wednesday or Thursday. Franks: I mean when there were problems we had a house full of people and it's obvious that they dealt with it successfully so. Berg: Dave, anything? Okay. Motion. Franks: I move that the Park and Recreation Commission approve INT's request for a public gathering permit to host their waterski, wake board, knee board tournament at Lake Susan Park on June 2nd and June 3ra of 2001. Also that INT pay the reservation fee of $250 per day to reserve the Lake Ann pavilion for their tournament headquarters. And then also that INT be required to submit a $1,000 deposit check prior to the event to cover any unforeseen damages. Berg: Is there a second? Moes: Second. Berg: Todd you had something you wanted to say. Hoffman: Point of clarification. That the commission recommend to the council. The council is the only one that can approve the public gathering permit. Franks: Yes. Franks moved, Moes seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve INT's request for a public gathering permit to host a water-ski, wake-board and knee-board tournament at Lake Susan park on June 2 and 3, 2001. INT shall pay the reservation fee of $250 per day to reserve the Lake Susan Pavilion and submit a $1,000 deposit check prior to the event to cover any unforeseen damages. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 2001 4TM OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Berg. The City of Chanhassen is planning on contracting through Melrose Pyrotechnics again this year. We've used Melrose for a number of years now. Very satisfied and happy with their performances. It's here tonight at, they have a contract here in the sum of $21,000 which was budgeted in our recreation program budget in 2001 budget cycle so it's staff's recommendation that we approve Melrose Pyrotechnics contract in the amount of $21,000 tonight. The show will take place on Wednesday, July 4th, which is consistent with other ye.ars at 10:00 p.m. Which is dusk. Manders: How does this budget compare to prior years? Is that the same? Franks: Last year especially. Ruegemer: We did $20,000 last year. Franks: And that was up, wasn't it? Ruegemer: From $14,500. We did $20,000 for 2000 so. Hoffman: Corey is just optimistic. Berg: He's already signed the contract. Karlovich: Corey already put down 21 G's of his own. He wants to get reimbursed. Berg: Any other questions? Moes: On this, I read the contract. Do we get like 20 minutes worth or 25 minutes worth? Ruegemer: We can dictate that. Typically we gauge and do like an 18 to 20 minute show. Approximately. That time frame kind of allows constant mortar rounds and it really, there's really no lag time or lull time in there and I think it's more of an effect on the show. You can drag it out to 45 minutes if you wanted to. Moes: No, what I was getting at was last year we increased the budget and I think it went to 20 or 25 minutes and maybe it was that length of time the previous year for $14,000. The thought that jumped to my mind was, without specifically seeing in here how long the show is or what sorts of things they include in there, we're paying $21,000 and then shooting from the hip that we're going to get a nice 20 minute show or are they going to come back with a 15 minute show this year for $21,0007 Hoffman: We talk to them about that. 20 minutes seems to be about right for, you know the more bang in the air at a certain time and if you go any shorter than that people feel a little bit cheated. They've taken an hour, hour and a half to get into position and they're going to take an hour to get out of the parking lot so. Franks: I guess what we're thinking, and I'm with you is, are we going to get that many more shells for $20,000 as opposed to the $14,500. Is that kind of what? Moes: Well that, I mean I'm okay with the $21,000. It's just that last year $21,000 got us 20 minutes. This year does it just get us 15 minutes without seeing it in the contract here. I don't know. I'm reading it and I don't see anything other than it's costing us $21,000 for the show, of which I'm not sure what the show is. Hoffman: Did they include a shell list this year? Franks: Because they have in the past. Berg: They have in the past. Ruegemer: They have in the past. Manders: It seems to me that it isn't the time component, it's the shell component...whichever direction you want. Ruegemer: Would you like a follow-up at next month's meeting? Kind of a shell count and. Franks: Personally you know I don't know ifI need to get that detailed about it, just so long as it's same or similar as it was before. If we're looking at something where it's slightly less than what we got last year for less money, then I think that's something we need to take a look at. But I mean if we're looking at same, similar or more then. Ruegemer: I would think it'd be very comparable to last year's. Moes: And I can go down the path assuming that it will be comparable with last year, although without seeing it I don't want to make a. Berg: It's a good question. I think at the very least it's worth mentioning to Melrose that it's a concern of our's that we'd like to... Karlovich: Did you get cheated earlier today or something? Moes: I read it, I speak my mind. I think it's perfectly legitimate Jay. Hoffman: I'm surprised Jay didn't come up with some legal mumbo jumbo for us with the contract. Karlovich: I'm sorry, the contract's... Berg: So much for commission politics. Commission government. Any other questions? Is there a motion? Manders: I would move that we accept the recommendations for the 4th of July fireworks. Berg: A second? Franks: Are you moving that the city approve the contract? Manders: Move that the city approve the contract, yeah. Karlovich: Or we recommend that the City Council authorize Corey to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Franks: Much better. Berg: A second? Franks: I'll second ito Manders moved, Franks seconded that the Park and Recreation. Commission recommends that the City approve the contract for Melrose Pyrotechnics in the amount of $21,000 for the 4th of July fireworks display at Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION RESPOND TO CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW, SCHEDULE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. Hoffman: Chair Berg, members of the commission. On Monday, February 12th the City Council voted to have the Park and Recreation Commission review the round house renovation project for financing and renovation options. Council was uncomfortable investing the $121,000-$119,000, the amount of the contract in the project. I think what we're facing is that we have new members on the council that have not been along for the last what, 2 V2 years worth of investigation and work put into the round house and so they have some apprehensions in investing those kind of dollars in the structure, without feeling comfortable. In order to feel comfortable they would like the commission to talk about it some more and investigate possible other options for the work and then also to meet with the neighborhood to hear first hand whether or not they're comfortable at this level of financing in renovating the project or would they, the last time the neighborhood reviewed the project, it was closer to an $80,000. And so that's what the direction from the City Council is. We have an opening on March 13th, and that's only to meet with the neighbors, only if the commission reaches some sort of a consensus this evening on a position that they would like to start with with the neighborhood that evening. If you do not, we recommend that you delay that time, or that date til a future time. City Council has set a 90 day window for the commission to work on this new recommendation. Included in your packet you have a letter, it's an e-mail from Linda back out to some of the neighbors that had corresponded with her. Talking about their recommendation on Monday, February 12th. There is a response to an editorial by Greta Carlson talking about some issues 10 that she was concerned with. And then there is a variety of information including some of the e-mails that came in on the City Council item and then a variety of background information concerning the project. Time to put your work aprons on and I'll turn it back to you Fred. Berg: Okay. Why don't we start Dave with you, and let's just start doing some brainstorming as to where we think we want to go with this and what you culled from any of these e-mails and other correspondence and see if we can't come up with some direction that we'd like to go here. Moes: Can we also ask questions of staff?. Berg: Please, yes. Moes: A couple of the notes seem to talk about volunteers, coordinating that and I thought I read through here and maybe I didn't pick up on it that we had talked at one point in time about a volunteer brigade of some sort and I thought I kind of pushed that aside due to some specific reasons. I wasn't sure what those were again. Karlovich: ! think it was lead paint. Moes: The lead paint? Hoffman: Lead paint on the exterior and just the whole magnitude of the project. It's not that a volunteer efforts, if you meet with the neighborhood and talk about a volunteer effort and someone from the neighborhood is willing to head that up, that can probably, that could probably work out. What it would take is some individuals from the neighborhood who have experience in construction and renovation and some equipment and those types of things because really to get some dollar value out of it they would have to have some significant experience and equipment.to invest in a volunteer effort. It's a pretty substantial project once you get into it and so there needs to be a coordinator and the city cannot go out there and contract with a private individual, a contractor and then say oh by the way, you're going to be working with a volunteer brigade. I do not have the ability to go out and manage a project of this magnitude with a volunteer, but if there is someone from the neighborhood who is a contractor or works in the industry and would be willing to do that, that's a possibility. Moes: What would our insurance risk be on that? Hoffman: Same as any other volunteer project. Moes: The roof falling in or. Karlovich: I think you have quite a bit of coverage from the League on everything that you do as long as you take safety precautions. If you call them up and ask them if you should do it, they'll tell you not to do it though. - Hoffman: We're not a member of the League. Karlovich: No? Hoffman: No. Karlovich: Wow. Really? 11 Hoffman: They're St. Paul. Karlovich: That's a first. Berg: Dave, some more? Anything else? Moes.' Do I make comments or where are we at with this? Are we positioning? Karlovich: I think we've got to go towards fund raising. Berg: Let's hear all of your ideas. Questions, comments. Moes: Well the volunteer effort was one that seemed to be somewhat of a, not consistent theme but came up a couple of times throughout the, I got concerns about whether someone can really take that one and follow it all the way through. I mean it sounds like a monumental type of a task and it would take a lot of coordinated effort, almost the full time job so I'm not leaning real heavily that way. As I read through the other information, and maybe in my mind I put the things into two categories. I had individuals that wanted to see it restored and spend the money for something to look at, and the historic value and the name. Then on the other side I saw people that would prefer spending money on things to use. That were actually things that they could go and use facilities that they could take advantage of versus something to view as a historic landmark of the city. And when I balance those two offI find myself leaning towards the spending money for something that the individuals can use versus viewing a round house. That's where my mind set is right now so, that kind of summarizes where my thoughts are. Berg: So spending up to that $119 or $120,000, whatever it would take to. · Moes: Well if it's that or I mean we started with 40 arid then it went to 80 and we're at, is it 125 or I think I saw the 125,000 so I know we did pull the 40 from one bucket and we got 40 from I think a secondary budget and now we're even above our two buckets worth of money if I'm in sync with the total numbers there. So whether it's the initial 40, the 80 or the total value that we're looking at now, utilizing those dollars for something to put into the park, or facility to use the additional playground. Something of that nature. Berg: Okay. Rod. Franks: Todd, I liked the work that you did in putting this together. Nice and clear. Easy to understand. The thing that struck me is, where did I see it? You know the option to where if we just would have put in a separate structure. Bulldoze it and put in a, I can't find the amount now. You had that somewhere around 30 to 50 or 60,000. So I guess my thinking is, since that park is designed around having some form cfa structure there, to bulldoze it, even if we go for the tear down option and put something else, then the park is just not going to look right without that structure, some structure there being the focal point. And with the money that's already been invested in building around that plan, that's a financial responsibility too is to get that in. So for my line of thinking, we're already on the hook for that, just to split that number like the 40, $50,000 range anyway. So I mean we're already going to be in that deep to get some kind of a structure there. So my thinking is to start with at least that amount and figure out it is we best utilize that kind of money to get what it is that we want. Whether that's the renovation or whether that's a new structure that meets the needs. My personal preference would be to keep the round house there and renovate it into a useable building. I personally don't really care for the option of just the low cost, band-aid option. I don't think that that really serves us all that well. It's just going to get 12 more expensive to do and we're looking at the City's financial issue as really not being resolved in any significant way for 2 to 6 years so that money's just not going to materialize anywhere so if we're going to do it, kind of like the school district. Let's do it now because that money is going to go someplace else. So whether we're going to tear it down and put something up or we're going to really work hard to get it renovated, I think we ought to do it. I had some question Todd about the status of the 40 plus 40. I've just gotten so confused about where those monies have come from and where exactly they are. Hoffman: Okay. The only money in the back for this project is $40,000 from the original 1997 referendum. And if you look at that, approximately $10,000 of that, just Slightly over that has already been invested in the architectural and engineering work. So we have $30,000 in the bank. Beyond that, the rest of the money is, any additional money beyond, above and beyond that it would be a request or a recommendation to the City Council to invest those dollars. Franks: And that money would come from the 410. Hoffman: 410, park dedication. Franks: And so in our 2000 CIP is where we set aside the additional $40,000? Hoffman: Correct. The books have been closed on that. Franks: So the books are closed on that. Hoffman: Correct. Karlovich: IfI can interject a question? Franks: Yeah. Karlovich: Without this being done this summer, how much are we even doing? We've normally had like $200,000 to a quarter million dollars worth of projects and now we don't have the 101 trail and without this what, approximately how much are we doing and what are we down to? Hoffman: Dollar amount? Karlovich: Dollar amount. Hoffman: There's $20,000 for the Stone Creek playground. $35,000 for the improvements at the skate park. $65,000 for the trail at Marsh Glen. There's a couple of other smaller projects so. Berg: That's 120. Hoffman: Yeah, up over $120,000. Franks: So Todd if the books are closed on this other $40,000 from our capital improvement projects budget what is the process that the City Council goes through to approve the expenditure of that money? Hoffman: Budget amendment. City Council can amend the budget at any given time. The commission could come up with a project in the middle of the year and recommend that a quarter million dollars out 13 of park dedication be invested in this project because it's here and it's now and we want to do it and the council could approve it. Approve that project. Franks: So in approving, was the 2000 capital improvement project recommendation from the commission approved by the City Council? Hoffman: Yes. Franks: And so do they need to then do a budget amendment or do they just need to authorize spending the money? Hoffman: The 2000? Franks: No, ! mean the 40,000 in our capital improvement. Karlovich: Do we have 70 in the bank or do we have 307 Hoffman: 30. The money was approved as a part of the 2000 CIP. It was expended. The project, that went forward and it goes off the books... Franks: Oh it goes off. Berg: So we have to put it back into the 2001 CIP? Hoffman: Correct. Franks: I see. Alright, thank you. Berg: It seems like we have more credibility if we've been putting it in the CIP instead of like you said, if there's something that comes up that we have $250,000 to spend, that does make us look rather silly. Or not, I'm not sure what the work I'm looking for but not very wide in terms of how we spent the money. It seems if we demonstrate to the council that we're putting it in the CIP for 2000, because of the changes we weren't able to do it. That does show that we've been doing some planning for it and not just willy nilly going out and spending 50 or 60 or $119,000 because it's something that's on a whim. Hoffman: I don't believe that the 80,000 has ever been questioned. If this project came in at $80,000 it would have been approved that night and we would have been moving forward. Berg: Okay. Well that's good to know. Franks: See then this is what I'm not understanding then is how did we go from, because I was under some impression that, that as well. But now we're going from $80,000 back down to zero and it's like every expenditure on this whole project is being questioned. I mean that's the way, you know it's like now we have to, we've already looked at the options and decided and looked at $80,000 spending up to that level and so now it's, then it went higher to $120-25 and so now we are looking at going all the way back to zero again than looking forward. Hoffman: The only two options we really looked at is the all or nothing. We looked at all. We said we want to do it right. We want to do it all and that came up to $121,000 and doing nothing is obviously at the opposite scale. The council has said we will not support, I got a sense for. Well they don't support 14 the $125,000 and I get a sense that they don't support tearing it down based on some of the comments from the community so they want to go back and find some middle ground. They didn't spend a whole lot of time talking about the dollars. They spent time talking about philosophically they have a hard time spending those kinds of dollars when it hasn't been talked about with the community that that's what it would take. We bid it twice. Unfortunately the architect was off in their estimate. We hired him, brought him in. Paid the money and their estimate was low. The market price is high. Construction labor and materials right now are, as you all know, at an all time high. This is a small project. You pay more per square foot. They started bouncing around some dollars per square foot and it's almost absurd the cost that it takes, if you calculate this by square foot. I don't think that's a valid argument but those kind of shock factors made the council uncomfortable and they want to make sure that it's a prudent expenditure before they move forward. Franks: Are there any other cities that are, are neighboring cities doing any projects like this? Hoffman: Renovation of the round house? Franks: Well any kind, other kind of renovation projects or similar type of construction projects. I'm wondering, or do we have other projects that we can combine together with one contractor. Hoffman: We don't have any other projects similar to this. Economic to scale and on this kind of project are difficult to find. I mean there was some reference in a letter about buying materials with other projects and doing work with other projects and it's just such a unique, individual project that in order to accomplish that, you're just not going to see a whole lot of economies. Berg: Anything else? Jay? Karlovich: If we do some type of, or any type of fund:raising or get the neighborhood involved in that, what do you think we can, what are some different ways in which we can like have a Save the Roundhouse fund or I don't know, we've been like the depot or selling bricks or something like that. Does the staff have any ideas like that or is there something where we can get the neighborhood to help us out with that or is that just going to raise like $10,000 or $20,000 and we're still going to be way short or what is your feeling on that? Or would it be more politically acceptable if we raised $10,000 or $20,000 and at least try to reduce the cash outflow from $125,000 maybe back down to $100,000 and we essentially pay a little bit more for our historic preservation. I think at least for the record, first of all I think the reason that we went forward with this project was to at least pay a little bit more for historic preservation due to the fact that we don't have many other projects going on in the year 2000 but I think that if we maybe get some fund raising going, I think maybe the e-mails coming in would be more positive than negative. Or what are your thoughts on that? I'm just rambling now. Hoffman: Sure. Fund raising is always a positive on any project. It's getting something started. It shows some real desire and initiative. Councils look upon that in a favorable light. We've had conversations at a staff level about the likelihood of success in a fund raising effort and prior to hearing from the neighbors I don't want to say it cannot happen, but it's a neighborhood setting without business frontage typical to raise a considerable amount of cash because the majority of that, dollars on these type of projects historically would come out of businesses. Your industrial park users, those type of places, and to take a neighborhood focus and attempt to expand that on the community and say, you know you'll get some recognition and this is a big thing for this community. It's going to be a difficult sell I would think. You just start adding up the numbers and let's say we get 100 contributors at $10.00. 100 contributors at $100, it takes a lot of, it takes a good deal of contributions to make something happen. The depot, Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager managed that process. Time consuming. The dollar 15 amounts were tough to pull out of the community. You sell the bricks. You do it downtown and have some real central historic value to the community. A majority of that money came out of businesses. A smaller percentage came out of individuals so I don't see that can be highly successful with the round house, but you never know who's going to write a check so it doesn't hurt to ask the question I don't think. The other thought in that area is, given the dissention among the neighbors, somebody's going to have to be pretty brave to stand up and say, I'll take on the challenge of raising the $30,000 when at least a percentage of my neighbors think we're crazy. That's going to take a bold individual. Berg: Anything else Jay? Karlovich: That's not what I wanted to hear. Hoffman: Realism. Karlovich: I'II pass it on. Berg: Okay, Jim. Manders: A question on there's been a number ore-mails and so forth. I don't know what kind of input they had at council when this was discussed. Was there any people in attendance talking pro or con on this or was it just? Hoffman: Who spoke that evening? I believe Dave Headla may have spoke. I take that back, it was not a public hearing so I don't believe. Berg: There was more discussion of the two weeks before I think when I was there and Mike was there. .. Manders: I guess I only bring that up just based on what's been talked about here tonight and obviously what Linda's asking for is, it seems to me that they just want a more public sense of support, either to say hey we as Chanhassen want this or we don't want it and just to get some better statement out there instead of them making this decision in a vacuum. Same way that I think we're going. And reading through the e-mails there's, I don't kd~ow if you can say it's split 50/50. I don't know what it is but we just need some type of a hearing is what they're really after. But coming out of that, I don't know that you're going to get much participation but if you don't, I think that says something too. That unless there is a stronger sense of commitment to this from the community, they're not going to ante up the $120,000 or whatever it is. Talking about options, I guess maybe tongue in cheek, we need to sell some ads for Pepsi and wrap that building in Pepsi can or something. Franks: Could we spell the name right? Target Center. Manders: Or Budweiser or, is that more palatable? Karlovich: How about like Round-up or something? Hoffrnan: Round-up round house. Manders: Well you know the post office is going to start selling ads so we can't be too far behind. Karlovich: If it's torn down and just a round new structure is built instead of refurbishing, how much does that cost as opposed to just your vanilla warming house or? 16 Hoffman: A round building.'? Karlovich: Yeah, round building. Hoffman: Walled, furnace. It will cost more than the $121,000. Karlovich: Really? More than to refurbish. Hoffman: I mean you're starting over. Karlovich: Yeah, I guess I didn't know if that would be cheaper to just tear it down...kind of look like the round house. Hoffman: Well first of all to build a round structure, the cost escalate dramatically and so, you can build a box out there for $75,000-$80,000 probably. Enclosed with walls and trusses and one story slab and those type of things but if you go to a round structure, the costs are going to go up and above what you're - talking about now. The neighborhood meeting, if it feels like we've done it before, we have and if you look back in the information in the packet, on Tuesday, July 27, 1999 the Park and Recreation Commission was to review this structure assessment for round house. That memorandum stated to the neighborhood that the two obvious alternatives are to spend the money needed to refurbish the structure or demolish it. So the council, especially Councilman Peterson was interested in making sure that we make that perfectly clear to the neighborhood that we're down to either fix it up in some fashion or tear it down and we want to make that decision and move on. Karlovich: Is there any wisdom in, instead of having the meeting right away, maybe possibly doing like a press release to try to at least get a little article in the paper that the meeting is upcoming and try to get a good turnout here? Hoffman: Sure. We have time to do that. Karlovich: I'm speaking out loud, does that make sense? I'm just afraid... Hoffman: But they may not run it. They just did that for the council meeting so they may in fact not run it. The mailing list, we did the direct mailing to all the residents in that area. Melissa Gillman, the reporter from the Villager has shown interest in the story so she may choose to run another story or side line to it but we have no control over that. Karlovich: But if we direct staff to put together a press release and maybe put together the article. Sometimes they just run what you give them. Berg: I think it's a good idea. Franks: Is that something the staff would be able to do Todd? Hoffman: Absolutely. Franks: Some of the facts, figures. Make it easy for them. Kind of people like Melissa or one of the other... 17 Karlovich: Just try to get a headline that, you know the round house will live or die. Hoffman: Live or die. Yep. Berg: I have a couple questions I guess. Jim, were you done? I'm sorry. What about the idea of getting a college involved with it? Does that help in terms of having a coordinator and someone who could, we could turn that into a South Hennepin Tech kind of project, or is that just blowing, spitting in the wind? Hoffman: No. No, those kind of things can be looked into. It's nice to have a closer connection. A lot of times with those things come to bear it's because it seems like there it is. You know it's in the community and so now we have to go out and, you have to go approach them and talk about the project and then timing and those type of things but it's not out of the question. Berg: Is there somewhere we can approach those people and get a feeler for it? Hoffman: Yep, pick up the phone. Any ideas of the institutions? Berg: Well I would think South Hennepin to start with. Well, is Dunwoody too far away? Hoffman: I don't know. Berg: Do the trades have, like an apprentice program, something that this could maybe be seen as something that could be an apprentice training type of program with some oversight from. Karlovich: Doesn't the U need some money too? Manders: Well that's what I'm wondering if the Arboretum, is there any? Karlovich: ...on the Highway there a little bit in Victoria. Isn't that the University property? Hoffman: Yes. Franks: Does the women's correctional facility in Shakopee have a work training program? Hoffman: I don't think so. I'll make some phone calls and we can have that information when. Berg: Sarcasm duly noted. Fran~: Brian Klingelhutz hasn't shown any interest or anything has he in managing a project like this? Hoffman: Neal? Franks: I mean Neal. Hoffman: The contractor? Franks: Yeah. Hoffman: I've talked to Neal off and on about the project since we first took the round house over. He's interested in doing the work but I mean it's a for profit company. It's just how far are you going to get? 18 At $25,000, previous bidding limitations was $25,000. Now it's $50,000 so under $50,000 we don't have to go to public bid. And so you can approach any local contractor and say for time and materials, take $50,000 and see how far you get, or give us estimates on far you think you'll get and we could take 3 or 4 estimates from local contractors and make it happen that way. We knew we were over those amounts so we went to the public bidding arena and bid it twice and 121 is as low as we could get. Obviously, any time you get into the public bidding arena, things escalate because the architect wants to cover themselves. They want to make the project that's reasonably attractive and they are proud to put their name on. The engineers that get involved say hey, I'm an engineer. Professional trade. I'm going to make a recommendation on making sure this building is sound and safe and is not going to fall down. Cost escalate. Our local inspectors get involved. They say oh, well you're going to need to do this and you need this and you need that. Any time you go to that bidding level, costs do escalate so I think if we get out of that realm, costs can come down but there's some risk taking involved. You're not guaranteed the final product. Bringing in a neighborhood coordinator you cannot give them more than $50,000. You'd be going around the public bidding regulations so if you find a neighborhood coordinator and say, here's 50 grand, make it happen. That's a possibility. Karlovich: That seems scary. Hoffman: Seems what? Karlovich: Scary. Hoffman: Yeah. Berg: There's the possibility we'll give him the 50 and he'll spend it and we're not any closer than we are before they started. Well I have one other thought to throw out and I think you probably all know where my bias is in terms of keeping it or razing it. What would the.rest of the commissions feelings be about just doing what we have to do, the maximum to the exterior so it's not a functioning building but in fact we are preserving it? And we are making it as nice looking as we can with the staining and the pure wood, etc, etc, and not doing anything with the interior other than making it structurally sound. Karlovich: What does that get us down to in cost? Hoffman: There's some estimates. Berg: Isn't that around somewhere between 60 and 80,000? Hoffman: Report January 30, 2001 to the Scott Botcher from myself. It's about 4, 6, 7, 8 pages into it. The first option we talked about was just buying time. Just let the structure stand as is. In fact that's what we're currently doing. The second option was just simply bare bones, replacing the roof. Painting the exterior. Some demolition clean-up costs in there of 3 to 5,000. Roof framing, 4 to 5,000. Roofing, 5 to 6,500. Exterior painting for a total of 22 to $31,000. However that option does not include windows and doors which would just simply be boarded over and painted so you invest $30,000 to paint the structure, put a roof on and have boarded up doors and windows. That's about the minimum that you would need to do to preserve the structure. Karlovich: But that's painting that doesn't. Hoffman; That doesn't clear coat it, strip it, right. The architect's recommendation number 3 is much more in depth and that's the 60 to 82,000. At that point you have to start thinking, now you're close to, 19 you're 2/3 of the way there and you still don't have a building that you can open the door on so that's a little bit hard to swallow. Karlovich: Is there any way you can do that and then we can budget for, can it be done in 2 parts? Well it's just going to add to the cost. Do the exterior and then do the interior later or? Hoffman: Yeah, we're so close at that point. We talked, Jan talked about that early on. Doing the outside and then the inside or the inside and then the outside and we talked about the construction of this building, once you demolish it and rip the roof off, we've got a block ground foundation and walls. There's nothing that says that you can't do this in two phases. Berg: I'm just concerned that I think it's going to be a real hard sell to get the $120,000 from the City Council. Hoffman: Yeah, I'd share that concern. The real wild card here is what the neighborhood's going to respond to. That's what the council's looking for. They're newly elected and they want to hear from their constituents. Moes: What, using the North Lotus Lake shelter as a benchmark, what did that run? Hoffman: Just over $30,000 for the concrete and shelter. Moes: It's an octagon. It's not round. Hoffman: Round shelter. I don't think they make them round but we might be able to custom order. Moes: No, the reason I ask the question is because in some of the, I.mean the e-mails people were mentioning the demolition and the putting up of another shelter so I assume that would be one question that would be raised when they bring, I mean when the community comes is tell me what a new shelter costs and what do I get for it and I was using that as a benchmark and for that, just looking at it aesthetically it's very appealing for $30,000 you get this shelter with a nice surface area. It's not enclosed and it unfortunately doesn't have the round house legacy to it, but I was reading that some people were going down that path as-well as the other people going down the path of restoration. Berg: But you said $30,000 to tear it down? What would it cost to tear it down? Hoffrnan: Cost to tear it down, I don't have a hard number on it but I think the numbers that have been thrown around have been high. Majority of the cost is in the landfill. 10-15,000 and it could be done. Berg: So we're looking at $40,000 to tear it down and put up a nice, warm cement, steel girder structure. With the historical significance of 2 months. Hoffman: That's correct. Franks: So one of the things we have to decide today is whether to go ahead with the meeting on the, what did you have here? Hoffman: 13'h. 20 Franks: 13th or to actually put that off a little bit longer and check into some more of these options. I think it's important for us to hear from the neighborhood as well and anybody else in the community actually that would like to come out and talk so I like the idea Jay really of getting that, somehow getting that in the newspaper. Whether that's an article or press release or something. And I'd also like to provide the people that do show up with some ideas of creativity, to start their thinking as well. So some of these options that have come up today about involving an institution or, that's why I brought up the idea of like a Neal Klingelhutz type. I experienced construction at a summer camp once where we were building cabins. One designed by an architect and the engineer and the other one designed by the construction manager and to the people coming to the camp who could not tell the difference, and the one by the architect was twice as expensive to build. And so I'm wondering if there's not just kind of common sense construction approach to this kind of a project as well that really will give us a similar product to the regular person driving by on Minnewashta Parkway, but is really going to come in a lot cheaper. And I don't know if that works here or not. Karlovich: I think Todd maybe also to do our job as the commission too is to I think try to look forward a little bit. In addition to getting neighborhood input, which is going to be tear it down from one guy is going to say and then another guy in the neighborhood is going to say no, it should be there. It's always been there. My grandmother always used to visit it. I think we should at least come back with some choices to the council and I think this number 3 may be what some type of even sketch, because I think most of the commission here would, if we lose on the doing it right the first time and getting it all done, we'd at least we'd feel like we had some historic preservation if we at least got the exterior done. Berg: That's where I was leading with my question. Karlovich: Right. But I think the process they want us to go through or come baCk to them is you know, tear it down. Maybe partial or do it all and then also supply them with some type of a consensus on community input. .. -. Hoffman: I think there's easily 5 or 6 options. Perhaps more that I'll flush out and put them on boards. Put them into a packet. Put them into the mailing that goes out to the neighborhood and bring them in and then it's up to you at that point, once you hear that, I'm assuming then you'll as a commission make a recommendation on one of those but then send up the others that were considered and move forward. Franks: Can that be done by the 13th? Hoffman: Sure. Karlovich: But do we want to rush it to the 13th to get our article? Berg: Would we be better served to have those things presented at our next meeting and go for the first or second week in April to have a community meeting? Does that still give us enough time? How does that sound? Franks: So we'd take a look at what kind of options that you've been able to come up with and then. Hoffman: In March. Franks: March, and then set it for a community meeting in April. Manders: That seems having that article in the paper before the meeting would be the right route too. 21 Franks: It gives maybe the newspaper a little bit more flexibility to fit it in as well. Moes: And what's our time requirement to get back to the council? I heard 90 days earlier. Hoffman: Yep. Moes: So that gives us until May? Hoffman: Yeah. Moes: So having a meeting with the neighborhood the first of April? Berg: The first or second week in April. Moes: And then are we deciding that evening or do we need to have something recommended to the council, our meeting the end of April? Berg: No, I would think you'd make a recommendation that evening and send it straight to the City Council. Moes: Okay. That's fine. I just didn't want you caught short on the back end if there were more things Ihat we needed to do because I agree we certainly want to provide the education and the information to the neighborhood. It sounds like if we build that in up front then they're coming prepared and we've got, we're not being caught on the back end and having to do things quickly. Karlovich: Well it sounds like we have a process then I don't know,, we need to get that newspaper article and our options by next meeting. Berg: Right. Karlovich: Or not the article, but at least the press release or what we're going to try to do there. Hoffman: I'll hang a banner. Franks: Do we need to get a sign permit for that? Hoffman: No. Public meeting scheduled to determine the fate of the round house. Franks: When you are to name the press release Todd, just as a courtesy, could you give me a call when you're turning that in? Hoffman: Yep. Berg: Do you need a motion to table Todd or can we just? Hoffman: Motion to table would be, let's see. Motion to bring information back at the next meeting and then-we should establish that date. First Tuesday in April would work better for me I think. I don't know if we've got a calendar. The 2nd or the 9th. The 9th is on too. 22 Manders: The first Tuesday is actually the 3rd. Hoffman: The 10th would be fine. Berg: The 10th, is there a motion? Hoffman: Actually table to March 27th and then establish that other meeting. Berg: Establish a public meeting for Tuesday the l0th. Karlovich: I don't know if I have a conflict there either. I can run out to the car and see. Moes: So moved. Berg: Is there a second? Manders: I'll second. Moes moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table action on the roundhouse renovation and direct staff to bring options to the March 27, 2001 meeting, and schedule a neighborhood meeting for April 10, 2001. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. RECREATION PROGRAMS: A. FEBRUARY FESTIVAL EVALUATION. · Berg: Corey not being here, Jerry are you going to take the ball? Ruegemer: I will present. Basically I would just open it up to the commission input of how the event went. Details were somewhat comparable to last year. I think we had roughly about 1,000 and some change last year, we did about 900 this year so it's about the same. Consistently every year. Any other general comments as far as how your perception of the events was? Berg: It seemed to go very smoothly, from what I could tell. I always judge lots of time by how the prize board works, and that seemed to be fine. I don't think, for what it's worth, I don't think his idea of announcing prize winners by their name is a very good one. Because it was my sense anyway that, and it could just be that I was the one doing the talking but it seemed that it was appreciated when there wasn't a lot of talking, and to be reading all the names all the time, it would be a pretty steady barrage of names versus numbers, I think. I would, do what you want but I think it's at times a little bit intrusive. Ruegemer: Okay. Kind of like the radio station, less talk, more music. Okay. Franks: Could you just hang a fish on Charlie Eiler's line so I could quit listening to him whine about never catching a fish. Year after year after year. Ruegemer: Rent a scuba diver and hook a fish. Berg: It'd be worth it. 23 Hoffman: Let him whine. Berg: He wins every raffle that we ever have up here anyway, for crying out loud. Ruegemer: I think he went dry this year, first time. Berg: Any other comments on the Feb Fest? B. DADDY/DAUGHTER DATE NIGHT EVALUATION. Ruegemer: Another popular event. We had two nights this year, February 8th and 9th. Those were both filled to capacity and we certainly could have taken, we had people on the waiting list who could have, if we had... We're going to look again to next year to expand that somehow. I think we can squeeze additional people in. Additional couples and expand on that event. It's been a really good event. It does fill up pretty fast for registration and we'll look to improve and expand next year. Berg: What's the ages for the daughters? I know I've asked before but I never remember. It's just for young kids, right? Ruegemer: Right, yeah. We're looking at early elementary age kids. Franks: I think the oldest daughter was about 8 or 9. Maybe 9 is out. Ruegemer: Corey wants to expand it to the older girls with their fathers. Berg: Does he? Some high school kids in there? Ruegemer: Older than that. Co-eds. Berg: Any questions on the daddy/daughter dance? Franks: Just to pass onto Corey to, you know the catering was fine but if there was a way to really kind of gear that more towards the 6 year old palate and digital dexterity you know, I thin it would have been a lot easier because I saw a lot of dads, including me were working pretty hard. Hoffman: To get some food. Franks: Oh man yeah, that was pretty tough so I mean macaroni and cheese would have been a better choice than trying to pull the chicken off the bone. Hoffman: French fries and hamburgers. Franks: French fries and hamburger. Chicken nuggets, yes. I mean that kind of thing would be really nice. And I know that on the night that I was there, they have to get cleaned up with the food and everything because the dance and they don't want things around but you know a lot of us dads, including myself were on the scope for a cup of a coffee after dinner and it was gone. And the caterers were like just, I mean they were sorry because they hadn't anticipated that, an adult might want a cup of coffee after dinner. Hoffman: And some chocolate. 24 Franks: And chocolate. There was not enough chocolate. The chocolate didn't stay around long enough either. Ruegemer: No hard candy, more chocolate. Franks: No hard candy but more chocolate. But I mean I'm being kind of funny but I really mean it about maybe looking, because I know a caterer could easily accommodate that kind ofthing. It'd probably be easier for them as well. Berg: Anything else for the dance? Let's go to the Easter Egg Hunt. C. 2001 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Ruegemer: Easter Egg candy hunt is more of a kind of update, FYI. This year's event is going to be starting April 24th out at the Rec Center. Hopefully the snow will be gone by then. Berg: 14th. Ruegemer: I'm sorry, the 144 of April. Splatter Sisters already are booked for that. They're a good group. Very lively. So Corey's in the process of the flyer and that is done. It's just a matter of kind of getting that information out to the schools. We'll do that early to mid-March. We'll get all that information out to the schools. The coloring contest information. A lot of that kind of details of, as you get a little bit closer. Berg: Okay, questions. Comments. Thank you Jerry. ADMINISTRATIVE: A. ICE RINK PARTICIPATION NUMBERS. Ruegemer: Just had Corey do an FYI, just for an update for the commission as to where we're at kind of numbers wise for the rinks. We are still open at 3 warming house locations. North Lotus, City Center Park and the Rec Center and the rest of the areas we're just kind of plowing off and maintaining. With the numbers being low at Chan Hills and Round House, we basically closed those warming houses for the season and if people want to skate during the light hours they certainly can do that but, and that's kind of where we're at right now. It's, we're kind of going on a week to week basis right now. This is really the longest we've been open for quite a long time so, we'll keep going. Berg: It looks like the numbers, I was looking at the totals for the different parts, it looks like there's a considerable number using Roundhouse which could certainly justify having a warming house there on a permanent basis. It certainly could be used a lot during the winter time. The round house could be for that. Hoffman: It's easy to see any time you put a hockey rink in, your numbers go up dramatically. Chan Hills is struggling. Ruegemer: And we can talk about that too at the end of the skating season. We talked internally on the staff we'll maybe, it certainly would be the commission's decision to either eliminate the warming house 25 at Chan Hills and potentially move that over to Sunset Ridge. Maybe that'd be a better use for a warming house.., and that sort of thing for that so. Franks: Well it starts to make sense when the pleasure rink was put in at Chan Hills the east and west Lake Susan developments weren't in existence. And so geographically speaking that was about the only neighborhood south of 5 and west of 101 before Audubon that you could plunk a skating rink in. But you know you look at how isolated Chan Hills is and look how much more populated it is along Powers, that makes more sense to start to move it over there. Hoffman: We'll also have a conversation about all of the outside skating rinks, outside of the main areas. Examples, Meadow Green Park sees very little use due to it's proximity to City Center. Why would you stop at Meadow Green if you can just drive down the road and go to a warming house and a facility with two pieces of ice so it's not an inexpensive activity for the city to provide and I believe the last time I ran some of the numbers on the use, it was around $7.00 per user when they stepped onto the ice so it's not inexpensive. So for us to be responsible in using those resources we need to investigate, the last time we did that we took the rink away up at Minnewashta Heights and then a couple years later they begged it back so, that's been the last time we changed anything as far as locations for rinks. Manders: How does that fit with, I mean there's a lot more neighborhood rinks or what are you saying? Hoffman: Sure, there are other neighborhood rinks without warming houses that are not listed here. Those locations Jerry are. Ruegemer: Rice Marsh, Meadow Green. Hoffman: Minnewashta Heights. Pheasant Hills. Ruegemer: Pheasant Hills. Sunset Ridge. Berg: There's not one in Carver is there? Carver Beach. Ruegemer: Yeah. Hoffrnan: So those are all other locations without warming houses. Manders: So proportionately you probably spend maybe not as much on them but probably close to as much to support those. Berg: Okay, moving along. B. CITY COUNCIL ACTION, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. Hoffman: On Monday, February 12th the City Council voted 3-1-1 to table Arboretum Village until March 12th. That's this coming Monday night. City Council directed staff to do 5 things. One work on a park dedication. They wanted to see a full compliment of land versus fees. Maintaining the trees south of West 78th Street and shown recently down to about 50% of where it was. And three, affordability of maintenance. Can we do it and how can we do it? That refers to payments on the south side of West 78th Street. They're guaranteed to sell at a certain rate the first time around but then can the city do anything to maintain affordability in the second and third sale. Four, the gateway accent. They wanted to accentuate the entrance into Chanhassen from the west. And five, compliance. Make sure that the 26 proposal complies with the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Highway 5 Corridor Study. We met that day back on February 15th at 3:00 with Pulte to talk about some of those issues. I have a plan here dated 2/21/01 from Pulte and we'll talk about the current proposal before the City Council on Monday night. I'I1 make reference to my recommendation to City Manager Botcher based on that proposal and then also, do we know who's assigned that evening? Is it Rod? Franks: No, I went last time. Hoffman: Jay? Karlovich: I can't go on Monday's. Hoffman: Okay, so we're going to have to check that to make sure that we have someone there to speak on behalf of the commission on the Pulte. Moes: I'm not sure if it's me or not. Hoffman: I'll go check the list once we get this thing off the road. Manders: Is that on the 12th? IS that when you're saying it is? Berg: Yeah. Hoffman: Did anybody see on the news... Pulte? There were 3 or 4 news stations here for a combination of Pulte and the Christmas tree light issue. Franks: I was part of the crowd shot on the morning aews. My sister in 1aw called me. What are you doing on the news? Moes: I think it was Channel 9 that had the Christmas lighting. Hoffman: So this is the proposal that was before the council on the 12th February. It's the one that Park and Recreation Commission reviewed and made a recommendation to approve. The areas in green are the green space or open space areas as a part of that plan. And then it also includes the area off to the north, the full wetlands and then there's a treed outlot which...So that's the old one. New proposal. Obviously the most notable identifications on here are the highlighted area in yellow. What that represents over the previous plan are new open space areas so that would speak to two directives or requests by the City Council. The first being, they wanted to see the trees remain in the full block on Highway 5, and then additional or full park dedication be granted as a part of the proposal, or be sought as a part of the proposal. Some other issues or other identifications noteworthy here is the park dedication at this location. This is directly east of Bud Olson's house. Sheriff Bud Olson. It's called Outlot D. 3 acres. And the other public park dedication they've called out is 13.3 acres and that includes the area north of the Markert property. The yellow and then continuing on down to the street grade at this location, around and then following all the way down to the street here again, park dedication. So we're talking about this long, linear strip. This is the most notable area of the park dedication that is new and currently this is an agricultural, under tillage and then this area down through here is the other larger trace of area that is noted as park dedication. The numbers are here at the top. Pulte is getting park dedication proposed is 16.33 acres, so that includes this 13 and the 3 up here and what they're required, based on the number of housing units on the proposal is 9.84 acres and so they are giving in excess of another, just around 7 acres in addition to what they would be proposed. The trade-off'would be full 27 credit or park dedication which is, park dedication is around $500,000, just under that and then the trail dedication makes up the remainder of the $140,000. Other new amenities to this plan is a trail connector on the east side of the property. These two trails, the north wetland trail and east wetland trail cost approximately $140,000. $145,000 and so there would be a trade-off there, park dedication. Or excuse me, trail dedication would pay for the construction of those and so when you get down to it you would have trails, park dedication and then no fees would be collected as a part of this proposal. My staff report is not complete so I'm certainly open to hear the viewpoints from the commission and then again, I'll go upstairs and find out that person representing the commission that evening, will be given an opportunity to speak the viewpoints of the commission on this proposal. Manders: So what does the gateway question, or what would be addressed there? Hoffman: Excuse me? Manders: The gateway accent, how is that being addressed? Hoffinan: By the council and through the Planning Commission. I don't know what they were. They were talking about a community feature down here. They have just a little bit additional eyebrow property down here. I don't know what they would come up with as far as their focal point there. Berg: And we lost the totlot you said? Hoffman: Yep. Totlot here is gone, replaced with this open space area. The other two totlots remain. The product was also changed, if that's of interest to. you. Just these are now twin homes instead of the quads. And the unit reduction was a total of 37 units reduced on the project. Berg: And most of the yellow areas there would have.to be passive won't they? Hoffman: Ail, you know a majority of them. This could be an active area, but I don't think that's the desire of the council. They want to buffer the Bluff Creek. They've shown us, well a picnic shelter there. Obviously if we accept these areas as public then we're responsible for the maintenance of those areas and there would have to be a management plan developed for that area. Berg: Seems like a high price to pay. For the park dedication fees. Hoffman: March 12, Jay is currently scheduled so if he cannot be there, the commission will have to assign another representative. Moes: Todd, can you go over the trail dedication. You're talking $140,000. Hoffman: Approximately, yep. I don't have the numbers. Moes: That's the cost. Are they putting in the trails and that's their cost of doing that and therefore that would be considered part of the dedication fees or? Hoffman: These are the public trails, and then internal trails are private. They have to pay for the private trails. The city needs to pay for the public trails and then to do that we would use their park dedication dollars that they would be paying us. Moes: Oh, okay. 28 Hoffman: They pay us the dollars. We either have them build the trail, which is generally the way we go and then we credit. We don't collect them. It's a wash. They pay for the trails. We don't collect their fees. Franks: So those trails are planned on being constructed as a part of this project? Hoffman: Yes. Franks: In lieu of collection of the trail fee. Hoffman: Correct. And you don't have to do this trail on this east side. They've proposed that. There's a sidewalk on the cul-de-sac and so there's some redundancy there. In addition, you can move on down to 41 and then gain access back at this trail loop so you have this, you know this is, let's see. This one is about 80. This one is about 40 to $60,000 to construct this loop and so, and there are some natural issues of destruction here. The environment down through that corridor to make that trail happen so. Berg: Is there a trail along 41 ? Hoffman: Here? Berg: Yeah. Hoffman: Yes, we will need to, building it won't go in as a part of this project. The City will be responsible for that connector. The State should take it's, well they don't show it here but we need to make that connection right through there. · Berg: If we didn't do it on the east, could we transfer those funds to do it on 417 Hoffman: Sure. Berg: Then we'd have the sidewalk and we'd have our loop? Franks: What was their rationale for making that eastern trail connection? Hoffman: I don't know. I haven't talked with Dennis about it. Franks: Because I mean it just, I don't know why they would be proposing putting a trail through their twin homes back yards when they have a sidewalk in the front yard. Berg: Maybe that's the reason. They'd rather have the riff raff on the outside. Moes: To make sure my mind is in sync here. The trail dedication, I mean the two trails that are being talked about, approximately $140,000, give or take, and they would either build them and incur that cost or we would be required to build them and they would fund it? Okay, good. Either way those trails are part of the total package deal. One side or the other builds them and are funded the $140,000 of which. Hoffman: That's the proposal they have. Karlovich: Where do we want the trails? 29 Hoffman: Well this trail is not a part of our comprehensive plan, but this trail is. The north trail is. So we see it as a desirable additional amenity. Karlovich: But we've still got to pay for it though. Hof£man: Correct .... need to do it. If not, this is an amenity here paid for which they're the same use as this. It's just not quite the same experience but you're going to get the same experience up here and it's going to go for a mile this way so. I really don't see the value. Manders: In terms of green space with this plan, how many acres are you saying that we're adding in here? 3 or 4 spots up there? Hoffman: Yeah. Adding 6. I think we're going up to about 42 acres of open space versus about 36 on the previous plan. Manders: So how much of that are we going to incur in terms of park space? Are we incurring all that for. Hoffman: Out of 42 we would get 16.3. Manders: 16.3. And so the project itsel£requires something like 9 acres so we have a plus 7 acres or something. So is that 7 acres then going to come out of our pockets as a city or is that still going to be funded by this project? Hoffman: ...to the city. Just above and beyond the 9 acres. They've identified. · .. Manders: So there's some cost to the city. They aren"t going to just give us 7 acres without something? Hoffman: Sure they will. That's the proposal. No cost to the city. There's much more, even up and above the 16.33 acres they've got another what, 30 acres of open space on the proposal. Outlot E is all open space that they'll retain in a conservation easement. They retain the entire wetland and the area down here. This private amenity and this private amenity so that's just how they do the line. I don't know if they've done that to try to sweeten the deal and make it look better so they can seek approval from the City Council. I don't have the reason why they stated 16.3. The best example I can give you is if you recall Stone Creek. When Stone Creek development came in, the commission sought to have a park right on the central portion of that and you only had capacity to take like 4.1 acres or 3.9 acres. They came back and said we're going to give you 9, or 7.5 or whatever it was, it was a much larger amount but we're going to give it to you back here in the back side. That's what they wanted to do so the commission had to struggle with that. That may be some of the same thinking here. They want to get this thing approved. Well giving you 9 acres, we're giving you t6 acres so there's. But that's only speculation on my part. Berg: Any other questions? Karlovich: I just got to go, and it doesn't look very good. It looks worst. Franks: Tell me. 30 Karlovich: Well it looks like we're losing an awful lot of money and we're losing a totlot and I guess we got some more trees and we got some other unusable open space that they get credit for. I don't know, I can't say that this is a lot better deal for the city from at least a park and rec standpoint. I've got to run. Berg: Okay, we'll see you next week. At City Council, don't we have...Any other thoughts Jim? Manders: My opinion is that it's, whether it's better or worse for the city, I don't think that's the statement as it is, depending on which age bracket you're trying to satisfy. As far as the city's concerned, I think we're better off, ifI was living out there, I'd want this as opposed to all the extra totlots. We don't have tots to fill those lots. So it depends on your perspective where you're coming from as to what the benefit is here. And I suspect that the council would need to view it that way as well. Is to say, okay what is our priority here? Is it to look at their demographics of who's going to be living out there and how are we going to satisfy? I mean how many kids and if they go this route without the totlots, then there may be very possibly a negative impact because where are those kids going to play. There isn't going to be a spot necessarily if they pull out those totlots or we need to address those in these other open areas, some how. Hoffman: Well the plan just pulls out one totlot and it's the totlot which was questioned most strongly about it's necessity anyway because it's up against the. Manders: That was that top one up there? Hoffman: Yeah, the top one. Up against the. Manders: So the other ones in the center, that all stays? Hoffman: This stays here. Manders: Yeah. Hoffman: And this one down here. Manders: Okay. So then I have even less, I don't think that this is such a poor option personally. Franks: Their demographic statements, if I remember correctly are that the children are not moving into the single level twin home unit. That is like their empty nester unit. Manders: I don't know who had less, or is more reluctant, I think maybe Rod when we passed this the last time, and I kind of subscribe to that notion. I'm not trying to say what Rod was thinking there but my thought is that, you know there's a lot of money being generated by this development and there aren't many options for those people to go anyplace. And so if we just take that, I don't know, half million dollars and run and spend it someplace else building round houses, I don't think that's such an equitable choice. And we need to input more into this development because it is a little bit separated from any other access routes. You've got highways on both sides and trails possibly will connect at some point but to the elementary school I think is probably your primary option for more active play. And that's, I don't -know, probably what. Not a mile or a mile away. Trail wise. So I think you do need to consider some kind of self sufficiency here. Berg: I'm just not sure that the $500,000. 31 Manders: That's maybe a big tag. Berg: That they're getting any more than they had before. We're getting some agriculture up there in the corner. We're getting some trees, and we're getting that small little yellow thing by the wetland there to the west of the wetland. I'm not so sure that that really adds an awful lot in terms of use for the people that are already there anyway because the totlot that's gone, it made more sense when it was going to be apartments because that's where the kids were going to be but I...I don't think there's going to be a lot of kids up there anyway so that's maybe a wash. And I don't see that the residents are gaining anything else and we're losing a lot of money that could be used here and other places for some buffer that I'm not sure is needed in the first place. Moes: Help me understand, we're losing the money? Berg: We're giving up park dedication fees. Moes: The $500,000 we're giving up by accepting this plan, less the $140,000 on the trail side, so in essence $640,000 is, but we're getting a trail. Berg: We're getting the trail so it's about 500. Moes: ...lumping it together but a trail maybe not quite where we want it though. Franks: That's the one correction. Moes: So we're looking at a total cash flow of $640,000 that right now has been spent for us. Franks: It was the park and trail dedication together was $500,000. · Hoffman: Park and trail, that's gone up as of last meeting so park and trail dedication together is about $640,000. Manders: So when this first item where it says a full compliment of land versus fees is desired, is that council saying that? Hoffman: Yep, City Council. That was their motion then that evening. Berg: What does that mean? What does number 1 mean? Full compliment of land versus fees. They want to know, weigh one versus the other? Is that what they're saying or what? Hoffman: Yeah, they wanted to see the city obtain as much park dedication, as much open space as possible using park dedication versus fees. So they wanted to see the city utilize it's tools, it's park dedication, which based on this proposal only equals 9.84 acres and say we want that 9.84 acres preserved. And what they turned around and said is we'll give you 16.33 in public open space ownership. Berg: So for the council it's not an issue of whether we should or not, it's matter of what we can get for the $500,000? Hoffman: That's how I, that's how they stated that evening I believe. They wanted to seek full park dedication versus fees. 32 Berg: Is it possible for us to, just thinking off the top of my head, to craft some sort of motion. Do we have enough people? To voice opposition to that. Voice opposition to the automatic spending of the park dedication fees instead of the buffer. Hoffman: Well you can craft whatever kind of motion you'd want, and receive an affirmative vote on it and that would need to be delivered by a park commission member on that evening. Berg: Is that an exercise, well I'm not going to ask that question. Hoffman: That's what the council expects to see from the commission that evening. Berg: Okay. Okay. Would we like to try to word a motion to that regard? Hoffman: To be clear on what the council has asked, they have asked staff to go back and work with the developer. They did not ask the commission to go back and work with the developer so your forum to meet with the City Council is to go to the meeting that evening and voice your position. Berg: Okay, that answers my question. Any other questions or comments regarding this issue? Franks: You know it's so funny is, what's so frustrating for me to see this is, you know all along I always thought everything north of West 78th Street was fine. That that didn't need to be changed. And it was south of West 78th Street that really bothered me and I see here that we're getting the rest of those trees but you know it looks like the same plan with all the changes being made north of West 78th Street, where that already looked okay. Moes: Well I think they put in a little bit of a curved path. Franks: They did put a little curve to the trail, you're right. They did make that. Berg: Who said they don't listen? Leave it to Dave to find that. Anything else? Moving on. Franks: What kind of recommendation then is staff looking at making regarding this updated proposal? Hoffman: I was out of the office today. I'm starting with, the basis of my recommendation will be on the cost that we are getting off, the opportunity cost that we are incurring to make this happen. I see value in this location here and I see value in this location here. I don't see any value in granting park dedication for this property right here, other than there is a nice view shed down through this area. At least for a short period of time. Once this is grown up with trees, you're not going to have that view shed anymore to the Bluff Creek. Public ownership over conservation easement is nice. But if you are accomplishing what you want to see happen, and that's preservation of land, relinquishing a little bit of that control to a conservation easement I don't have a problem with and so I'm going to split the middle. I'm going to seek that we preserve some of those park dedication dollars. The Council would like to see this area. Not geographically but ecologically this area makes the most sense for preservation. In the corridor, if you can imagine yourself inside the wetland here and you're traveling this way as an animal or whatever you want to be traveling in the corridor there, that's what's going to be there. Coming up and onto this upland area and then back down onto the other side, this is a peninsula that sits out on here. Ecologically this makes sense. It provides some upland habitat in a larger wetland area and so it stops development there. I can see that from an enhancement of the Bluff Creek corridor. Often times, an example has been made onto, or I've heard the example made comparing this development to Arboretum Village. 33 Arboretum Business Park. The Steiner development south of Highway 5 where we not only took maximum park dedication, but then we invest tax increment dollars beyond that to buy additional land to preserve that 100 acres of wetland and woods around the O'Shaughnessy, Chanhassen Nature Preserve area. I see similarities but it's not the identical situation. We are not preserving a mature oak forest and wooded knolls in a contiguous fashion to Bluff Creek. We are taking small remnants of property around the fringe and using very precious park dedication dollars, or park dedication fees to accomplish that so I want to make sure that's done wisely. Berg: Anything else? Franks: Well you know, I don't know if, even like dealing with the southern stand of trees, the way that they split that down actually preserves the majority of the view shed as you're driving by on Highway 5. Which, I mean that makes, that's okay to me. People aren't going to use that for a lot of passive recreation anyway I don't think. So to give that up but yet to enhance that center park area, the totlot area, would have been for me a better compromise than granting all of the trees and then. Hoffman; It never was discussed as a, I don't think it has any merit at the City Council. Franks: I like the idea if we're going to forego all of our park dedication fees, then that in this neighborhood would we supply for them the same types of neighborhood park and recreational opportunities that other neighborhood parks get? The active and passive areas together. The.play fields and the...and I kind of don't see that here. Hoffman: It's not here. Franks: Well I mean that was, you know that was in a sense my whole point of proposing in the prior development, not necessarily to get as much land as pQssible but to get land in a good, usable way for the people that are going to live there so their amenities are consistent with the other neighborhoods that we have here in town. This is nice that we're getting all that land but I think it still runs into kind of the same philosophical problem. And maybe it's the best that can happen. If you take that into consideration when you develop your recommendation I would personally appreciate it. Hoffman: Okay. Berg: Maybe you can make it to the meeting that night too and express it again. Anything else before we move offofthis? Dave? Moes: Nothing more. Berg: Okay. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. YMCA RECOMMENDATION, CITY COUNC1L RESPONSE, ROD FRANKS. Berg: Rod, you have something on the Y? Franks: Well I wish that I had something on the Y. You know it came up as the last agenda item at a very long and torturous council meeting and everyone was just really exhausted and so this really didn't get quite the showing that it might have, other than that it was my impression that council agreed with getting some form of questioning on the community survey but maybe not specifically regarding a 34 YMCA by name. Is that Todd, sound consistent with what may have been talked about after the fact the next day? Hoffman: Yep. Franks: And I really was not given an opportunity to provide any kind of input into the discussion that took place about that so. Hoffman: Yeah, Rod offered to speak on behalf of the commission and itwas late. Franks: They were just so tired. Hoffman: They didn't want to get into it. Decision Resources was hired last night as the survey provider. Council will...those questions and again the questions regarding any recreational future in the city I think are going to be generic and so it's not going to say a YMCA. It's going to say would you be in favor of building a pool or a fitness center, community type center facility. Franks: My concern personally is that's going to miss the boat a little bit. Berg: Yeah, mine too. Franks: So for a couple of reasons, yeah. For a couple of reasons. One is in that kind of tax attitude that rightfully many of us have in this town, we're not going to all be interested in funding, building a rec center, which is what people are going to assume. Instead of building a partnership with an entity, whether that's the YMCA or some other entity that's going to bear almost, well all the operating costs and a lot of the construction as well, which I think is a different idea. And then something also like the Y which brings into it a lot of community service as well as providing an amenity. Hoffman: ...discussion for next Monday night, your joint meeting and then also, remember that's going to be at the tail end of a very long day for the City Council as well so you may not have the full attention, all cylinders clicking that evening. They start at 11:55 that day and they go til 10:00 at night or 9:30 at night with you folks... Berg: What else are we going to talk about that night? Hoffman: YMCA. What else has been talked about? Council's driving the agenda so. As far as I know today. What else did they mention? They tabled something and said we're going to talk about the Y. Manders: Probably Roundhouse. Hofrman: Roundhouse. There was one other item on the last meeting. We'll send you an agenda. Berg:. Okay, good. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Berg: Anything in the administrative packet? Hoffman: A couple of different, just newsworthy items. Just from visiting with some colleagues yesterday. Lakeville has recently purchased a church that they are going to convert into an art center for 35 the City of Lakeville. Interesting concept. I know cities struggle with how can they come up with a facility for the arts. If you think of a church. Berg: It was recommended. Talked about once. Hoffman: Yeah. Yeah. You have the sanctuary for the performing arts and the classrooms for the other arts and Lakeville is doing that. City of Savage passed a referendum, I believe the number was 4.5 or 5 million for investment into a community center type facility. From what I understand their decision has been to purchase a piece of land. Give the land and remaining money to Lifetime Fitness and they will enter into contract with Lifetime. Franks: What city? Hoffman: Savage. Similar to Champlin. So a couple of pieces of news from out in the real world. Berg: Anything else? Entertain a motion to adjourn. Franks: Just one quick thing. I loved the information about parks, open space as a viable financial alternative to development. And if there's any way to continue to pass that kind of information up the line, I think that would be really helpful. Hoffman: You've got it. Whenever we see it. Note on the back page on the administrative packet. That park dedication fees went up 25%. There has not been a significant increase in those in about 4 years. That's the reason the Pulte number jumped from about $500,000 or $520 to $640 so you can see the impact on just a single development. Moes moved, Manders seconded that the Park and.Recreation Commission adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 36 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 2001 Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Mike Howe, Rod Franks, Jay Karlovich, David Moes, and Jim Manders MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Ree Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Susan Marek, Recreation Center Supervisor; and Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Todd Hoffman added items under Administrative Presentation. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF LETTERS REQUESTING A SYVIM~MING POOL, MRS. FORCE'S 3m~ GRADE CLASS, CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. _ Hoffman: These letters were presented to me by parents of Mrs. Force's 3rd grade class and they will be- presented to the City Council next week. I believe some of the students are planning on attending that particular meeting and it's from an aSsignment for a persuasive piece of written material. So they decided they'd come up with the topic of a 'swimming pool in Chanhassen. Enjoy the reading. -,~ Karlovich: What grade is this? Hoffman: 3rd grade. Berg: Is there a kid with the last name Frank in that class? Franks: A couple more years. And my child would use the term children's water features. Lash: Okay, so we have to do nothing with this? This will go on another agenda or this is just going to go, what's it going to do? Hoffman: Go to City Council. Just for public presentation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Howe moved~ Franks seconded to approve the minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 9, 2001 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. WEST HENNEPIN COMMUNITY SERVICES CONTRACT. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item. Lash: Any commissioners who have questions or comments about this for Jerry? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Howe: I just wish more people would use it. I mean I think it's a good program. If you sense an increasing interest, that's a very good sign. Berg: How do we advertise such a thing? How do people find out about this? Is there a network that. Ruegemer: There is a network within the community that have used the service obviously. We constantly do in our annual newsletter. West Hennepin Community Services at their office have professionals that really kind of pass on the information and really try to network that way with other cities and communities so it's ongoing. You didn't receive the newsletter in the mail? Lash: I believe I have seen advertisements for these things. Either in community ed or it's in, there's something that comes through the mail that I've seen these things advertised. Franks: Is this, my just question in looking at the numbers and I'm seeing just from the grids that you provided that we had like 2 participants... Ruegemer: Well then we had other inclusion services as well. Hoffman: The 3 on the back. Their spring newsletter is included in the administrative packet. The West Hennepin Community Services. Lash: Maybe that's where I read it. In my packet. Franks: Are we at a Point, kind of a critical mass point where we're really able to utilize what they offer or are we just really putting the cart before the horse at this point? You know in the use or numbers of people who are going to use it just really aren't here or wanting to USe it or utilizing some other serVices ' for their recreation needs. I don't know, I'm just, when I saw that, and it's not a huge amount of money. $2,700 but would there be a more effective way to spend that on 5 people? Or are we really looking for things to start changing? I guess that's what I hear you suggesting. Ruegemer: Certainly, right. I mean this is a start for us and we're providing kind of a base level service for this population. It's $2,700 is certainly cheaper than having a staff person, another staff person in our office to provide this sort of service. A lot of the kids that participate are certainly participating probably in school activities where they may have contacts with these types of services already, but it's a constant networking type of situation for us and we really want to get the word out that we provide this type of service. I mean I can see where you're coming from. If you put the pen to paper, you know 5 kids divided by $2,700, can you justify it? Probably not, but I think it's a great service that we provide and it's worth it if you talk to the people that are participating in the programs. In my opinion. Franks: Does it change the nature of our contract if we don't renew each year? Ruegemer: And contract on an individual type of basis? Franks: No, with West Hennepin Community Services contract. I mean if we were to opt out for a year and then want to come back in, would that change the formula that's used to compute what our contribution would be as a city? Rucgemer: I do not know that. I didn't ask that question. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Lash: Well I would typically expect our start-up to be before the word is out and we would see, this is our third year right? Ruegemer: Yes. Lash: So do you think 3 years? 5 years? How long do you think? Ruegemer: I don't know if we can put a number to that. I look at it for like for the small amount that we do pay, it's a service that we provide. Manders: Do you have some track record of participation in the past 2 years? Ruegemer: Last year, or last fall my numbers were about the same. Lash: I know because last time because I brought it up last time. Same concerns as Rod. Manders: It's pretty difficult to, what is the number that we expect? Are we thinking 10 or 20 would be the top or, and I know that's very difficult to arrive at. Lash: Well is there some way that we can find Out what our clientele base would be? I mean how many people in town would actually, if the word was out, how many people would actually participate in these things? Maybe there are not that many people in town with these types of disabilities that would participate. Franks: Or being in town, they're having these needs met through some other way. Hoffman: We can acquire with the county on those numbers. Those statistics. They may have some information on that. If you look at geographically Minnetonka is the southern line for the program so Chaska and Chanhassen, we are on the southern end and we're kind of wrapped around by Eden Prairie and Bloomington that participate in other programs. And so it's just, if this program had not been available and people have been using other services and so it's a mechanism where we all are kind of have to keep our ears open and get the momentum behind the program. Manders: This is kind of, I hate to bring this up but getting back to some of the budgeting efforts in past years to quantify the value of, for a trail or park or whatever it is. Is there any quantification that you recall on the value of how much per person all the park systems in Chanhassen are worth? Hoffman: How much per person? Manders: Yeah, it's like say do we as an individual do you get $1,000 worth of value out of what we contribute each year to the parks? And so here they're spending $500, which is a lot less so what's the big deal. You know that type of thing. And I don't suggest that you have that. Hoffman: I know what it costs each taxpayer but I don't know what their benefit is. Manders: Well maybe that's the numbers, the cost. What is the cost per person? Hofrman: It's pretty cheap. It's around 24 cents. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Berg: Jerry, isn't this number tied into the number of participants we have too? If we doubled the number of participants, wouldn't we be paying more towards our contract? Ruegemer. The inclusion services are included within the contract amount. Is that what you're asking? Berg: I'm asking if we had, if right now we have 5 people that $2727, if we had 10 people tomorrow, would the cost be the same? Next year too? Karlovich: Is that 5 people likejust 1 person, 1 event? Can you describe, what does the number 1 mean? Lash: It means 1 person. Karlovich: 1 person, 1 bowling 1 time? Lash: To that event. That's the way I read it. 1 person from Chanhassen went bowling. Franks: I personally don't have a problem with the value of this type of programming. In fact I'm completely in favor of it, but what I'm wanting to question is the utility of spending the money there. Hoffman: Well we looked at that prior to 3 years ago we didn't do anything. So 3 years ago we said how can we deliver this service. We had conversations with Eden Prairie and the other service providers and they said well you can hire somebody. You can train somebody. Or you can contract with a service provider who has the experience in that area so. We're not going to find anything less expensive, or more effective in delivering the service, but I can certainly understand where we want to make sure that those dollars are invested in any way that has some utility. Lash: Well I Certainly don't have a problem with providing the service either but if people are not going to take advantage of the service, then we're just throwing good money after bad. You know I think for the first few years it was sort of wait and see how this takes off thought process and I think at some point we need to decide when are we going to say okay, it's out there. People who would use it know about it, but they're choosing not to use it. Then do we need to provide it anymore? Franks: I guess, and along with that, when I said putting the cart before the horse a little bit was, typically things come to our attention because there's a group of people or citizens that are concerned and have built some momentum around saying hey, this is what we need. And in this instance we kind of said hey, we should be out there providing this when, and now we're trying to drum up that kind of momentum for people to use it, which is a little different than how we usually do things responding to a need. Hoffman: Well we did have a parent that came in and...to the park commission about her desire to see these services brought to the city. That was one of the measures to bring it in. We had a mother that came in. Franks: That's right. Hoffman: I don't think there's anything wrong with telling staff that you're going to give it one more year and if it doesn't work, we opt out of the program. That will send a message to us and to the people at West Hennepin that go out there and drum up some support for the program or we're not doing it... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Moes: Question. I apologize for being late, but I know when we first looked at this we were looking at for more the children, teenage individuals and I'm looking at the report here and there seems to be a lot of activity on the adult side. What drives that in the other communities? Are we not hitting that population here at all for some reason? I mean I look at the numbers and it looks like the adult activities are just great attendance. Hoffman: I think you look at the cities where they're coming from and they're just, much lower population in Chanhassen. Moes: Okay. I didn't know if there was a different group that maybe we haven't been communicating this to or letting them be aware of it when I looked at the number of adult participants in the activities across the other areas. It's like wow, it's a significant difference. When we had gone into the program looking at it from the child and teenage range there. Howe: What will define what's successful and what's not? If we double the participants to 10 next year when you have the discussion, are we going to say that's great. 5 probably is not the result we're looking for but do we have a number that we're going to look at? Hoffman: At this point you're probably say increasing. Anything that increases. Unless you feel strongly that you want to... Berg: 20% increase. Karlovich: Yeah, we need a 20% increase. Franks: You know I would be more interested in going this next yea~ and really, in the report at the end of the year having detailed what efforts were made to really market this program. Then we can gauge that by the response because if we're really saying there's really nothing more to do to market and get the word out and people still aren't utilizing it, that gives us I think a little bit more information than the number of participants who actually engaged, and then maybe we can make a decision about whether it's really worth it to continue or not. At this time. My guess is once our population begins to increase that, I mean it's just going to be that much more of a demand for this, and that's why I'd also like to know if maintaining a continuous contract cuts you a break or whether you have to, whether it changes if you break off the contract for a few years and then join back up. Hoffman: The numbers are, the contracts based off the base level yet. Their fees increase over that time you're out, then you're just going to pay it. Franks: But everybody would. Lash: And it would go up even if we stayed in, right so. Does somebody want to make a motion on this? Berg: I move we approve the 2001 contract with West Hennepin Community Services to provide adaptive recreation services for children and adults with developmental disabilities. The contract amount should be $2,727.00. Lash: Is there a second to that? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Franks: If I could add a friendly amendment too. That along with that we direct staff to detail the efforts that were made to promote the program and also run some analysis on the breakdown of participants so we could determine whether funding should continue into the future. Would that be acceptable? Berg: That's acceptable. Lash: Okay, is there a second to that? Howe: I'd second that. Berg moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the 2001 contract with West Hennepin Community Services to provide adaptive recreation services for children and adults with developmental disabilities in the contract amount of $2,727.00. Also, directing staff to detail the efforts made to promote the program and provide analysis on the breakdown of participants to determine future funding. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Marek: You should have in front of you a page that I prepared for the council members. We had our meeting with them on March 5th, and this was just an overview summary of the rec center and our current - position on where our financials sit at the close of the year 2000. The pie chart shows the breakdown of where our revenues come from, and you will see that our expenses totaled about $200,000. I'm also going to add that these are not the final close numbers for the year 2000, as those are not available yet from our finance department. So they are close but not exactly accurate. So as usual we do have a bit of a shortfall there. But you can see where the revenues come from and if I can just point out that over 50% of our revenues do come from our fitness activities. And 89% of that revenue does come from resident of Chanhassen. And at the rec center we define a resident as someone who lives or works in Chanhassen. So our clientele is very, very local. We certainly aren't drawing people from surrounding communities. New things coming up at the rec center. We do have capital money to spend this year. Two new pieces of cardio equipment will be ordered in the spring, and all the carpet at the rec center will be replaced in August. Also coming up will be a review and possible changes to our rental, room rental policy. Right now we have a highly fragmented fee structure. Resident, non-resident fees. Weekend, weekday rates. And frankly customers who rent our rooms are Chanhassen residents. We don't have a lot of, we're not attracting a lot of rental business from outside of Chanhassen so we're looking at simplifying that procedure as well and so I look to have something to propose to this commission in the next couple months. Not a lot of changes in staff at the rec center. Kind of the same bunch that's been there for quite a while. We do have 30 people on payroll. They're all part time. New classes at the rec center. Tonight started our 5K training class. I see you're all here so you're obviously not at the class. Kickboxing, yoga, pilates and cooking classes for children also have really taken off in the last year. Berg: What are pilates? Marek: It's kind of a Hollywood fitness trend. Joseph Pilates was a researcher on physical fitness and tends to do, it's exercising where you tend to do yoga like poses that you hold them for a long period of time and you're working on strengthening the core muscles in your body rather than the specific, arm or leg muscles. So you're working on stomach, back, chest. That kind of stuff. Lash: Okay, does anybody have any questions or comments for Susan? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Moes: Just a couple questions here. Are the 198 or $200,000 of expenses for 2000. That's comparable to the $250,000 budget that was put together for 2000. Is that the same? Marek: We are going to come in under budget when the final numbers come in. Moes: Right, but I'm looking at the back side of this which is the budget of $250,000 for expenses and then the actual was $200,000. Marek: Correct. Correct. $37,000 of that difference that you see there isa utility bill that came in late. Annual utility bill. Hoffman: That will get you closer Dave. Moes: So that will get us up there, okay. Marek: See how that kind of gets you right up there next to where we budgeted. Moes: No, that's fine because the second question. Marek: It will come in less than what we budgeted but I'm not much. Moes: Okay, then the second question was, is if you came in at $200,000, what was having you project $240,000 for 2001, but that utility bill gets it up there. That takes care of it, okay. Thank you. Manders: I had asked the question about this variance this year being something like $33,000. What has past years, so how has this variance, I assume it's getting smaller and smaller between revenues and expenses. Marek: Actually that is the case. It is getting smaller and smaller. Also what happened in the last year is many of our self supporting programs that we run from the rec center and that I am responsible for were moved into a separate account. And what that does is, if my self supporting program is even better than self supporting, and in fact profitable, that money is now all in a separate account. So you're not seeing the benefit of some of those programs in this report. In the past we have included that in rec center funds so that just changed in the last year. Despite the fact that those monies are now separated out, indeed the difference is still closing. And it has to do with our fitness offerings. Manders: So this would actually be smaller if you included those numbers you're saying? Marek: Correct. Manders: Very much or? Marek: Well the one program that would make the big difference would be our preschool sports program that we contract with the Y, and that would probably add between I'm going to say 10 to $20,000. Profit. Manders: That makes pretty small numbers out of that. Marek: Right. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Franks: Have revenues increased yearly? I mean I'm just seeing this year's revenue numbers. Marek: You're just seeing this year's, yes. If we were looking at the history of it, absolutely. Franks: Instead I'm looking at your last few years of expenses. They're decreasing in some cases. Same comment as Jim. Are we seeing revenues on the increase and expenses on the decrease? Marek: Right. Revenues are increasing because you know certainly the word has gotten out there about the rec center. More people are taking advantage of our fitness offerings and we've also expanded our fitness offerings. So we're getting more people in there in the areas that bring in money. Now I think that that's self limiting. People come to our facility. Our classes are full or the fitness room is busy. That becomes sort of self limiting so we may be approaching the end of that kind of growth in some of our fitness offerings. The reason that the expenses are declining is because we've changed some staffing procedures at the rec center in that I work with 25% less staff over the summer months than I do over the winter months. 2 years ago we'd keep the same staffing level on...simply cut back on labor in the summer and that's the biggest decrease that you see in expenses. Karlovich: Is 2 machines enough? I guess I had a question for that. I was in there once and I thought some of those machines were kind of old. Marek: I don't disagree with that. The plan that I've Put forward is from beginning this year and continuing each year thereafter, 2 machines will be added and/or replaced so it's an ongoing capital investment in our fitness room so each year 2 more will change over. Manders: So it's pick which machine you want to replace and'that.type of thing? Marek: Exactly. Any comments on what you'd like to see there? Franks: I'm seeing that the dance program is about 28% of your income. Fitness about 43%. Most of the revenues are coming from those two big, most of the revenues are coming from those two programs and I'm wondering about, with room rentals only being 14% but the largest area of space being set aside for the community rooms, I'm just wondering if it's time to start considering reallocating how we utilize our programming space. So I mean if we expand the fitness operation into more space, you know is it possible to significantly expand the revenue? Marek: My opinion is yes we can do that. And I think that it would positively affect the revenues. However we need to understand that our meeting rooms are there for more than making money. Our meeting rooms are there as a place for the community to meet. The vast majority of rentals we have at the rec center are non-paying rentals. They're the Cub Scouts and the Girl Scouts and church groups. Youth athletic associations. The vast majority of these are free rental so you're right, we're using a lot of square footage and it's not generating a lot of revenue but we also need to balance that with the value we place on having our meeting place in our community. Berg: Might it be a good idea to look at this when the library gets on board and once we get an idea of what the library's going to look like. That might replace some of those meetings, from what I understand too. Franks: I guess I'm just thinking too that, is there a way to increase square foot of like the fitness operation without decreasing the number of meeting spaces available. Is it necessary to have a smaller Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 fitness are and larger meeting rooms, or larger fitness area and smaller meeting rooms. So I'm just putting that out there as a question, seeing where the money's coming from. Hoffman: The issue you run into there is anytime you're talking some significant capital. Franks: Capital expense. Hoffman: To make it happen and so are you really gaining ground. Karlovich: Those are permanent walls, right? Hoffman: Yeah. Tae Kwan Do is also a fitness program which utilizes the gymnasium and the meeting rooms and so there are some fitness offerings that are taking advantage of that space. But again the vast majority is being utilized for no charge. Gymnasium and meeting rooms. Manders: I mean even along that line, the question I would ask is if the meeting areas, even if they're free, are they being fully utilized? If they're not, maybe they need to meet at less opportune time. They're getting it free anyway and make use of the space as part of the fitness. Marek: Interesting that you bring that up, as I just left the rec center where we were changing over all 4 rooms having back to back meetings in each room tonight. We have not gone a night without having the rooms filled. A weeknight mind you. Monday through Thursday actually. It really in the last 2 years, it's been real tight. Even during the day rentals have been a little tight and Jerry's run into a couple of meetings he's tried to schedule, so I think it's really changed in the last year and a half that we're turning a lot of people away in the rental game. Franks: i,m 'glad to hear that because I think it had been my perception that those rooms weren't really being utilized for rentals, but I guess what we're hearing is they're not necessarily being rentals, but they're being used. Marek: Correct. It is not a paying rental. Franks: Thanks for the clarification. Marek: Yes. And also sometimes if you are at the rec center and you do come between noon and 4:00, you're right. You're not going to see much activity. It's dead quiet during that time. But stop in around 7:30 any night of the week. Manders: So in terms of a goal as far as the city or park and rec, I know we're striving for at least a break even but maybe not. Are we striving for like 10-20% less than, so that we're dishing out x number of dollars for this benefit to the city? And what is that, our goal is for this program? Hoffman: The last we left it with the city council is a 3/4 meet expenses 3/4 of the way. That has not changed. It's been, no directive or recommendation to the commission to change that. Lash: Any other questions for Susan? Okay. Thanks Susan. PARK & TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Gregory: Good evening. This year the park and trail report that I got to you and that has got a lot of statistical reports with it. We have covered quite a bit of ground here in the past few months and I wanted to briefly go through some of those with you and let you know what we found. The first one has our skating rink season. This year ended up to be our second longest since I have been keeping records with the park system here. We ran 82 days of useable ice compared to the year before we only had 60 days. The first report that you have in your packet was one that was put together by Corey Hoen and that is basically the numbers of adults and kids using all of the skating rinks where we have warming houses. So it would be the Rec Center, the City Center, Bluff Creek and Roundhouse and it indicates the number of people that were using, or number of people that use those rinks. And those are going to be a little bit better numbers and it's simply because they are open at nights... The second report that I put together, and this is the first year we've put this report together. We had a lot of, the maintenance people and the park people and that that I have worked on that are talking about parks and the trails. Or the skating rinks that don't get used very much and from time to time we're out sweeping and flooding them and there's absolutely no indication of use so this year we tried something new and we put the report papers in the tractors and had them fill out when they go and sweep them and how much they were used. And it's going to vary a little bit because the family rinks and that, the outside family rinks are only swept every 3 days, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So the numbers, and they also forgot a few times. But some of the interesting ones in that are like Pheasant Hills which is a family one and that. Out of 13 times being checked, there's 11 times where they absolutely had no use on those rinks. And that's no skating marks. No snow on the rinks, no nothing. Carver Beach is another one that had no heavy use. 3 times light use and 8 times no use at all. Meadow Green, which surprises me a lot, out of 10 times being checked and that, it never had any use at all. So I don't know, when you start looking at the amount of money that we put in to all these skating rinks, and we do have a report that goes along with this with costs, and maybe this is just a benchmark to start with and that we want to keep going on these and trying to keep records on them but maybe it's better off to try to put more into certain areas with decent warming houses, hockey rinks and that and having more use, than all the family rinks where we get very little Use on them. If anybody has any questions as we go, feel free to jump in. Third one I got going along with the skating rinks and that is our cost for the year. I started this a couple years ago and tried to keep it up pretty close. This year the total cost for skating rinks was roughly $33,800. And like I said, that was due to the long year this year. 82 years of actual use. And if you break that down, that's $412 a day, which was actually cheaper than the year before when we had 60 days. It ended up to be $456 a day. That's pretty much it on the skating rinks, if anybody, like I say, if anybody has any questions. Manders: Can I ask, do you have any sense of how much these cost dollars might be reduced if for example, looking at your earlier chart of zero usage or light usage. Gregory: If we were to take those rinks out? Manders: Yeah. If you took some of those out of there, how much impact would that have on your numbers? Gregory: I guess I don't have any numbers that I could really give you for that. Basically like our overtime when we're flooding nights and everything else, we have 2 trucks out. We have 2 different routes and they basically hit every rink. They'll hit the warming houses once and then they'll go out and hit the other family rinks once and then they'll come back and hit the warming houses again and just keep going that way. I really don't have a cost that I could give you on that by cutting out any of these rinks. At this point. Manders: Guesstimate kind of thing. Would it be a small, pretty small impact or? 10 Park and Ree Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Hoffman: There's a pretty strong correlation between the actual number, units of what you're producing. So if you just add up all the rinks you're producing, if you cut it by 20% your costs are going to go down not exactly 20% but there's a strong correlation there. And then again it's an opportunity cost. It's not that those dollars are, except the overtime hours, but those dollars would be invested somewhere else in the park system during that time of year. Those individuals would be off doing other tasks within the city so the one, when we look at Meadow Green at very little or no use at all, it's simply because we have City Center so close and consumers are choosing to come up to a rink where they have both hockey and open skate and a heated warming house. So if you look at maximization °fresources, maximizing the resources, if we can locate both hockey and open skate and warming house and lights at specific locations, I think we get the most bang for our buck. Gregory: Basically the way we run our maintenance on our rinks right now is all the rinks that have warming houses are swept and flooded every day. And the ones that do not have warming houses are taken care of on Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays. And again, that's where the numbers are considerably smaller for being checked on those because we only check them 3 times a week. I mean you would definitely see a savings in that by cutting out those rinks if you were to do it. Lash: I tried to do some kind of fuzzy math here and I don't know if it makes, if this would even. You tell me if this seems logical. I took how much you said it costs a day to operate the rinks and I count about 15 rinks so I divided the daily cost by 15, just to get a rough idea per rink. That's $27 per rink so if we cut the 5 low rinks, that'd be $135 per day. Gregory: It would probably vary a little bit because like I say, the 5 that have the warming houses, hockey rinks and that actually get more attention and it takes us longer, shoveling out hockey rinks and everything else. They're taken care of every day. Again, where the family rinks are only every third day so it's probably not going to be quite that much per day but you're probably getting closer. Lash: Still it could be $100 a day. And depending on how long the season is, if it's 60 days, that was last year. This year 80 some days so. Berg: I'm doing some quick math too and I think it's time we start perhaps taking a hard look at a lot of things with ice skating. I'm looking at City Center for example, which seems to have the most usage for pleasure skating. I mean that's averaging out to 6 skaters a day. That's not what I'd call good use of our money to be providing this kind of service for 6 people a day. And that's the most cost efficient of all of the pleasure rinks that I'm seeing anyway. Hoffrnan: Outdoor recreation in the winter is decreasing over time due to the other activities that mainly children and parents have available to them. It's something I've struggled with on a philosophical thought process for a number of years. You'd like to think you're putting good money into these services and they're going to be used but year after year you watch them go unused. There's certainly Friday, Saturday, Sunday usage is higher. These numbers are not fail safe. These rink attendants can only be expected to quantify so many things for you so bear that in mind as well. Gregory: The one thing you don't see on the, like on the family rinks, the numbers here, are for January, February and March. The numbers are indicated on here, the light use and everything else were pretty much in January right, or December when the rinks were opened. The family rinks started. It seems like the kids all come out and they want to skate for a month. Middle of January and that it's pretty wearing off and like from the middle of January on through February and that is when we get the no uses at all. 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Karlovich: I think kind of the reality that we're seeing here is that in our kind of, maybe a little bit spoiled society and the unfortunate thing that most parents feel the need to watch their kids all the time. It's not like the old days where you walked down to the rink and put your skates on and played for a while. I think our children, and even my children are driven to a rink and the parents want to go to a rink where there's a warming house and hot chocolate and some place to warm up in. Then if there's hockey boards, that's for the hockey people. That's where the activity is. It's just, you can't even let your kids just walk and be at a park these days by themselves a lot of times so, it's kind of unfortunate. Berg: I guess I'd like to see us look at this on another day and really hard. Have some good, serious discussion about if we want to continue this. Manders: Next year when we're talking about replacing older rinks, this should factor into it. Franks: When do you put in the orders for the warming houses? Ruegemer: Typically you put them on kind of reserve type of basis in July. But that's flexible. Franks: Oh, that's flexible. Gregory: Second topic I've got is kind of an exciting one for myself and that is the construction of the park maintenance building. It's moving along very well. The building is up and actually they're pouring the concrete inside yesterday and today. They're planning on pouring every day this week to get that poured. They've got it insulated. The metal siding is on the inside. The brick is on the outside, a lot of it and it's really starting to look good and I tell you the park staff is really excited. We're just kind of itching to get in there and be able to start setting things up and that so. That's a very good sign. In fact I was driving by it today... ~ Lash: Are we planning on planting some trees along there or something? Hoffman: There's a very extensive planting. Gregory: A lot of trees and a lot of flowers and different things that will be around, planted around that. Hoffman: Can you tell there's a building there Jan? Lash: Yeah. You don't miss it. That's why I thought maybe some trees might break it up a little bit. Gregory: The next one I had is our irrigation system at Lake Susan. This year and that with the early freeze up and the heavy snows right offthe bat I made a decision that we were going to put the irrigation system in early, which we did do. We got all of our articles in the paper and everything else. We got the system in already and January 23rd is when we put it in. Our numbers and everything, we're really in good shape and that yet at that point. The DNR, we worked real closely with Dave Gilbraith. He comes out once or twice a month. He does oxygen tests and we kind of compare each other. And we're in real good shape. He said we really didn't need to at that time but I felt we wanted to get it in and get it started running. Everything went fine. We did have the numbers started to go down. They kept going down a little bit anyway and that. They're going to go down. We did have trouble on February 19th. The shaft broke on the pump so we were down for about 4 days, 5 days. We were going to get a part in for it. We have it ordered. It was going to take about 2 weeks. We went up to Waconia and found, there's an old 12 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 guy up there that does machining and that and he machined us a shaft so we got it back in about 5 days. But what it did do, it continued to go down through the whole season there and at the point of March 16th, and you don't have these numbers right now. There I got from my foreman today. On March 16th we were down to like a 2.6 oxygen at 6 feet. The DNR is saying that's getting real close that you can start to have die out, especially with bass. We kept talking with him. He kept calling back. He said have you seen any fish at the hole yet. We never did. And there's no real hard core numbers and rules except he said we were getting real close. A week later we took tests again. Water started melting. Water starting running in. We were up to 4.3% so we're really in good shape. We're up to 5% now so the way it looks, I mean we shouldn't, we might, like they indicated, you might see a couple bass or something around and that but we've seen nothing at the hole or we didn't see anything to indicate...but it definitely was a close year this year for, so you might look at this year for our aeration system. I would say we've probably kept it, it saved them for this year. Howe: Good job putting it in. It was a good idea. Lash: That's making the assumption there's some fish in the lake because we know there's not. Gregory: Well we looked at the last year we...the same thing happened and that, I mean we got an early freeze up. We had a lot of snow and everything else and we started to get, the numbers started going down and Dean Schmieg, my foreman. He's really good. He takes weekly reports and he's down there every week the same day taking samples and that so, like I say, we just decided early enough that we were going to get them in and get a head start on it this year which really worked out good for us. Manders: Do you take readings on any of the other lakes? Gregory: and that. problems Susan all No we don't. We did one year. We started doing them at Lake Ann too. The oxygen levels ' They were so high, they just stayed up all year and they're'such a good, it's a deeper lake. No and that. And so we didn't really keep going on that so we just, we basically keep it at Lake the time. Manders: Okay. Gregory: And the last one I've got on the list is the wood duck house inspection. The guys just went out the other day and went around and checked all of our wood duck houses. This year we have a total of 35. We added 5 more in the Lake Susan area this past year for 2000. And our numbers are going down and I really don't have a reason for that. In '94 when we started the numbers were high and they went down for 4 years and then they jumped back up to 71 and I don't know if we're just on the same cycle going down for another year or so and then coming up but I mean, I'm not that familiar with wood ducks and their habits and that so, but we are down 46% this year. And I think that's pretty much all I had unless- you have any questions. Lash: Anybody have any questions? For Dale? No? Okay, thanks Dale. ROUNDHOUSE PARK, ROUNDHOUSE PAVILION RENOVATION. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. 13 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Lash: Okay. Why don't we just go down the line and see what people's reactions are to each of the ideas. And we might be able to just eliminate some through that process and then focus on the ones that maybe we think might bear more exploration. Do you have any ideas Jim? Manders: Well there's some of them I think are pretty obvious that this, enlisting a neighborhood brigade thing, I don't see that as probably happening, or this college thing is probably not going to happen. And the demolishing option I guess is certainly a possibility but I don't think that's what we want to view at this point. To me I think we could probably narrow this down to 3 or 4 possibilities and focus on those. Lash: Do you have 3 or 4? Manders: I haven't really identified them but just kind of cruising through this, that's what I think we'd end up with. Hoffman: You're getting close already with what you've listed. Lash: Okay, we'll come back to you. Jay, you got any ideas? Karlovich: I think one of the options should be kind of spending the money that we initially recommended and doing it right and actually spending the money on historic preservation. Otherwise, and how much was that again? I know we were up. Lash: What'd we say, 1257' Hoffman: In the original budget or the original contract amount? Karlovich: What the commission wanted to do last time with the clear coating and going totally forWard with the project. Hoffman: Yeah, the council said they wouldn't do that and they asked you to consider other options. Karlovich: Okay. Did they definitely say that was not an option or they just wanted us to look at other options? Hoffman; I don't know. They weren't highly in favor. Who was at that meeting? Howe: I was. I don't think you're going to get them to go for $125,000. Just my impression. I thought we were lucky to come out of that meeting with them kicking it back to us. I mean I thought, you know for a while there I thought they were going to tell us to take it down but, who was here? You were here...come up with another plan but I don't think 125 is going to get by them. That's my opinion. Lash: Okay. Hoffman: And if it was, they asked that the neighborhood.., come up with the money. Karlovich: Well my opinion on the options should be, do nothing doesn't even seem like a real viable option. Either demolish the round house, option number 2. Option number 4, build the Eden Prairie type park shelter, or option number 3 would maybe spend up to the $50,000 and just do the exterior and the 14 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 roof and try to save money on the interior and possibly do the interior as a second phase. I'll pass along the microphone. Lash: Okay. Fred, do you have anything you'd like to say? Berg: Sure. Lash: Okay. Berg: I'm not going to go over this though. I guess I'd sort of be in favor of looking at a hybrid of 3 and 4. I don't, after all this time I guess I just can't see doing nothing or demolishing it. And I don't think the others are practical. 5 through 8. It just doesn't seem to be workable. If someone comes forward, we can look at it but I don't see that happening. I guess I'd like to look at trying to lessen the cost as Jay correctly pointed out, an Eden Prairie type shelter. Maybe we can find a middle ground there. To me it's always been preservation of the building first and if it was workable, that was great. And if it was something that was functional I mean, that was frosting on the cake. I'm not at this point going to go into my diatribe about historical buildings again. I'll hold off on that preaching to the choir I think. At this point I'd like to see us do something where we can save the building, and what will be acceptable to the neighborhood and of course the City Council is what I'm looking for here. I'm looking for some sort of compromise to save the building but to also provide, even to an outpost like this area, some sort of park shelter. That's all. Lash: Okay. I just made a note by each one so I can go right down the list. Number 1. Just sort of cracks me up because where else but in government would you do nothing and it would still cost you $1,500. So I mean I just read that. Do nothing. $1,500. Hoffinan: Okay, it should sayput up a fence. Lash: So no, I'm not interested in spending $1,500 to do nothing. And I don't, you know we've been in this for the long haul so at this point I guess I'm not willing to sell out yet and do complete demolition so I wouldn't want to see that happen. Even the complete minimum improvements doesn't do it much for me because in the end we're still just, well it will look somewhat better than it does now but the windows are boarded up. It's still going to look relatively tacky, plus it will be not usable for anything so I don't know that we really gain a whole lot other than we maybe get rid of the lead based paint but. And I really don't want to see the post and slab park shelter there. I thought that we were trying to make an effort at providing something unique to this particular park because we had given it a lot of character. This would add a lot more to it. I'd like to at least hold a neighborhood meeting and see if there's any viable chance at number 5. Not necessarily for them to do the whole thing. I don't see that as working, plus there's so many things there that I don't think the average handyman, we want to have them tackle asbestos and lead based paint. Which leads me more to the number 6 where maybe it'd be a combination. Maybe the residents, they put in the playground equipment. They wanted that in so maybe if there's a group of them who are willing to come and help with some of the things that they can do and then with some staff and then with a local contractor, maybe we could get a good start on it, and I'd like to then find out if we went down that road, and say we spent the $50,000 and it wasn't quite done, is that something then a year or two down the road we couldn't go back and spend a little bit more to finish it? Or would it be $50,000 for the project or is it $50,000 a year? What is that law or whatever you have. How does that work? The new law. 15 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Hoffman: It's per endeavor or project. If it doesn't get done, you can certainly go back and invest additional dollars. But it's, the intent of the law cannot be over and you split this project in two intentionally. We're going to do it in 2 years to stay underneath the minimum. Lash: And we wouldn't have to attack it from that way. We could attack it from we'd like to try to get it all done for this amount, but if in the end we only get the exterior done and maybe the interior somewhat you know something. Even if the interior's not usable, but with the idea that potentially we could go back and try to wrap it up at minimal cost. Or maybe with some more volunteer labor to finish the inside. I don't know. So I'd be leaning more towards number 6. Yeah, 7 is out obviously. 8, there's no way we're going to raise $40,000. Plus the city isn't supposed to be in the business of fund raising. Isn't that what we were told? So I kind of liked Jay's idea of ultimately the total package, but trying to do it in a more cost efficient way by combining lots of different talents, which would be number 6. That'd be my first choice. Rod. Franks: I would like to see proposals 3, 4, 5 and 6 presented at a neighborhood meeting to anybody who cares to show up. I think we're at a point where, you know the park is designed to have a structure at that spot, and so the one that's there, to do nothing, that's not acceptable. And then to tear it down and not replace it with anything is not acceptable and 7 and 8 just aren't going to work so. But I would like the rest of them presented to the neighborhood or any of the public that chooses to come so they'd have something to work with to comment on. Manders: So in terms of 4, you're saying that as an alternative if they want to say forget about it and put up some type of pole. Franks: Yep. I think that if we're going to have a public meeting and we're going to invite the public to comment, we should really make an effort to inform them of what the options are, even the ones that maybe we as a body aren't particularly fond of. But I mean if we're'going to invite their input, let's really invite it. Hoffman: Well a number of them have provided that viewpoint. Franks: Already. Lash: See and my fear, I understand and I actually I agree. I agree that we need to do that. My fear of course is that so many of the people who live out there and those obviously will be the people who come to the meeting, have lived out there for 6 months or a year or whatever, maybe don't have any appreciation whatsoever for this landmark because they haven't lived here this long and the time that they have lived here, it's been an eyesore. You know something falling down that they would just as soon have a ceremonial bonfire just to get rid of it. But in the end, we're charged with representing the public and if they all come in and tell us they want it burned down, then that's what we have to do. Karlovich: Todd, we have $80,000 budgeted but that's not one of our oPtions. It seems like, why is that? Can't we let a contract for 80? Hoffman: No. $50,000 or less. Moes: You have to go out to bid. You have to go out to bid over 50, right? 16 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Hoffman: Correct. Which we did and we ended up with a cost of $124,000 due to the packaging of all the process that goes along with a public bid. If we did not get backyard contractors to bid this thing, we received bids from multi-million dollar companies that do much larger jobs. The only reason they bid it is because it was the way it was packaged and that's due to the public bidding laws so, actually I think we can get $80,000 worth of work for $50,000 just by working, taking a few of the local contractors out there and saying give us a quote for what you can get done for 50 grand. Karlovich: But what I was saying, can we get bids on, what can you get done for $80,000. Hoffman: No. Lash: No, because the law says you can only go to 50. Hoffman: For quotes. Karlovich: For quotes. Hoffman: Public bidding, and if we look at it, we've invested $15,000-$20,000 to date and so we're, even though we have 80 we're, if we spend 50 on the project and include those costs, we're right back up to 80. 'The council is aware of that. That 80. Lash: Okay, are you done Rod? Franks: I'm done, thank you. Lash: Okay, Dave. Moes: For a public meeting, following Rod's comments, options 3, 4, 5 and 6 1 think are appropriate to at least present to them for discussion. One thing that goes through my mind is, in selecting an option is that you attack the project once and finish it once versus over an extended period of time. Just do it, you know moving into the project and then completing it because I think if you go over a span of years you may lose the interest or the initial input that some of the people have so I think it's critical that as we have the discussion, that we look at it as, starting the project once and completing it once so that it's done in a crisp time frame and so that people understand when the end product will be available and what that end product will be. I think that just needs to be brought up at the session. Lash: Okay. Mike. Howe: Not much to add. I sense from what we're talking about, and I know my opinion is I want to save the thing if we can save it at all. That would be my overriding concern. And in that regard I still think you have to have a neighborhood meeting and knowing that I think we want to save it, you may not hear what you want to hear at that meeting. If you didn't hear what you thought you might hear and if the neighborhood wants it tom down, maybe there's a way to save some of that, the Douglas fir that, I mean the architect talked about that so lovingly. About how rare that wood was and how beautiful it was. Maybe there's a way, and you know more about this than I do but when you tore something like that down, could you save parts of it, if that's what ultimately we're going to do and use them for benches in a pavilion or whatever and say well this was from the old round house, so maybe there's a way if it goes against what we want to say well the benches you're sitting on were part of the old round house that you lived here a year and nobody knew about but you're sitting on them. That's one. Two, I think as far as, 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 we talk about a neighborhood doing the work on it. If you played this right, I think this has city wide appeal. Some of the e-mails that were both, that were pro and con that we got. Some of the pro's I think are from people that didn't necessarily live near Kings Road. There's a lot of guys I know in my neighborhood who would love a project like that, and maybe again, and maybe I'm dreaming, lumber and some of those things you could work and get some of it donated. I think we need specialists to take down the lead paint, but I think I'd climb a ladder and put a coat of seal on that. It might not look professional but we did it ourselves and that's how you can do it so, I think there's some city wide appeal in having it done with the project. But my overriding concern is I'd like to keep it in some way so I'm probably a 5 or 6. Lash: Okay, Jim. I'm going to come back to you. Did you get your thoughts clarified at all? Manders: In terms of the options, certainly the numbers, when you say 3 or 4, it's pretty easy to arrive at those if you start excluding the demolition and the do nothing options. And so looking at the 3, and depending on how we want to approach 4, 5 and 6, I think those are obviously the ones that come to mind. I guess the one question I have in terms of council reaction, and I know this is a whole debate about whether you're supposed to be responding to what council says or not, but what kind of response did they have to the architect's comments, glowing remarks about the facility? Or did they even see this? Hoffman: Oh sure .... Manders: Was there any particular feeling about that or? Hoffman: Not that I recall. Berg: Nothing that stands out in my mind. Manders: Basically a dollars and cents kind of decision. Howe: A warming hut. What's it really going to be used for? Can they use it in the summer? Those kinds of things. If we redid it, what kind of use are we going to get out of it anyway? If we spent the money. Those kinds of things what they kicked around. Hoffman: The architect was present. Gave a presentation and then it came down to utility versus cost. Karlovich: Is it worthwhile getting into, I've heard the debate back and forth as to whether this is truly a historical site or not or is it a goofy building? I don't know if that's something we should be touching upon. Hoffman; It's not a historical structure. Karlovich: But in the minds of the commission, do they think it's historical or something that is a Chanhassen landmark or do we even want to go there. Franks: I don't think there's any doubt that the round house is a Chanhassen landmark. I mean that's totally clear I think but it's understanding what it's value is I think, and we have a different perspective maybe of what that landmark means to this city. 18 Park and Ree Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Hoffman: There's been some discussion bantered around Old St. Hubert's in that regard. The city does not have a historical ordinance. Old St. Hubert's is not a historical structure. It is a city landmark similar to the round house. These structures do not have special protection. It's not...to that degree of protection. Berg: But because we haven't assigned a plaque to it that says the National Historical Preservation Society doesn't recognize it as such, doesn't mean that it isn't historical. It may not be recognized as such, but as far as Chanhassen is concerned, the round house is historical. St. Hubert's is historical. The school house that they stole is historical. The train depot is historical. It's part of our history. Hoffman: Don't disagree. Lash: Well and that is all in the eye of the beholder. People who have only lived here for a year or 2 or 3 or 5, maybe have no appreciation for those things. You know they could care less if it was torn down and we could put up a Lund's. Berg: That's why I'm hopeful that a lot of people will show up for the community meeting. So we can educate a little bit too. Lash: I'd say at a minimum we should invite anyone who responded with an e-mail and then any other residents I suppose that are within whatever the. Hoffman: Yeah, we mailed to the entire west side of the lake and then we'll also put the press release that the commission asked about in the paper so if there's Other people. An article came out shortly after the last council action as well so it's been receiving a significant amount of press. Lash: So is that narrowed down? Do you want a motion on things that you'd like us to, no? 'Do you pretty much know what we want to do? Alright. Thanks. Berg: I'm not trying to kill the messenger. Hoffman: No. Heaven's no. RECREATION PROGRAMS. EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT AND COLORING CONTEST UPDATE. Lash: Anybody have anything on the Easter Egg hunt? Ruegemer: A specific question for you. Do you want to judge the coloring contest? Lash: What's the date on it again? Ruegemer: 14~. Lash: No. Ruegemer: Okay, thank you. 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Lash: Okay, you're welcome. SELF-SUPPORTING PROGRAMS. SPRING 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL. Ruegemer: Any questions? Berg: Have a good time. Lash: Say Dale, do you have any guys on your crew that would be just biting at the bit to work on the round house? Gregory: If you polled my department, it'd be opposite of what you're saying. They don't feel it's worth the amount of money that was already put into it for what you're going to get out of it. Lash: Okay, never mind. Berg: That was Dale Gregory off the record. Have a nice night. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. Lash: Hey, is anything else happening with Memorial Park? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: What? Hoffman: Refining those plans. Including that in the budget discussions with the City Council for 2002. Lash: Okay, great. Any other committees? Ruegemer: If I may just interject a quick second. I'll give a little update on the Huffman Run. Ken Garvin and myself did meet with a representative from the Viking's organization to see how they could participate better in the 5K Run. It looks like the Vikings are willing to do quite a bit of advertising for us. We can have a table and pass out information in the plaza before the home games prior to the race. They're going to do advertising on the score board during the Vikings games. It sounded like they are willing to put a link from the Vikings home page to our home page providing information. It sounds like we'd get into the game day publications. Put information in that so it sounds like there's a lot of opportunities that they're willing to do. Lash.' Are they willing to provide free tickets for commissioners? Ruegemer: Well we haven't gotten to that point yet but. Lash: Or anyone involved. Ruegemer: I'm not sure ifthere'd be any monetary...Red McCombs did a, he said, they say a sizeable donation to the Huffman fund after Dave had passed for the kids and that sort of thing so, I think we can get some small product type of thing or suckers for the bags too so, we're in good shape. 20 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Karlovich: I think Red McCombs, at least there's a big source there. Our company, our firm supported an adopt a classroom and our receptionist sent him a request for a donation and they authorized and sent back a handwritten note and you just wonder how many hundreds of those he gets a day. I was just amazed by his community involvement. Ruegemer: They're also contacting the alumni that still live in the area that played with Dave, about in that era. Sounds like Leo Lewis is interested in running the race and participating that day and other people so, Boom Boom Brown and Carl Eller and a lot of those types of people so. Lash: They'll be with us. Berg: No, they'll we with the woman that we lost 100 yards ahead of us. Lash: That really old lady? Berg: Yeah. Howe: That's nice Jerry. Lash: That's exciting. Well that was kind of what we were kind of hoping would evolve. Ruegemer: I think they were embarrassed with their involvement last year so. Howe: They should have been, on the record. Ruegemer: So they're looking to redeem themselves..Thank you Mike for your help on that too. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. Lash: Who would I again, this is probably about the tenth year in a row that I've brought up composting and is that something we could pass on a suggestion to the Environmental Committee? Commission that they should look into composting site. Not just a dumping site and then having to haul it somewhere else. Don't know where it would be but that would be a fine project for them. Hoffman: Okay, consider it done. Lash: Anybody else anything? Manders: I guess this conflict of interest form that there was something talked about. Are we supposed to turn those in? Hoffman: Thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Lash: Do you want to start with your additions? HoiTman: No... on the items that were presented. 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Lash: So Steve Labatt is our liaison, correct? Hoffman: Yes. Lash: So will he only be coming to meetings that he thinks there's something that we might need assistance for or, what do you think is the. Hoffman: I would think he'll come to any meeting that he's available for.' Lash: Did you meet with the Stone Creek people on the playground and that's moving forward. Hoffman: Yep. Mike Howe and I met and we're meeting again to review the plan that the vendor's going to present April 12th I think it is. Lash: Are they planning on doing installation? Hoffman: Yep. Lash: Okay. Maybe we could ask them to work on the round house. Howe: I'm sure they would, i'm serious about that. Lash: Anybody else have anything on the packet? I see Fred and Jim are up for reappointment. Again, these seniors, wow. They have fun. I can't wait. They do have fun. Manders: One question I have on this shell synopsis thing. This is fine to have this in there but I guess what I'd like to see is how does this differ at all from last time. Or for future. Ruegemer: About 200 shells more than last year. Manders: So if they do this next year, to have a comparison and say okay, this is what we had last year. We paid x number of dollars. This is what we have next year if we pay x number of dollars more or less and that's what you get for it. Lash: What are you talking about? Franks: The fireworks display. Manders: Because that's really the question is, are they giving us the same bang for the buck. Hoffman: The complexities in that type of comparison are so varied that, you'd like to think that you could make an honest comparison but the real value here is between the customers of Chanhassen and the providers because all they have to do is change where the shell is made. What kind of powder is packed in it. The size of it. The quality. Ruegemer: Import taxes is a big thing. Import and export taxes. Manders: So you just kind of go with your heart and say okay, give us your best deal. 22 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 27, 2001 Hoffman: Give us a good show. If you don't, you get the axe... Manders: Alright. Moes: This is about the 20 minute show, right? Roughly. Lash: Okay, Todd so what did you have? Hoffman: Update on commission application and appointment process. Jay was appointed Monday, last night to the Planning Commission so we have another vacancy. He's moving on. Lash: I wish this round house thing was going to get passed onto the Planning Commission. Hoffman: There you are. We could try that. And so we have 3 vacancies. 2 applications. Fred and another gentleman from the city. Extended the deadline from March 29th to April 5th and contacted all the past applicants in the past 2 or 3 years and council will interview folks probably the middle of April. Other than that, July I've scheduled from 6:00 to 7:00 a tour of the Waconia facility. Fourth Tuesday of July, 6:00 to 7:00 so we'll meet probably here and carpool out. Depending how people feel. If they want to meet in Waconia and come back. We'll take a look at that facility. Toured the Inver Grove Heights brand new community center. Addition to their, they have an armory, a double set of hockey sheets and then city hall and then they added a $10 million addition. Very similar to Chaska. Same architect, just a little different feel. They didn't go with carpet because of some budget concerns but they have the pool. Three pools and all the other amenities so I was surprised they, we went over there for a meeting. I didn't know the facility was completely all decked out, but nice facility. Financing, upfront capital costs out of some bond sales from garbage receipts. They have two landfills in town and then, which they don't own them but they ticket charges 'and then the long term debt is being paid by the school district and a cooperative agreement through the use of the pools. They're receiving 270 some thousand. In the early years up to about $360,000 and in later years to pay off the debt on the project. Nice facility. Neat to see. And City Council and staff are working on a community survey. 80 questions .... randomly 400 households in the community. Take about 15 to 20 minute survey. Their refusal rate is about 4%. And so if you have comments or ideas about the questions I would recommend that you contact the mayor or council members on the content of that survey. Lash: I know we talked about it at our joint meeting and they seemed not inclined to want to touch the concept of the YMCA but it'd be nice if was one of the choices that people could have. Hoffman: We're working at a couple of different areas on that. We're going to talk about facilities and then also the Y has expressed interest in paying for questions specifically concerning the YMCA in town so currently the YMCA folks are in conversation with buying a dozen questions. Paying the $1,200 and then having those included as a part of the survey. Berg: Serious business isn't it. Lash: That makes sense, great. Okay, do you have anything else Todd? I know many years ago we did a little walking tour of the Bluff Creek. The big gorge. How many people would be interested in seeing that? Because I don't think there's anyone else here besides me. You weren't here were you Fred when we did that? 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting- March 27, 2001 Berg: I don't believe so. Lash: It is something to see and it helps to gain a new perspective on why we want to keep it the way it is and that type of thing so, but we don't want to go when it's too over grown or too buggy. Hoffman: Second meeting in June. Second Tuesday in June might be a good option. After school. Right after school is out. Lash: How about even May. Hoffman: May.9 Lash: Well it gets, I think we even when the end of April before because it wasn't buggy and it wasn't all totally overgrown. Yeah, maybe the snow will be gone. Hoffman: Okay. I'll put some dates on your next agenda. Lash: Okay, anything else? Anybody? Motion to adjourn. Berg moved, Karlovich seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 24 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 10, 2001 Chairwoman I,ash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Rod Franks, David Moes, and Mike Howe MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. ROUNDHOUSE PARK, RESIDENT MEETING. Hoffman: I'll.just give a brief update. Plenty of information has been going about via the mail and just a little backgrou:ad that was again presented in the letter. City Council did not feel comfortable awarding the project at a cost of approximately $125,000. They instructed the Park and Recreation Commission to conduct a neighborhood meeting. Discuss with the residents the changing issues or the increasing costs. The changing costs regarding the project and talk about whether or not the neighborhood felt that was a good investment in their neighborhood park, and then to investigate some options. Those were mailed out to the residents and then we received approximately 20 some pieces of correspondence since then. There's additional ones I have to pass out to you this evening, and for the audience I'm also making copies of all the correspondence that we've received t6 date. It'd be fair to say that the strong majority of the correspondence has pointed towards a desire to demolish the round house as it presently stands and either build a separate post and slab shelter or do something else with the money. There are some that are in favor of renovating the round house but they're in the minority. So I'm eager to hear from those present here this evening and then to discuss with the commission and audience the issue of whether the round house should stay or not stay. For those of you who don't know, the night, I think the barn was burning and the commission visited the Roundhouse Park land that evening and the round house was to be burned the next day and they came back and said, let's talk about that. And that was a split vote that evening to save the round house at that time. An attempt to preserve it as both a landmark so, it would have been long gone but there was a desire to save it at that time and I think there still is some of that desire remaining so, that's all I have to add and I'd like to get started hearing from the residents. Lash: Okay. I:5 there anyone on the commission first who has a question for Todd before we open it up? Franks: Todd, I'm just wondering, do you have some of the graphics from what the completed .restoration would have looked like? Hoffman: Sure do. Bring those down. Franks: Because I'm not so sure that any of the people, or most of the people have any sense of what the architects were considering. Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Hoffman: Okay. Commissioner Franks, I don't see the plans set right here. I'll have to go upstairs and get that. Go ahead and start. Lash: Okay. Anyone else with a question for Todd before he goes to get the plan? Okay. Okay, when we open this up for public comment, the thing that we request of you is that you come forward to the podium. State your name and address so we have that for the record. So who's interested in speaking? Go ahead. Nancy Simpson: Good evening. My name is Nancy Simpson. My address is 3980 Country Oaks Drive. I'm just a couple, 3 blocks from the round house, and I've lived at that location for 10 years. I also grew up in this area. Went to St. Hubert's school so I do have some heritage and historic roots in this community. But I would like to give you roughly 6 reasons why I would like to support the demolition of the round house. I also have no children so I look at this park not exclusively for my benefit but for after knowing several of my neighbors and having been in that area for 10 years, and having some insights on what I perceive as the population there. Anyway, this is why, number 1. I would see our neighborhood as meant to be an area where most of the residents desire outside traffic. This is a local park. I think of a historical marker as being a nice thing to have but it's also meant to draw traffic. This is a little more isolated. Not terribly well lit. Not that highly patrolled. This is not a location that I think a historical monument, just based on the location, any kind of historical monument has any value. Now that particular historical monument, in my opinion is of no value. It's not a worthy landmark. Nothing interesting really happened there. It's not important to the current population. It's not important to me and I grew up here. It's not unique enough to warrant taking a limited budget and throwing that kind of money in that way when there's other needs that could be accomplished for the territory. Basically it is an eyesore and the one proposal that suggested minimal effort to make it look minimally presentable, because I drive by the thing every day, I conjure up still an image of an eyesore and I've been looking at that eyesore for quite a few years now. The next item is the continued liability concerns me for a couple of reasons. There's future cost uncertainty to the continued liabilityof an old building where we've already determined that there's asbestos and lead pain{. It concerns me that there might be future financial uncertainty to that. I also am concerned about, as the kids in our area get to be a certain age, it's certainly appropriate that they go to this park, either unattended or maybe with older kids, but they're kind of unsupervised by adults. I'm concerned about the attractive nuisance of a building that has questionable structural integrity no matter what we do to try to preserve it. I'm also, along the lines of attractive nuisances, I'm also a member of the homeowners association down by Minnewashta and my husband is on the Board of Directors and we already have continued problems with that area being an attractive nuisance to teenagers, and most of the local residents don't even wish teenagers to be down there and smoking whatever they smoke and throwing firecrackers and that kind of stuff. I just see this as another attractive nuisance in an area that's once again not extremely overly lit or highly patrolled. So anyway I think that's the end of it. Sorry to going on a little longer, but those are my reasons for recommending the demolition and using the money for what I think to be a more feature that would attend to the needs of the kids in the area. Thank you. Lash: Thanks Nancy. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Janet Carlson: My name is Janet Carlson and I live on Kings Road. I would like to see it kept. We just, I don't know, we just keep getting rid of older buildings and more and more and more and pretty soon it's just going to be little Edina. We just have to, I don't know why nobody wants to keep any of the old buildings. I have a very special place for that. I lived in that house and I think it's wonderful. I would like to see it refurbished or whatever. Kept. Would it ever be used like for family picnics or anything? What is, you know I guess that's what are the plans are going to be used for. Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Lash: Well we have a couple of different ideas. One, in the winter it could be used for a warming house. And in the summer we hoped that it could be used, at a minimum, the plan was that it could be used to, for the summer programming that goes on out there for the children, that they need to be indoors or for keeping the supplies and some of those kind of things. Janet Carlson: I think this would be absolutely great for it. And it's just, I have a lot of friends and my girls have worked out in different places and when they come out, the first thing they said, what a neat deal that place is and everybody asks about the round house and I think it"s just something that I would like to see kept in the neighborhood. ! hate to see it get tore down or maybe I'm getting old where I like to have old stuff. Lash: So Janet, would you be supportive of the complete renovation? Janet Carlson: I think so, yes. I would. Thank you. Lash: Okay, anyone else in the audience? Deanna Bunkelman: Hi, I'm Deanna Bunkelman. I live at 4191 Red Oak Lane. Have been in the neighborhood for about 2 ½ years. I lived in Eden Prairie prior to that for about 10 years and just wanted to get out a little further west. And 3 things that I really wanted to state. I'm definitely in favor of keeping the round house. I think it's unfortunate that we're having the meeting tonight. It's actually spring break so half of our neighborhood is actually gone and I think that is part of the reason for the bad turn out. And the other thing is we have talked to several neighbors in the neighborhood and several of them are willing to volunteer to help out if need be. We obviously wouldn't take the one option which I think said that we would manage it and therefore invest $50,000. Definitely not that option. But they're definitely willing to put labor and do what they can do to help preserve the round house. And then I guess I didn't realize this until I read it in the paper bui I'm under the understanding that the walk bridge that was built over Highway 5 cost $750,000. And when I look at that and the use of that, to me this is just a drop in the bucket. For something that is going to be widely used by the neighborhood. I don't know if it's going to attract that many outside people that it's really going to increase the traffic, but I have 2 little kids and we just have so many kids in the neighborhood and I just think it's going to be a great thing for them to utilize. Not only as a warming house during the winter, but also for the activities. They're involved in the summer activities down there and I know when it rains they have to cancel and I don't know that the round house would be big enough to do that but I just think it's unique. I think we can make it structurally sound so that we don't have to worry about vandals. I think some of the concerns that were presented as far as lighting and things like that, that's going to be a concern whether the round house is there or not. And those are issues that we probably have to address beyond the round house. I don't know that some of that is associated with the round house. So I guess I'm in complete favor of keeping it. I just think it's kind of fun history. I've run into people when I'm down at the beach and they tell me all sorts of stories about the land around there and the round house so I think there's a lot of history that people just aren't aware of, and I think we could actually have some fun activities around that where we could plan activities and have people go down and listen to the stories and the history with the resort that used to be there and just all sorts of stuff so I'm in favor. Lash: Of complete renovation? Deanna Bunkelman: Um, well complete renovation I think would be the best. Now I know I was here at the public meeting that was probably a little over a year ago and some of the things they wanted to do Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 sounded pretty fancy and I don't know that we need to get that fancy because I know they were going to vault it up and do all sorts of stuff and have a copper roof and, you know and so I guess when you say complete renovation, I think we have to really look at what you mean by that and potentially scale down because I don't think you have to make it that fancy. It's really just renovating it to the point that it looks like a round house is supposed to look. It doesn't have to be extravagant. Lash: Okay. I think the vaulting of the roof I think, are you talking about the exterior. Deanna Bunkelman: They were talking about, yeah.., putting in copper. Lash: I think structurally that has to happen. No, that's not copper. Deanna Bunkelman: Okay, that's all. Lash: Thanks Deanna. Franks: Do you have that picture Todd? Hoffman: This is one of the models that Locus Architects presented. And just a schematic of the potential clear story, lighting in through the eave, under the eave and then the enclosed structure. And then the building as they exist today of course. Everybody recognizes that. The plan that was eventually agreed upon was not that elaborate. It did include the glazing around the ring of the round house, just underneath the eave to allow for lighting into the structure. Locus estimated high on the bidding of about $81,000 but that was not to be the case. The reality was that their estimate was low in the bidding climate, in today's construction world is elevated and continues to go up at 10 to 12% per year for these types of projects so we, the city attempted to bid it twice to bring the cost in line and a second time we bid it I think those costs were real based on the plans and specifications that were presented in the contract. Berg: Todd, can you talk about what the outside would look like because we talked about not painting the outside if you recall. Hoffman: The commission recommended that the council strip the exterior of the building, of the paint and then clear seal it so it would be a redwood finish with a clear seal on it so it'd have a much more natural appearance than if it was preserved and renovated. Lash: Because the siding is, what's the siding made out again? Franks: Some old growth Douglas fir. Hoffrnan: I'll check. Yeah, that sounds right. Lash: What was explained to us by the gentleman that did the plan is that the exterior siding is some type of wood that's quite rare and that it would be very attractive if the paint was removed and clear coated, which also would have a longer preservation and it wouldn't need the maintenance of painting. So that was one of the reasons why we thought that might be a good idea. And then when he's talking about the glazing, I don't know about you but I didn't know when they first explained that what that meant. It means a row of windows right around the top. And then the cone roof needs to be put on for structure and for drainage. So the other windows would be gone, that's my understanding, isn't it? Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Hoffman: No, they would stay. Lash: The other windows are still there? Okay, but then the row around the top and then there's kind of an overhang thing over the door, just to make kind of an entrance and also to protect it from ice and those kind of things. Audience: Could the structure be bought unless.., picnic spot or? Lash: I think if it was for something like that, it'd have to be on reservation basis. Like any other shelter. Hoffman: The report identifies that the stays in the round house building, most likely Douglas fir. And must of the materials were grain, lumber from old growth forests, and so that's what the lumber is. Lash: Okay. Anyone else in the audience wishing to. TerryNicholson: I'm Terry Nicholson. I live at 6971 Country Oaks Road. I have a beautiful view of the structure, 24 hours a day. I have two concerns. One is vandalism. I see a lot of things that happen in the park because my children are down there a lot and I also see a lot from my windows. With a good set of binoculars you can really see a lot. And I have witnessed kids smoking things that smell funny in that area. I've witnessedkids trying to kick down in the door just to get inside. They're down there with crowbars trying to get in. I don't know if that same problem would exist with a new painted structure or not, but I would suspect that it would so I see it more as the attractive nuisance. I do understand the significance of having a historical landmark and something unique. It would be nice if in some way we could preserve, if we put a posted inside thing, maybe it could be left. If there was some other way that we could preserve some history, that would be nice but I personally tdon't see the full renovation as being a good investment of park money. Our children could'use some more equipment. Maybe make that a round house park equipment thing that looks like the round house but it's just a bunch of slides. That's my two cents. Lash: Okay, thanks Terry. Ron Morgan: My name's Ron Morgan. I live on White Oak Lane... I guess I'm in favor of restoring the structure. I think parks attract kids. I think if you had a little shelter there, you'd have the kids smoking pot and vandalizing things. I don't think it's this building that's attracts vandalism. I think public spaces do. This structure, you know everything out there is new. Well I shouldn't say, there are some older houses there but a lot of the houses out there are real new or whatever. At least it's something that has a little character or whatever. If the structure, or the outside of it was cleaned off and restored, I have a cedar house. I don't have the maintenance free siding. I like the wood I think is beautiful so I would love to see the exterior, I think it would be much, much nicer than the... If you're out to save money, then those shelters as far as I'm concerned, they're not much. Just knock it down and put anything up. I mean there's your ultimate savings so, you know and I don't know. I guess we all paid a lot of taxes out there too and to feel like we can get something on our end of town like the rest of the people in the rest of the town feel, so I would be much more in favor of, in fact I'd do the complete renovation or Option 2 I think it was where you get someone to do it for $50,000. Whatever you can do to keep it up I think would be wonderful. Lash: Okay, thanks Ron. Park and Recreation Commission- April 10, 2001 Craig Anderson: Hi, I'm Craig Anderson. I live at 7507 77th Street. Been in the neighborhood for longer than the park has been there. That building has been there as long as I can remember. It's as ugly as the day it was, I first got there. It is getting worst. I'm in favor of demolishing it and putting up what we call a shelter. If we left that building up and we locked the doors, it's really not a shelter. It's just a locked building again, subject to all the problems it's already been having. Ton of maintenance. I'd suggest we tear it down and build a post and slab park shelter. Thank you. Lash: Okay, thanks Craig. Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road. I'm just across the road from the park. I've owned my land since 1985 and I've lived in my house since 1990. When I first moved out there I thought that the round house was the quaintest little building I ever saw. I can't say that about it now but I'm still in favor of trying to bring that back. I think it's a landmark for our, not just our neighborhood but for our city. There's a lot of history behind it. I too have seen the vandals. Fortunately I'm protected by shrubs and trees so I don't see probably as much as you do. My binoculars can't see through the branches. One of the things we did was we named it the Roundhouse Park, and we have a budget for fixing up the round house and I'm in favor of doing that however we can. Whether it's the total rehab. If there's money for that. If not, I know I'm also willing to dedicate some labor. I think it was Option 4 that was having citizens do some demolition and then having a contractor take it from there. I know that I can easily tell people where to turn to get to my house by telling them to turn at the round house. They've all seen it and they know where it is. So I'm in favor of keeping it somehow. Thank you. Lash: Thanks Linda. Ann Osborne: My name is Ann Osborne. I live at 3815 Red Cedar Point, and have lived in that house for 29 years. I moved into it 3 months before my daughter was born: It's a very favorite place. In fact tonight when I got home my daughter said you're not at the meeting. You've got to go to that meeting because to her the round house is very important. It's a very special place. I walk my dog every morning back and forth by it. It's the center of the neighborhood. We used to have Leech's Resort there that kind of was a central spot and now that's gone. A lot of people who've moved into the area don't have any sense of the history of the area. Or of the uniqueness. We have so many houses that look exactly alike. House after house. You can tell which builder has built in each area because they look exactly alike. This house, this building is unique. We used to love to just drive by it when there were buildings nearby. It was special. I would very much like to see us do something to preserve it. I certainly would be able to, would be willing to put in tearing down or whatever needs to be done in order to preserve it. My ultimate would be spending that $125,000 for that. I certainly think it's much better. I drive under that lovely bridge that .goes across 5 that doesn't get used. I think I've seen many 6 people on it, and I work on the other side of the bridge and I go there every single day, back and forth, and it's not being used. But occasionally it's being used by some kids, but not very often. But this is very special. It's very, very unique and I was so delighted, there's a gentleman that used to walk with me who passed away this last year and he'd pass me in the mornings at 5:00 in the morning and he'd be walking up and down Minnewashta Parkway. And his wife knew how special it was to him because there's a bench a short distance from that house and it was put there because that spot is very unique and special and she and the people that knew him thought it was special, that park was very special. It wasn't just common. It was a beautiful place to sit and look at the lake and a very wonderful spot. I hope that somehow we can convince the city to spend the money to do the $125,000. However I was at the meeting where they didn't look like they were interested in doing it, even with your motion that you had urged them to do it. So I think we may have to go to a cheaper route just to get to keep the house. ! think the reason it's an Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 eyesore is that at the time the place wasn't burned down, nothing was done. The reason it's costing us so much to do this is nothing was done. If it had been attended to at the time and said okay, neighborhood what do you want to do with this? How much do you want to put your labor into it? I think you would have gotten people who live there to pitch in. I know my kids would come back and pitch in to help with it. They're all adults now but it's a very special place and I would hope that somehow we would manage a way to keep it going. I really don't want a post and slab. To me that just, that takes away from that very special spot. It's a very, I don't know, it's a cozy spot in my mind. It's always been a part of Lake Minnewashta and I hope that there is some way that we can save it. Thanks. Lash: Thanks Ann. Lori Kling: ...my husband won't be, he can't be here so. And I wanted to too. R'sjust... There a couple things I'd like to say. I am in favor of restoring it. Lash: Can you give us your name? Lori Kling: Oh I'm sorry, Lori Kling, 4169 Red Oak Lane. We moved into Chanhassen 2 years ago and we were so happy about moving here because you know, Chanhassen's keeping up with the modem things. The stores and everything but the beauty of it is that they...beautiful building. And it really, I think for what it's worth, I don't think $125,000 is that much when you think of what it can do for everybody. I recently, this last winter we went to a park that I grew up in and we went into the warming house in the winter and it just, so many memories came flooding back to me. The smell and just being there and I want that for my kids. And I appreciate the mobile home that you bring in in the winter. I really don't want to go over there. I think that is an eyesore. I just don't think that's appropriate. I mean I just don't think they can...mobile home. And a slab shelter is not going to provide any shelter in the winter either for the warming house. When you're skating, those kids love to skate out there. It's good exercise. It's good for them. Nice to go and get something warmed~ to be warmed up a little bit. And my daughter, I have to bring up a point. My daughter's 10. She wanted to bring up the point, and somebody did mention this. What are we going to call the park if they tear down the round house? She's just so sick about it. She wanted to come, but I mean really it was named after, the park was named after the round house for a reason and I think it is, it can be very unique and it is fun to tell people when they're getting to our house, look for the round house. It looks really old and it'd be great if it was restored and it looked nice. It doesn't have to be extravagant but something would be nice. I'm trying to think what else. Oh shelters. Yeah, shelters I don't think are very attractive. Actually I think slab shelters are not, I think they are an eyesore personally. I've never liked them. And they also get vandalized so, and I think actually that's about it. I just feel like Americans as a whole, have such a tendency to just tear down the old stuff and put up the new and it doesn't last as long and it's not as unique and it doesn't have any history but that's what we do and I just think this one little building, I just wish we could keep it. If nothing it brings a lot to the uniqueness to the area. Thank you. Lash: Okay, thanks Lori. Tom Lotto: Hi. My name's Tom Lotto. I'm at 6991 Country Oaks Road. I'm right next to Terry looking at it every day, but I think everybody that drives by it looks at it. I mean I just think it's, it's ugly right now but I've been in the architectural field for many years. Right now I'm renovating a building that's, it was built in 1823 in Shorewood. Helping out a couple and we're running into a structural problem because really the house itself was basically, let's do this and do this and it tums out to be more so we have to go the bank and get more money. Okay. So I don't know if you guys are all in the construction field or whatever but you know, my feeling from an architectural point, I guess everybody's Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 giving their opinions here about the g's and a's and man I'd hate to be in the point of making a decision of which way to go because I don't know myself. I really don't know. It's directly in my back yard. She sees it in the winter time when there's no leaves on it. I might a little bit but still. Vandalism, may I agree with that because I call the cops down there but I bet you every other park where I grew up in Minnewashta Heights, we've had a lot of problems. So I mean basically we could probably use a few more law enforcement. But we only have 2 1 hear so this is what I hear from, but. I really don't know what to do. I was part of that playground put together with Todd and that came out pretty good. It was a neighborhood volunteer. We had some neighbors. You know it was a young group from the new neighbors and the old neighbors and we put it together one day. Just like what Todd had planned. I think that's a little different than lead base paint. Rotten roof. No door. I mean is there a header on it, you know? I mean is it going to last forever? Is it going to last for 20 years? I know Mrs. Carlson over here. I understand her history behind it because I was going down Minnewashta Parkway years ago and working at Leech's Resort and seeing that and the gravel roads and man I tell ya, I know it's, it was an object that was there. I never lived there but now after I found out about the history, it's kind of a neat deal. Structurally I would probably, if I know what I know, structurally is it capable of holding up to what our ideas are all about? I mean scraping paint off isn't structural. Putting a roof on is structural. That's gone so that's one-third of the building. You've got to put doors, windows. You've got to remove the paint. You've got to put something in there for kids to go the ice arena. My feeling is structurally, I'm going to tell you right now, if it isn't structurally sound, it's not going to be a safe place. I don't care i£you've got kids smoking pot. You've got kids painting on it. If it falls down. Or we've got to put $200,000 into it or $125,000 into it, I tell ya, you're talking a lot of money for an old building. I'll tell you right now that's a lot of money to put into that building. So my feeling is, if it's structurally sound, you want to keep it. The ones that are wanting it there, then it's there. Then I think you probably do the neighborhood thing to get it upgraded. But if it's not structurally sound, you've got to get rid of it because I've got kids and I'm seeing kids every day. There's other things I'd like to see in the park done, but this was part of the program from day one and I've been there for 3-4 years and I'd like to see little kids with their playground equipment. That was supposed to be corriing up. I believe the park has kind of been a little unattended from the city and I'm not going to hold it strictly to Todd, but I mean it has to be as a group effort here, public and the proof. Man, I'd like to see the playground equipment get done at the same time that's getting done with the little kids because if you've got the kids swimming over there, you've got the little biffy, that gets tipped over. The trash, that's a public thing we should pick up the trash no matter what. Just like the people with their dogs. They've got to pick up their whatever. I think the public has to be involved, but it's a hard decision and I know you guys are going to, it's going to be a hard one for you. And I think with everybody's ideas, I just think number one structurally it should be, has an engineer been in this thing? Tell me about the structure. Hoffman: The preliminary investigation and condition review was put together on July 20th, 1999 by Locus Architecture. It's about a 7 page document. They hired an engineer to go through the structure and it's. Tom Lotto: It's sound? Hoffman: Oh sure. Yeah, there's not a crack in the foundation. Tom Lotto: See I didn't know that. Hoffman: Their one recommendation was that a series of metal plates be placed around the interior base of the structure to anchor it more securely from the concrete foundation to the wood frame structure itself. Right now it just more or less sits on the foundation. Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Tom Lotto: That color, that little model to me, you can't see the roof when we're on the ground. We're looking at it from a bird's eye view. Secondly, the model right there doesn't do us any justice. The way it's taken so I think if these people here see that model from a man level, eye level, I think they might get a different opinion of that. But also I don't think that looks like kind of like a diving board out there on the end of that. Lash: That's a canopy over the door. Tom Lotto: Architecturally, whoever is doing this, they've got to come up with a little bit better. Hoffman: The full architectural plans are here. Tom Lotto: But if people, the more I'm getting into this, because basically I've just been kind of going la, la, la, you know. And I'm on the comer. I'm the guy with the broom. You know I'm out there sweeping every day and I talk to everybody walking by, and I asked last night half a dozen people, and I'll be honest with you. I asked them, you going to the meeting? Well, I don't know. I don't know. I'd like to get rid of it but I'd like to keep it. No wonder why I get confused, I talk to my neighbors. It'd be a lot easier, if we put the money, ifI say, if everyone of them here, and I know pretty much every one. If we put the money in somebody else's pocket, if it was private money, would you remodel? That's the key. To me it means if it was my money, no way. I couldn't do it. I just could not see that. Even though I've been, I grew up for 30 years in Minnewashta Heights and I used to drive and work with Roy over there and I understand Mrs. Carlson lived there and I know there's been Bible classes in there. The house I grew in might get tore down in 2 years because they're going to move the highway. Man I feel bad but you know what, that's to take care of all the fast traffic and everything like that so, if they want to get this thing done, I think the neighborhood should get it in concrete that they're going to help with the labor because sometimes they say things, and sOmetimes you don't follow through on what you say. And the ones that don't, then they've got to come up With something else. Maybe you've been a taxpayer for a long time. So has my dad. But I really have a hard time deciding which way to go here. I really do. Structurally, Todd answered the question. Architecturally, it could be dressed up a little better. Safety wise, I'm sure in today's society we can do a lot of safety and that is, the only way to get safety down there is lights. Lights and cops. Okay. And neighbors, you know. Do the crime watch thing you know. Everybody gets together. I think this, with Sergeant Potter with this neighborhood thing, if everybody follows that rule, because on Project Leadfoot we can kind of revert that to our -neighbors to do that. Safety is a piece of cake because I see something, I get on the phone and call 911. Bango. You know take care of it. They're there within 15 minutes maybe. So I think safety there can be handled, but structurally, money, it's going to have to be labor. It's going to have to be a labor thing. I can't see spending $125,000 on a building and then keeping the siding on it and stuff like that because how much does a roof like that cost? Hoffrnan: About $20,000. Franks: You know Tom, do you mind if I just ask you a few questions because I'm trying to kind of feel you out for what your opinion... Tom Lotto: Yeah, I'm just trying to get this whole thing because I've been kind of. Franks: I'm looking at the engineer's summary and it's the one from July 20~ '99 and they're not saying that there's, there were no evidence of serious deficiencies or deterioration that would make the adaptive Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 re-use unfeasible. So we've been working under the assumption that although there's needing to be some improvement to the structure, just as a part of any kind of restoration effort, structurally it's sound. And are you suggesting that although you can cook a perfect dinner from food bought at Byerly's, that same food bought at Cub for half the price tastes just as good? I mean does that make a difference for you? You're talking like that 125 is a big number. Tom Lotto: Well the reason why I'm saying that is because $125,000, you've got people over here that want playground equipment. Franks: Right, but if you could get a solid adaptive re-use out of the building on a Cub Foods budget, does that. Tom Lotto: I think then that would pacify. Franks: What does that do for you? Tom Lotto: To me, I've been in the architectural field forever and a building looks good. If you're happy and you're happy and you're happy, I'm somehow or another, an architectural in my standpoint, I'm happy. From a taxpaying standpoint, $125,000 because if I had to pay it out of my pocket, I wouldn't be happy. Franks: What about $50,000? One of the options in there was to. Tom Lotto: Then again too, what are we getting for $50,000? For structural usage versus $125,000 for structural usage, you know. I don't believe that. I don't believe you can put those two packages together without any neighborhood labor right now. Putting a' roof on that, you're not going to get a neighbor, I don't think that's going to build a $20,000 roof like that and save 20' grand. I don't believe it. It's just too complicated to do that round thing. If you're a carPenter, no. You couldn't do that. Not as a laymen neighborhood, so basically the roof is kind of out of the question. For me. ! can't see the neighbors. What part does the neighbors want to take forth in this thing? Is it, I mean you're not going to paint it so now you're removing the paint. You're going to shellac it I suppose. Is there going to be plumbing in it? Franks: No. Tom Lotto: Okay, to me you've got a beautiful beach. You've got a beautiful ice rink. You've got a beautiful park and you've got all these houses. Everybody's all around it, but no bathroom. You put a little port-a-potty in there, it tips over, you've still got to run home. I'm just talking normal talk here because these are the neighborhood. Franks: Plumbing with sanitary sewer would. Tom Lotto: Yeah, is there sewer in there? Audience: There has to be. There were people living in it. Tom Lotto: Is it useful? Audience: It's hooked up to the city sewer. 10 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Hoffman: No, it's not hooked up any longer. Audience: Hoffman: another. No, but it was. Yeah. There's certainly sewer and water available at the site but the costs again go up Tom Lotto: There was never nothing said about bathrooms and I believe bathrooms is a big issue. I mean it's to the point you've got, I'I1 tell you, I get up. I'm downtown anywhere between 6:00-6:30 in the morning, there's guys, women and men jogging, running their dogs, I mean it looks like a freeway. And if somebody had to go to the bathroom, it'd be kind of nice. But I don't think it's going to work because you can't leave a door open because they're going to get vandalized. So really is a bathroom for picnics? Franks: Well for example the bathrooms at the Lake Susan park shelter are open by reservation, when the shelter is reserved. Other than that I believe that they're locked. Tom Lotto: Okay, so is this thing going to be something to where you don't live around the area and you want to rent it out, you can rent it out? Franks: You mean as far as the city? Tom Lotto: Well like a family reunion. Franks: Well any person can reserve any of the park facilities in this city that are open for reservation. Tom Lotto: Okay. But if I want to go to Lake Ann, yeah I know. Franks: Now like the shelter at Power Hill, there's no reservation policy for those? Hoffman: No. Just in the community parks. Tom Lotto: Well if we're going to go the 9 yards here, make sure there's a bathroom. I mean I'm just saying you've got to put some kind of bathroom facility. The other thing, you know this ice skating rink thing, I'm just throwing all these things out at you because the ice skating is great. I see a lot more people were using it this year than any other year, and I think it's just starting to get more involvement. But in my eyes, when I go to the community center, they have a beautiful skating rink because my kids have been in there, and it's on one level. Okay. On this trailer, am I right Todd, you have to walk up steps to get into it. That's a safety issue. A little kid, 6 years old, got to go inside to warm up, take his skates, climb up the metal steps and into the trailer. That's a safety. But the community center over here has a rubber mat all the way, one level, straight in. There's a reason for the rubber. Safety I think. There's no rubber mat. Any playground equipment we had to have when you fall down, you have to have rubber. What's the difference? So this trailer thing that you drag in here, you've got a key for that I would imagine too, right? Hoffman: That's correct. 11 Park and Recreation Commission- April 10, 2001 Tom Lotto: And you're putting a light up there and you've got to pay an electrician for that.., it costs money to do that. Put it out there permanently. Have it done. Spend the time to have it all ready for, and then have something on one flat basis. Lash: So Tom, can I try and summarize what you said. Are you in favor of Option 4? Tom Lotto: I don't even know what them options are. Lash: 4 is the $50,000 combination neighborhood and local contractor. $50,000 for renovation. Tom Lotto: I'd say, I think if you're going to get the neighbors, you're going to get some neighbors. I know that they're out there. I mean I'd be willing to do it too. It all depends on how much they all want to spend too. So I don't want to put my, everything on this 50 grand. Franks: Do you think that's worth exploring? Tom Lotto: Right, because number one. You're going to come into another point, oh no. We've got to spend a little more money here and then the ball drops and I hate to put that on park. Where are we going to get this money from? I can see it down the road. So I think we've got to get all that in order first before. Lash: So you'd be in favor of us exploring 4? Tom Lotto: Yes. Lash: Okay, thank you. .. Tom Lotto: Definitely. There's lots more exploring tO do than meets the eye° Lash: Thanks Tom. Franks: Todd, just for the benefit of those in the audience, could you give us a number again about what the cost per unit for the portable warming houses are for the season. Hoffman: About $2,500 per season. Lash: Okay, anyone else in the audience wishing to address the commission? Why don't you come on up? Emily Bloudek: I'm Emily Bloudek. I live at 1171 Homestead Lane. I'm kind of new on this topic but I guess I'd like to provide a kid's point of view. I've lived in Chanhassen for 14 years now. When I moved here I still remember the 3 bars down on main street across from the old St. Hubert's. I remember Klingelhutz' farm. I know Kerber~s farm where Byerly's was. There was a little white house where the new apartments are going in. I remember that. Around fall festival times I've talked to the older people and they have wonderful stories to tell. I learned, I actually met the guy that was born in that house up in one of the rooms and I just learned about his childhood and that house actually had meaning to me there because I learned the history. The people that grew up there. What happened there. The farm. The stories, and I don't know too much history about the round house but I think what makes Chanhassen interesting is all the houses and the old buildings around here. Eden Prairie doesn't have very much any 12 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 more and it's just a modernized town. I mean they have a few but, and they're actually saving those. I think the round house is great. It doesn't have too much history like big history but if it disappears and a kid goes oh, a park. The Roundhouse Park. Why is it called that? Because there's no round house there and they go look it up and they find a picture. Most likely the kid will say, oh I wish it was still there. Man that would have been a cool place to explore. I mean if you go to a library and you look up Mudcura, that old hotel, the library can tell you every single book it's in because kids go up and look up and want to know the history about it. And if you talk with the elementary kids and probably more middle school now, that did projects on that, I mean they can, if you just talk to them they go, I wish it was still there because that would have been so cool just to see it and to know the history and to experience just walking through it and I think Chanhassen should keep it because, just because it's old and it has stories. I mean probably all the older people around here and everybody has a story about it, and like someone said before, if you tear down the round house, what's the point of having a round house park. So that's kind of my point of view. Lash: Thanks Emily. Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the commission? No? Okay. Seeing no more people wishing to participate, we'll lose comments and open it up for commissioner comments. Fred, do you want to start? I'll start in the middle. Berg: Jim and I had a bet. I lost. Yeah I just have a couple things to say and I won't bore the audience, now the commissioners with my dyatrid that you've all heard a million times already and I'll just say part of it one more time and yield certainly financial concerns in this day and age are an important item. Something we can't ignore. Unfortunately finances sometimes rule the day. The question of vandalism came up. I'm of the same opinion as one of the gentleman I believe who said the vandalism's going to happen anyway, whether we renovate the round house or tear it down and leave a hole. There are going to vandals. I'd like to think that they're getting together to discuss the incredibly exciting history class they had with me that afternoon, but perhaps they're talking about things less profitable. Which gives you a little guide I guess of my background and also where I'm coming from with this whole thing, and that has to do with history. History's not just about I don't think the historic nature of a building. Because we can't trace the round house back 100 years and say that Henry Rice spent some time in there before he went and fought the Dakota, doesn't make it any less of an historic building. It makes it a building that isn't particularlyfamous but it's still I think in my mind a building with a historic nature. It's about what our community is about. It's about what Chanhassen has stood for in the past and it's about what I would hope Chanhassen stands for in the future. We've had a number, as Emily pointed out, we've had a number of unique buildings in this town. We've save the depot. We've saved a couple other buildings that I've noted. We lost the school house one day to Chaska. They came and literally stole it one night and moved it to Chaska because they wanted to be known as the place that had education first in Carver County. Well we've lost that now because Chaska was better thieves than we were I guess. I think it would be unfortunate to tear down one more building that represents our history. We've, I started making notes about alluding to the fact that we're returning to the days of Eden Prairie and Bloomington, and then I started thinking of Bloomington and Eden Prairie are saving their buildings. If you've been in Bloomington you know about Pond Park. You know that that's a rich history there in terms of again the Native American history in the area. There are buildings, I'm sorry I don't recall the names right off hand at Eden Prairie but when they have their festivals or whatever they're talking about this farm and that farm and they seem to have a sense of their history too and I'm feeling a little guilty for dishing Eden Prairie and Bloomington, maybe just because it was so easy. Maybe we should be more like Eden Prairie and Bloomington in some regards. I think that history gives us an idea of not only where we've been but where we want to go. I think that having sat on this commission for 8 years I've heard a lot of people come in, residents come in talking about their parks and inevitably sometime in the discussion they'll talk about why they moved to Chan. And I haven't kept track, and purely antidotal but 13 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 it seems to me that an awful lot of the people say I moved to Chanhassen either because of the parks or because of it's unique nature. There was something about Chanhassen that was quaint. There was something about Chanhassen that made it different than the other places I've lived. Whether it be in Minneapolis where I grew up, or whether it be in any of the other suburbs or out of state or different states altogether. There's something that was unique about Chanhassen. I think I would like to deliver a message to the city. Not just to the citizens of Minnewashta that you've got a building there, that we have a building there, excuse me, that's unique and historical. From my perspective historical anyway. But a message to the entire community that not only do we have this but this is the direction we're going to go. You have a city that is interested in your past and it seems to me again, from an extremely biased point of view, that if the city is concerned about their past, they're concerned about their future and I think that's a pretty nice message to deliver to the people still moving to this community. We cracked 20,000 people with the last census. There's an awful lot of those people that are here because Chanhassen represents something special to them. To me the round house is special. It's also expensive and I understand the ultimate, people who are going to be making this decision are the council and they've got to wrestle with that. I don't have to. I can just revert to my nature as to what I think is right and I think it's right to preserve our past. That's all. Lash: Beautifully stated. Berg: Well, thank you. Lash: Okay. I can't even begin to compete with Fred. He lectures for a living and I don't. I have to speak in little. Berg: Thank you for staying awake by the way. Lash: ...able to do this at a really reasonable cost, and if that means' we can get some volunteer labor, I'd love to see that happen. Plus I think the beauty of something like that is, the neighbors are involved. They take ownership. They take pride. That helps cut down on vandalism. Helps cut down on problems. And it increases the neighborhood watch because you now have ownership in something in your park. This began 5 years ago for us and given the comments tonight, and the very differing opinions, you can understand how difficult this is for us. We've had many split votes. We've gone back and forth on the issue, the same as what we heard tonight. So it's a difficult decision to make, and I agree with, I think it was Janet Carlson who said part of the problem is nothing has been done for so long. And part of that is our responsibility. Part of it is the process. We began it 5 years ago but the bidding process, all those things have bogged us down. If I would have had my way, it would have been done 5 years ago. And I'I1 agree with everyone who says, it's an eyesore. It is an eyesore. We know it's an eyesore. And we would like to see it be a beautiful landmark for your area. We've waited a long time. It was, when I started on the commission 12 or 13 years ago it was a goal of this commission to get a park in that area, and it took many, many, many, many, many years of budgeting and watching for the perfect site and we really take a lot of pride in that site. We think it was the best spot we could have waited for and because we take so much particular pride in that park, we want it to be especially special and the round house does make that unique and special. I would be in favor of Option 4 if we can get the neighborhood support that we would need to be able to keep it at a reasonable budget that the City Council will approve. I guess that's all I have to say on the issue too. Rod. Franks: Deanna, I was a little surprised by your comments initially because they're hard to reconcile with the e-mails that we're getting that are running pretty much in favor of demolishing the round house and then you're saying that you've talked to neighbors and people are interested and want to keep going 14 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 and I really didn't expect to hear that and so, it's difficult with the turnout tonight to try and, it's a lot of those people that sent their e-mails and then someone said half the neighborhood's on spring break vacations. Without that kind of a turnout to really get a good gauge of where people are at so I'm struggling with that a little bit. And Terry, you were the first to bring up the public safety concerns and I agree that that is a very important issue and one that we've heard from a lot of residents over the years about the type of vandalism that goes on in their parks. Unfortunately at this point there's not a citizen oversight committee on public safety that you can really bring those concerns to, but we hope that there will be a way for the community to work together to have this addressed, but I think with just about anything that we do in our park that's got an open space with shadowed comers somewhere, we're going to have the kids congregating and maybe some unsavory activity. And then Emily, I was very pleased to hear some of your comments because it's not often that we get to hear from residents your age that are so able to express themselves. You brought back for me a lot of memories I had when I came to this town 10 years ago of walking into the hardware story with creaky wood floors and dust up to my nose and thinking this is just like the hardware store of my childhood and here it is. It's all here for me. All that's gone now. And Fred, that brings me back to you about thinking there are things that are of value to us, that may not be of value in the greater, larger community because they are our's and they are part of our heritage. I do, you probably picked up, have a little bit of problem with the big price tag, full $125,000. Yet I do like the idea of hearing that the neighborhood is interested and that there may be people willing to take on that type of a challenge. That you've already worked together as a neighborhood in the installation of the playground equipment so there's some history of that neighborhood pulling together and really doing something. This is a bigger project, but yet also understanding that it will be necessary to have the experience and expertise of a contractor to really lead on that project so I think it is time to really make a decision one way or the other. So what I would be in' favor of really is, really seeing if the neighborhood can develop a person to work as a coordinator with this project and if we could identify a contractor in the community that would be willing to take a look at this project and really seeing if the two come together can actually get an adequate and acceptable job done on the round house. If not, I really think then we need to move forward and if it can't be done, it.~:an't be done and we need to really look at a demolition and then at that point, either doing nothing or erecting a structure. At that point I would be in favor of erecting some structure because the design of the park is centered on having a structure in that spot and the park would appear incomplete I believe without that kind of focal point. Todd, are we under a specific time line for actually like moving on the project? Hoffman: Council wanted to hear back within, I think it was 60 days I think they specified. Other than that, no other deadlines on the project itself. Franks: Chairperson Lash, would it be okay to direct a question to. Lash: Sure. Franks: Deanna, you're going to be the target. So I'm just like wondering what your feeling is, since you kind of brought it up, but of actually finding someone that could volunteer as a coordinator, volunteer coordinator in a sense for this project. Do you think that person exists in your neighborhood and about how long do you think it would be to secure that person? Deanna Bunkelman: With holiday and spring break, I would do it in about a week. And assuming that you're not talking about Option 3. Franks: I'm not talking about Option 3. 15 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Deanna Bunkelman: Good. Does anybody know... Franks: No. The project is I think really technically beyond the scope of what a neighborhood could do and it really will need a professional contractor but I think to get it done it's going to require that effort of people in the community to assist with that effort. Hoffman: The $50,000 would be, always would be city funds. Deanna Bunkelman: Okay. Yeah, a week. Franks: That soon huh. Todd, since this has gone out, any of the local contractors expressed any interest at all in taking a look or. Hoffman: There's nobody. I've talked to a few over the years and there's nobody busting down our doors to get at the 50 grand. Franks: It's not going to be a money maker I imagine. Hoffman: Well the contractors, unless somebody steps forward, the people that you solicit are going to want to make money or they're not going to be interested in the job. And so there's very slim margins in here and we discovered that the first time around. And so there is some fear in going back around again, even though we moved up from $25,000 to $50,000. That's all we can throw at the project because of the bidding laws. Once we get above that then we're back to bidding plans and specifications and then bid it so. It might, all things might not get done. I've always had some fears about the extent of community involvement simply because of the difficulty of the project. We have a structure which is two story. It presents some dangers when you're demolishing and taking off the roof. Then you have an unsound structure because you do not have a, holding onto the outside of the building. Lead based paint is not going to be scrapped off and cleaned by volunteers so there is, about the few things. There's some hand labor that could be involved but depending on the contractor they may not want to have a volunteer near that building when they're working on it due to insurance issues. But then clear coating it, the neighbors could certainly clear coat the structure after it's all said and done so there are some things, some landscaping that could be done. But from the day we started talking about volunteers, it's a difficult project to get them engaged in and so the value there I don't think adds up to a large dollar amount. It's something that's on the lower end. Lash: Do you have a? Audience: Yeah, has anybody thought of, oh one place I lived a local Vo-Tech. Lash: Checked into that. Did that. We pretty much have covered all of our bases. Berg: You have another question on the floor here. Tom. Tom Lotto: I just know out of the, just kind of to go along with Todd here. That roof right now in the bidding was 20 grand for the roof alone. You've got the rest of the structure to support...so what are you going to do, have 30 grand to finish the rest of the house and 20 grand for the roof?. Is that how it is? Hoffman: I don't know. 16 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Tom Lotto: I mean I'm just looking at number 4 here because if all of a sudden you're going into this thing and all of a sudden you're scraping the paint off, because I know asbestos has to be...with the white coats and the gloves and that could run you 20 some thousand, $30,000 right there. Because right now I have a bid out right now on a social room about 30 x 40 and I can't even scrap up the tile. It's going to cost us 23 grand to have it scrapped and hauled away. You have to remove that and haul it away. They don't just let you dump it anywhere. Hoffman: The interior asbestos is such a small square foot amount that it's not going to meet the warrants for those type of removals. We would do that prior to contractor stepping on the site. But the lead in paint on the exterior would require a contractor to remove that. Tom Lotto: What was your price on that Todd? Hoffman: Estimated right around the $20,000 range for the paint removal and clear coating. Lash: And clear coating, so that could be done volunteer. Okay. David. Moes: Thank you. First of all I want to thank everyone for coming. I appreciate the input that everyone has given tonight, as well as the e-mails that have come in. It's certainly been an educational and enlightening process hearing everyone's responses. I was going to give just a general comment but I thought I'd touch on a few of the items that were brought up. Rod kind of hit on the one which was the volunteers with Deanna. I know people have had the opportunity to respond and give their thoughts and ideas and that was one that really didn't come out very loud and clear as far as people wanting to volunteer to work on the structure itself so I'll be very interested to see from Deanna, your standpoint, what exactly does come from the neighbors around your area in regards to the volunteer and the people that you get and the time commitments.- Secondly, I think there were a couple of comments about the- bridge that seemed to have come up and $750,000. I was trying to think of a comparison to use on that one and the only thing I could come up with, so bear With my story here, was it's like the 4 person family, husband and wife and 2 kids, and both parents are working at that point in time and you know a $5,000 vacation sounds pretty good. So they go on their $5,000 vacation. However, a couple years later only 1 parent is working and so the funds are a lot tighter and the money isn't there so all of a sudden the $500 vacation sounds a little expensive but they'll do it. So there is a little bit of a difference of I can't say specifically what the funding was for the bridge, however we are under a little bit tighter financial constraints now than I believe when the bridge went up so we do need to operate within. Lash: There was a lot of grant money involved with that bridge. Moes: So I wanted to say that because it was brought up a couple of times and I'm not sure we're talking apples and apples in this scenario here. So just to throw that one out. A third component that runs through my mind is, if we're looking at trying to restore the, or keep the historical heritage here and restore the round house, in my mind it's like when you attack a project. You need to attack it and complete it. And the options that we're really been looking at here are not really going to get it to where it's a completely functional facility. I mean I was hearing running water. I was hearing restrooms, etc. At this time we do not I believe have the funding to take it quite to that extent, and get it to that fully functioning facility that I believe people would like to see it get to. So from, when I look at it I like to see projects started and ended and the residents at the end of the project get the full benefit of it. Even looking at the Option 4 which has been talked about a little bit, is that it will get the outside of the structure looking presentable, although the inside still is a minimal or non-use, is that correct? It can be used as a shelter if we get the volunteer work so, I mean so that gets us a little bit closer. And lastly, the 17 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 last scenario that goes through my mind is, maybe I'm coming at this a little differently but Fred, what's an old vintage car? Berg: Well it depends on if you're asking me or my wife. Serious. There was something we saw today that they were giving away a classic, vintage, antique car and it was a 1955 Ford. She was very upset about the fact that that was considered to be a vintage car. Lash: Makes her vintage. Berg: That's right. She's into a lot of denial these days. I have a '69 MGB that's considered a classic car and that's also an antique or a vintage so it really does depend on who you're asking. Lash: And how old you are. Moes: Maybe we have to go older than that then. 1955 Ford, okay. What I was trying to build an example in my mind as to what I could use on this and I'll take the 1955 Ford and assuming that it doesn't have an engine in it, but yet it still looks good on the outside. There's going to be, no offense here Fred, it will be a group of individuals that would like to spend money to refurbish this 1955 Ford so that it looks good and that people can walk by it and it does have a lot of class, a lot of history and a lot of heritage to it. And people are very interested in restoring it, although as far as it being able to be driven, that's a non-functioning vehicle. But it looks good. Then there's other people that would walk by that 1955 Ford vehicle and say well it looks really nice. I wonder what kind of gas mileage it gets because I'd really like to buy a new car and use it. Or a different kind of car and in essence this vehicle is something that's nice to look at. It's got heritage. It's got history to it and it's nice to look at. But then there are other people who would like to take the funding and use the dollars that, is that a sign? There are other people that would like to take the money and spend it on a car that they could drive. And my viewpoint on it is that, I prefer spending the money on something that people could drive. I understand the historical heritage and the desire to resiore things that have been important and hold a lot of meaning to people. At the same time I struggle with the use of the funds and having people utilize facilities in today's environment and being able to bring families to the park and use it so, I'm a strong proponent of Option #2 here. To get something that is useable for the park and the facility. For the people that come to the park. That's what I had. Thanks Fred. Lash: Thanks David. Mike. Howe: Thanks Jan. A couple things. First I apologize for being late. I missed some of the first speakers. I've kept up on the e-mails. I want to thank you all very much for your eloquent and often emotional views on this topic. It's a difficult topic. Flatly I would like to keep the round house, but not for $125,000. I think that is too much. I always did like Option 4. I think that in a project like this if it was, I think marketed is the wrong word but if we approach it from the right angle, I think you could have volunteers from more than just a neighborhood. I don't think that I would expect the neighborhood to shoulder all this. I think if we could enlist the Villager to talk about this, you might get folks from all over Chanhassen. I don't live in your neighborhood. I'd certainly be happy to be there and put the gloves on and roll up my sleeves. The second thing. Maybe I'm naive about this but I don't know in a $50,000 bid, working with a local contractor, to what extent you could get some local businesses to kick in on some of the supplies. Some of the lumber. I'd be willing to make some of those calls myself. I have no idea what you'd find. It used to work for some things. That's something that's worth exploring. That might allow a contractor like that to have a higher margin for what he or she might make. And again, I'm in favor of Option number 4 but if that doesn't get past the council, and we do have to tear this 18 Park and Recreation Commission- April 10, 2001 building down, I would like some way to save some elements of it. One thing that always intrigued me about the architectural report and engineering report was that lumber. The Douglas fir that I think when he was here a couple of months ago he said that they mount expeditions in Lake Superior to dredge old lumber boats that sank to get this lumber. This is special stuff, and I'd hate to see it get chopped up and taken to a dump. If there was a way let's say that we were going to build some kind of shelter, a regular concrete shelter or benches, it would be nice as just a remembrance if we used some of that nice lumber. If it comes to that. I hope it doesn't, but if it does, I'd like to save parts of it so I'm for number 4. Lash: Thanks Mike. Jim. Manders: Pretty tough body to follow after all of that. I'd also like to thank everybody for coming this evening and expressing your views. I'm trying to think of the approach. Essentially I'm in favor of saving it and some of the reasoning I got behind it maybe goes back to some of the initial decisions on getting some kind of an estimate on the facility. Also some of the logic and decisions behind the support of the referendum that we had a few years back. And I've got a few other comments that I just want to bring up, but my thought on preservation is that is probably the foremost thing that pushes me in on a decision, particularly on say the referendum. There were several components to the referendum, preservation being one and that preservation was acquiring land for parks and usage down the road. Other components were trails and the third component was to maybe revamping some of the facilities in the parks. My view on those other two, the trails and revamping is that that can essentially be done at any time. Whenever funding is available, but if you don't preserve or save the land, you're not going to have a park to build there. And that's kind of my thinking here is that preserving this facility is something that certainly there's a valid question on cost, but preservation still comes back to retaining some kind of history. And that's been well explored so far so we don't have to talk about the historical component, but in my mind it's more than just a novelty that has been pointed out in some e-mails. I think history is something certainly more than having a railroad depot and a school and church kind of all in one comer here and we're saying okay, that's the history ofChanhassen. I think it needs to be spread out a little bit and quite frankly some of the other facilities that were mentioned, we can't save everything. Even trees. You know a lot of times that's a big component of a park decision or new development. You know somebody owns the land. They're going to get it developed. Is it our right to say that we should have the trees saved so that they don't put up another park building? Well now that I live in Chanhassen, I'd like to see that but where do their rights come in as far as preserving? I mean this brings me back to the idea of the facility itself, which is certainly something more than what you see more the modem angle of Chanhassen, which is a bunch of new commercial buildings with green gabled roofs that all kind of blend in and look the same. I would prefer to see some of these older components retained. To me it certainly is an eyesore and I liken it to some old furniture that has been sitting up in the attic or out in some out building and you think it's junk and you're going to throw it away, and you take it in and get it refinished and it's probably your prized possession that you have in your house. And I've got some old chairs that I did exactly the same thing to. Now 1 of the 6 chairs was kind of a piece of junk but I spent a lot more to fix it up but it's as nice as all the other ones, and I think this has the same potential. Some of the questions I have are certainly along the lines of using the facility. When you talk about renting it out and maybe not even renting it but having it as far as reservations. I think that's in the realm of possibilities for neighborhood gatherings or family reunions or whatever. I don't think it would be the kind of facility that was mentioned in one of the e-mails like Starring Lake has that cabin. I don't know how many of you are familiar with that rental facility. I mean that's quite a bit, I think a larger area that is more conducive to renting out, but I've been there several times and it's kind ora quaint little thing that's off to the side of Starring Lake and has a fireplace in it and kind ora meeting area room. This area is, I think it's a lot smaller. Just by being vertical instead of spread out, this probably wouldn't work for that but I think it would certainly qualify for a meeting area for whoever wanted to use it. Costs 19 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 of similar facilities. I mean if we were to build some other kind of facility out there, I seem to recall some statement saying the cost would be $75,000 to $150,000. Hoffman: For an enclosed structure. Manders: Yeah, well that's what we have is an enclosed structure. So if we're talking some type of similar facility like that, we're talking basically the same price, give or take. So and maybe my give and take on $25,000-$30,000 as you're saying, well that's kind of, well I'd like to keep that. But my point is that there isn't all that much difference between building a new enclosed facility than what we're talking about spending on this one. I guess one question I would have on any other cities. Is there anything that you can think of that another city has tried to refurbish something that has been anywhere's close to this that rings any bells with you? Hoffman: There are many communities, suburban communities have renovated or refurbished a living history farm of sorts and some other communities we talked about this evening, so those take considerable investment to Eden Prairie as a variety of the other communities. Brooklyn Park. Manders: Yeah, I mean that's kind of the whole building site and out buildings and. Hoffman: It varies, yeah. I'm not familiar with a structure, very many structures around that I know of, in public park systems, that have been preserved similar to this. Manders: Okay. Lash: That's our point. It's very unique. Manders: So I guess what I'd like to wrap up with saying you knout, I'd like to see some preservation of the facility. As far as there being a balance between development and preservation. Certainly we could build some other facility for less but it would be quite a bit different. You're going to have an open air thing that's still going to need a warming house there if you're going to have some type of skating rink or what not. I agree with one of the comments earlier about bathroom facilities. It would be nice to have something like that but to me that's something that can be dealt with later. So I guess one of the points about the materials and everything, wood being so irreplaceable, you know that, what was the comment? The existing materials are irreplaceable. This was the architect making the comments about that... Lash; So Jim, is there one that you're in favor of?. Are you leaning towards 4? Or what? Manders: Well I guess I'm leaning towards 4. Certainly not spending any more than we have to but I was thinking spend what we need to to have a facility that's going to work. Lash: Okay, thanks. Anyone else on the commission who wants to add anything? Okay. Seeing no more comments, is there someone who would like to entertain a motion? Franks: I would entertain a motion that it is the recommendation of this commission that the round house be restored for an adaptive re-use as a park shelter. And that the restoration effort take place with a volunteer effort of the community working in conjunction with a local contractor. That the cost, actual cost to the city of this project not exceed $50,000 and that if by, I'm thinking sometime next summer, sufficient progress isn't shown, that the commission move forward with a recommendation to demolish the round house and solicit bids for a park shelter to be erected there. Post and slab park shelter. 20 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Lash: You want that all together in one motion? Franks: You know it's a big, long monster of a motion but I think what I'm attempting to accomplish is to really tie this up and to really create some solid direction here. And one way or another to move forward with completing that park. Lash: Is there a second to that motion? Okay, there's not a second to that motion. So the motion dies for lack of second. Howe: I liked your motion but just, I don't like the part about the shelter. I would just rather wait and see what happens. I was with you til there. Franks: How long are you willing to wait? Lash: No, erecting the slab. Howe: You can put a time period on, if we can find a contractor and some of these other things fall into place but that's another discussion mind you that a shelter. What do you want to do with it? I mean once you tear it down, if that happens to be what the course is. Berg: I think that enters into the realm of our 5 year CIP. Howe: It changes things. Franks: I'd be willing to delete the portion of my motion if the commission can come to consensus about what time that we really take a look at moving forward in that direction if progress isn't being made. Howe: Okay, what kind of progress? I mean work starting? Getting a contractor? A completion date? What are you thinking? Lash: And I'd like to actually move that back to even September. If by fall nothing has happened, then but mid-September, I mean mid-summer might be, this is already into April so just by the time it goes through council, get the neighborhood organized, get everybody scheduled. Try to locate a contractor. I mean I can see where potentially it could take several months even just to get some of that all put together. Howe: Could you live with September? Franks: September would be fine. That's under 6 months so that's doable. Lash: And that would still give them plenty of time, if they needed to demolish it, to take care of it in the fall. Franks: Demolition is something that Todd, the city, is that able to be handled in-house? Hoffman: Demolition of this, with the hazardous materials would probably be contracted out. Franks: My concern is that then we're looking at it probably standing for another winter. 21 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Howe: Not necessarily. Lash: How long would that take do you think, to find a contractor to demolish? Hoffman: Not very long. It's pretty easy. Franks: Can that be done into the fall? Hoffman: Sure. Sure. Franks: Alright. Lash: So would you like to rephrase your motion? Franks: Well if we can go then in and delete the portion about from mid-July on and just say that the commission will review the round house project no later than their September meeting to decide whether to continue with the restoration effort or to move in a new direction. Manders: So can I get a re-run on what it is that you're. Lash: So you're looking at Option 4 with the end of September as the deadline? Franks: Correct. Lash: For potential progress being made. And if there's no progress, we haven't pulled anything together by the end of September, we tear it down. . , Berg: We discuss leafing it down is what I heard you say the second time. Lash: Is that what you said? Franks: Well personally, I would like to see it go by winter if we're not going to be able to pull it together by then. I think we really need to move forward and take it down. Berg: I would be happier if you motion said we will consider in December whether or not we want to continue or demolish. September, whether or not we want to continue or demolish. Knowing full well what's going to happen, I don't know if this is according to the rules or whatever, I'm having a difficult time supporting any motion that says we're going to tear it down. In September or July or November. But that. Hoffman: Chair Lash, you need to call for a second before conversation° Lash: Alright, we'll call for a second. And Rod can you just. Franks: I'I1 withdraw the motion. Lash: Okay. Who wants to try and frame a new one? I think we're very close. What I was hearing, I can't make the motion but what I was hearing is we move forward with Option 4. The September 22 Park and Recreation Commission- April 10, 2001 meeting to discuss progress. To discuss the progress, either there is progress. If there's no progress, then we re-open it to another option. Franks: I'll offer another motion. Lash: Okay. Franks: I'd move that the commission move forward with Option 4 leading to an adaptive re-use of the round house as a park shelter. And that the commission will review progress to that end in their September meeting. If the consensus of the commission is that progress is not satisfactory, that the commission would then entertain demolition of the round house at that time. Lash: Is there a second to that? Howe: Second. Franks moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of Option 4 leading to an adaptive re-use of the round house as a park shelter. The commission will review progress to that end in their September meeting. If the consensus of the commission is that progress is not satisfactory, the commission will then entertain demolition of the round house at that time. All voted in favor, except Moes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Hoffman: Chair, a couple of clarifications. Lash: Yes. Hoffman: That's a recommendation'to the council. Lash: Right. Hoffman: And they will receive their recommendation on the 23ra of April. Who hires the contractor? The neighborhood volunteer coordinator or the city? Lash: You're assuming the city would be hiring the contractor. Hoffman: Okay. Because the relationship between the contractor and the neighborhood is going to be key if they rely on, and so ifI go out and solicit quotations from a contractor, and I state that when you respond to this RFP be aware that you'll be working with the neighborhood volunteer coordinator to perform a portion of the work, that's going to raise a huge red flag. Lash: How could we do it any other way? I mean they can't go hire someone. I mean the city's got. Would you want them to try to find the person ultimately who wants to work with them and then we would hire them? Hoffrnan: Well the City Council has the authority to allow the neighborhood to go ahead and work with the contractor on a time and materials basis, up to $50,000. If they want to take that leap of faith and I think that puts a lot more flexibility into the hands of the contractor and the neighborhood. If the council is uncomfortable with that and they say no, we want competitive quotes on what you're going to 23 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 accomplish out there, then I'm left with identifying what we are going to accomplish with a $50,000 getting competitive quotes for and then hoping to engage these volunteers in some form of the construction. Lash: So if the neighborhood found the contractor, they'd already be doing, they'd be doing their own competitive bidding, wouldn't they? Hoffman: They should, yeah. Lash: So if the City Council is comfortable with that and seeing the information that they gathered, so in the end we'd still be paying but they'd be coordinating with the contractor. Hoffman: I just want to make sure when I present that to the council, we present it in a fashion that. Lash: Is that what people? Franks: That would be my understanding is the volunteer coordinator would really be key in that process of soliciting their contractor to work with that effort. Hoffman; Okay. Lash: Deanna, does that sound doable? Deanna Bunkelman: Yes. Lash: Okay. o. Deanna Bunkelman: Yeah, we actually have some thoughts about some people in the neighborhood. Some people that have actually done homes in the neighborhood. About contacting them and we'll be contacting them tomorrow. And I was curious. Lash: Can you hold on one second though. David, do you want to go on the record about your vote? Moes: Sure. I think I captured a lot of the thoughts earlier in the conversations. And thinking through it, I respect the efforts of pulling the volunteers together and having the community move forward with refurbishing it. At the same time I still look at a completed, fully utilized facility and based on Option 4, l. don't think we get to a fully functional facility based on what I was hearing from the audience as well as from the letters from those that wanted to restore it so, when I take that into account in my thought process, I lean more towards the demolition and the building of a facility that is fully utilized. It's an open facility, concrete slab, pole etc but it is a facility that's ready for use and available in a shorter time period versus trying to stand a refurbishing project over a 1, 2, 3 year time period and people start losing interest in it so I'm much more comfortable staying with the demolition and the slab and pole environment. ...facility for the community to use in the neighborhood. Lash: Okay, thanks. Okay Deanna. Deanna Bunkelman: I was curious. When you go to the park in Excelsior, that's down by the lake, and I guess the park there was put together by neighborhood volunteers and they have a place that.., and all these different businesses that actually donated. Have you actually contacted businesses in the area to 24 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 see if they would be willing to donate? Okay, so that would be another option that we could explore. And would that be an option then if we get people to do that, then say hey, we'll put a plate with your name? Lash: Sure. Deanna Bunkelman: Okay. Lash: We're not proud. Hoffman: ABC Lumber would be a good place to start. Lash: Thanks so much for coming in tonight. Hopefully this will all work out and you'll end up with something to be really proud of in your neighborhood. Berg: Thank you very much. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. Lash: Do we have the Arbor Day, Park Pride Day coming up pretty soon? Hoffman: Yep. Lash: When is that? Hoffman: May 5~. Franks: Update on the city survey? Hoffman: The city survey was approved by the City Council last night. 172 questions and I have a copy upstairs if you're interested in looking at it. Lash: Can I just ask for clarification on the YMCA? Did they mention it by name or not? Hoffman: No. Manders: On that city survey, did you hear that Eden Prairie just did one, or got the results or something was published in the paper about a survey? Hoffman: No, I didn't hear about that. Manders: Just recently. Evidently there were some results... Lash: Okay, anything else? Alright, and we don't have an administrative packet, right? Hoffinan: No. 25 Park and Recreation Commission - April 10, 2001 Lash: And you don't have anything else for us? Okay. Seeing nothing else on the agenda, is there a motion to adjourn? ltowe moved, Franks seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Re¢ Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 26